The fact that Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle is a work of fiction makes it a very affective piece of propaganda. As one reads it, one gets lost in the story as one does in any good novel, but then one begins to be concerned for the characters in The Jungle. The struggles they go through are unbelievable; at least that is what one wants to believe and then Sinclair begins to work his magic. The reader gets caught between reality and fiction. Sinclair does a great job of developing this relationship by using factual information intertwined with fictional information. For example, Sinclair named the packing plants that he referred to in The Jungle. Durham was the name used for Armour, Brown was the name used for Swift, and Jones was the name used for Morris (ix). In Chicago’s history, this is also the time when unions were just beginning to develop and become a part of the work place. Sinclair included union formation throughout The Jungle as well.

            In the introduction, Sinclair explained the cafeteria/tavern situation, which became such a turning point for one of the main characters, Jurgis Redkus. First the tavern served him as a place to eat lunch like other workers, because the processing plant did not have a cafeteria. Then Jurgis used the tavern as a place in which he could reach fellow workers when he campaigned for a Republican candidate named Scotty Doyle. Lastly the tavern became a place where he could hide and drink his troubles away just like many other unemployed workers stated in the text. It is easy for readers to relate to Jurgis in these situations and feel how mistreated he was by the company.

            Any way, the story begins as the family is planning Ona and Jurgis’ wedding. Sinclair goes in to great detail about the cultural traditions that the characters feel must be followed; along with the money it will cost this immigrant family to observe these customs. This information added the personal touch to the story.

            The author then explained that there were so many immigrants in Chicago in this time period, and Sinclair pointed out that if workers had any problems getting to work, staying at work, etc.., they were just replaced, or fired, not given notice, just eliminated, because there was literally someone outside ready to take the job (19). Young Jurgis was strong and did not believe he would ever have trouble getting a job; he felt he would always be able to provide for his family, but as time goes on these characters have many hardships.

            However, Sinclair allows them to first experience the American dream of owning their own home. There are many details about how these immigrants, not understanding the language, try to comprehend the contract they sign, so as not to be taken advantage of as others have, for Mrs. Jukiene, their first landlady warned them of some of the tricks people might play on them. However, in the end they lose the house anyway. 

            After moving in to the house, the family began to furnish the home. This information makes the story even more personal to the readers, and this expense also uses up even more of the family’s hard earned money. It became apparent that these people just were not making it and the company and society were to blame. This was also a sign of the times; many immigrants were having a hard time in big cities like Chicago making ends meet. Therefore, this story was great propaganda for the time period.

            Sinclair also included many details about the mishandling of meats made by the different packing houses. He gave details about how Durham’s would get their inspector distracted and talking, and then they would kind of move the “tubercular pork” behind him in a way to get the meat passed regardless of its quality (37).

            Sinclair seemed to have his characters ride the rollercoaster of life. They experienced many difficulties. Some of the many hardships came in the way of family members dying. First was the death of Jurgis’ father, Antanas. He was explained as a hard working man who could not find a job. When he did become employed the work he had to do disgusted him terribly; one job he did was to clean out the pipes of meat waste. Then he was instructed to add to the meat on the already loaded trucks (60). Antanas was always cold and wet; he ended up catching a cold that actually killed him. When he died, the family hardly had enough money to give him a funeral (77). This situation is another way Sinclair brings this story home to the reader, for death and funerals are something most people must deal with at sometime in their life.

            The family faced many difficulties in dealing with employers and in the beginning of this tale the family viewed joining a union as only a waste of money, but as events played out, Jurgis could see the usefulness of joining. He and the other members started paying union dues, and Jurgis even attended meetings. Through this new relationship Jurgis saw the corruption of the politics of the time. Sinclair used Jurgis’ experience to make readers aware of what may be occurring around them.

            Sinclair continued telling readers the ups and downs this family experienced. Towards the end, Jurgis basically lost everything. Ona and  a baby died and his son, Antanas, named after his father, drowned. However, when Jurgis has nothing, and no place to go, he ended up at a meeting where Socialism is being preached (300). This new thing-Socialism became Jurgis’ saving grace, for it ended up providing him with a job and a calling. Therefore, Sinclair used the hardships of this immigrant family to promote the ideas of Socialism saving society from the corruption that was occurring in 1900 Century Chicago. Clearly, Sinclair presented his one-sided tale and made his audience feel for these people by making many personal connections, which made The Jungle a very affective piece of propaganda.

 

 

 

           After reading Karen Abbott’s Sin in the Second City, it is easy to see how gender set up male/female roles in 20^th-Century Chicago. Equal rights or equal opportunities were not yet available to women. Men held all the power. One gender clearly controlled the other. In this time period, women were considered subservient

            According to Abbott, because of the opportunity of employment and the glamour of city life, many flocked to Chicago. However, women who came unescorted were in much danger. “Predatory men met these girls at deports. They professed love at first sight, promised work and shelter and protection” (xi-xii), and in the end many of these girls were drugged, raped and sold to the madams that ran the brothels, in the Levee district.

            The women who were victims of this abuse were not only subject to gender roles, but they were also subject to the role that morality played in the 20^th Century. Women, who lost their virginity through this practice, had no other place to go. They could not go home, for they had disgraced their families, but they had to eat; prostitution seemed to be the only means to support themselves.

            Therefore, one could say, many used gender and the double standards of morals to their advantage. Expectations of female behavior kept the brothels supplied with women to service their male clientele and white [female] slavery was also a direct result of these abusive acts that kept the brothels full.

            Twentieth Century-Chicago was a time when one’s gender could mean great power and the corruption this power created. Many politicians of this time period chose to look the other way in regards to the illegal operations in the Levee district. There were also men who benefited and controlled the Levee district. Men like Michael Kenna, or better known as Hinky Dink. “Hinky Dink and Bathhouse John took a portion of every dollar made in the red-light district” (58). These were the men who offered protection to the brothels. Big Jim Colosimo and Maurice Van Bever were known to operate a white slavery ring (57), thereby supplying the district with the needed victims.

            Men may have run businesses, but women, like the Everleigh sisters, ran brothels to serve men. At one time, these two women had been prostitutes, and then became madams, determined to cash in on the success gender roles had created, and in a sense take advantage of men in the way women were being exploited. The Everleighs had been madams elsewhere, and decided to try their fortune in Chicago.

            From the beginning of their Chicago establishment they decided to serve a different type of clientele and employ a different type of prostitute. Their clientele would have to be wealthy and gentlemanly, and their girls would be paid top dollar, be “drug-free”, and wanting to work there. No one would be able to question them about supporting white slavery.

            Therefore, the Everleighs’ Club became the choice of the rich and famous, so to speak. “The Club entertained sports icons like James J. Corbett and Stanley Ketchel and, on one fateful night, Jack Johnson; theater celebrities like John Barrymore; a circus star named the Great Fearlesso; and gambling virtuosos, most notable ‘Bet a Million’ Gates” (72). When Prince Henry of Prussia came to Chicago, in March of 1902, he visited the Everleighs (74). Clearly, the Everleighs were servicing the male gender and racking in the money to provide it.

            One client, Marshall Field Jr., son of the famous millionaire, was thought to have been shot at the Everleigh Club, by one of the girls, of which wounds he did die (81). However, most likely by family influence, a cover up occurred to preserve the Field family name. In fact, 31 years later, the sisters still state that Marshall Field Jr. “the young heir had never been a guest of the Club” (91). This incident demonstrates how powerful this generation of men had become.

There seemed to have been a time when society turned away from the corruption that was occurring in the Levee district. However, the National Purity Congress came to Chicago in 1901, and started to awaken the need for reform to occur in the area; these reformers included men like minister, Ernest Bell, who preached against allowing the operations in the district to continue. He set up the Midnight Mission and preached across the street from the Everleigh Club every night. Reverend Sidney C. Kendall was a reformer and a powerful speaker. Bell had said, “[Kendall’s] whole soul was torn and bleeding over the shame of making commerce of women” (109). Clifford Roe was a prosecutor who wanted to see an end to this white slave trade (124).

        The last event that may have affected the inequitable balance in Chicago’s gender war was the suffrage movement. On January 27, 1911, four hundred women joined together to march on city hall. These women were upset with city officials and ready to take over anti-vice matters themselves. The women stated, “. . . there would be no Levee district at all if only women could vote and be elected and so on and so forth” (219). On October 5 1912, the Levee district was finally shut down, ending this abuse of the female gender (241).

            Chicago in the 20th Century was not a time of equal treatment of men and women. Men held most jobs and the power; it seemed that in order for a woman to be successful in 20^th Century-Chicago, she needed to find a way to meet the needs of men.

 

 

           After reading James Green’s Death in the Haymarket one can see that after the Civil War Chicago was a place of great prosperity, like no where else in the United States. It was becoming the industrial capital of the United States, and it had the population coming in to fill the jobs. Many things occurred in Chicago that had not yet occurred elsewhere in the nation. Political ideas were freely exchanged. Some of the first labor disputes began here, which led to the formation of many labor unions. Some labor disagreements ended peaceful and some ended in all out war between employees and employers.

            Along with the industry in Chicago came jobs, and because of the plentiful employment, many immigrant groups settled in Chicago. Immigrants came from all over- Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, England, Scotland, Wales and the British provinces in Canada. Each group came to America and settled in Chicago because there seemed to be many opportunities for people to be able to make a living.

            Yet in the 1800s many workers were unhappy with their working conditions and these workers joined unions to help better their situation. One concession workers wanted was to work an eight-hour day. They were expected to work at least 10 hour days, if not longer, six days a week. Most of the employees in Chicago were actually displaced farmers from other countries and for one thing, they missed seeing the sunlight; while working in Chicago, they were usually inside a factory from dawn until dusk. “On March 2, 1867, the Republican governor of Illinois, Richard J. Oglesby, signed the nation’s first eight-hour law, to take effect on May 1” (25).

            At the same time, Chicago businessmen had no intention of observing this new law. Their excuse was that this new law would not allow workers who wanted more hours to work longer, for it would be against the law. Therefore, workers began organizing a march to take place on May 1, 1867, the day the new law was to go in to effect (31). After the march, on May 2, the employers still refused to observe the new law and many workers went on strike, which led to many employees being unemployed and replaced by nonunion workers. This is just one of many disagreements in labor that took place in Chicago, and the eight-hour day dispute did not end there. Employers hired guns, like the police force or the Pinkerton Detectives to protect businesses and strikebreakers from striking workers. Sometime these strikes got ugly. People on both sides died in shoot outs between the groups.

            For the next two years Chicago continued to be a profitable place to own a business, and find a job, but the fire of 1871 began many new problems. This fire burned 17,450 buildings, yet the people of Chicago rallied around and decided that Chicago “must rise again” (42). The aftermath of the fire was hardest on the working class, for many of their homes and the businesses where they worked burned to the ground, so there was no place for them to live or work. In fact, the immigrants were blamed for “the blaze having leapt across the river from a shantytown [where they lived] and laid waste to the business district” (45).

            Another indulgence Chicago clearly supported was freedom of speech, and as hard times continued into 1875, some immigrants began listening to some socialist ideas. In March of 1876, a socialist agitator and union organizer named Peter J. McGuire introduced the Workingmen’s Party of America to Chicago, explaining that this party could create a “cooperative commonwealth to replace monopoly capitalism” (67). The socialist agenda matched what the immigrants of Chicago felt they needed. Albert Parsons was a printer who became the voice of the people. He was an eloquent speaker who continued trying to organize the immigrants into labor unions

            By the summer of 1876, profits were up, but in the mean time, Chicago had become overpopulated with more immigrants coming in to make a living, which led to more mistreatment of workers. During the hard times, wages had been cut, and now when money was coming in to the companies, workers wanted their wages increased. Employers refused, employees went on strike and because of the many unemployed immigrants, employers again replaced them with other nonunion employees. Therefore the striking workers were again without money for food and shelter.

            Albert Parsons continued to speak out and encourage people to join together through the many different unions. As a result of Parsons’ socialist speeches he was fired and blacklisted, but that still did not stop him. He, in fact, ran for a county office and then a city council seat that he was 744 votes short of getting (86). The socialist party continued to try and get candidates elected to Chicago’s government. They nominated a popular and respected physician for mayor, and put up candidates for all the major offices (86). As a result of splitting the vote among the Republican Party, the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party, a Democratic candidate won the seat of mayor.

            By 1884, Chicago businesses were booming. Workers again brought up the issue of the eight-hour work day, and this time, employers began the mechanization of jobs. When workers went out on strike, employers replaced them with machinery that could do their job faster, without any pay increase and work as many hours as employers wanted. People still went out on strike. Socialist, Albert Parsons continued to tell the immigrants that their situation would improve. Then the City Council approved the eight-hour work day and Parsons felt “a peaceful solution to the difficulties between capitalist and laborers” was underway (156). Parsons may have been rig ht, up until the night of May 4, 1886. There was a meeting held at Haymarket Square. It was a peaceful meeting until someone threw a bomb in the crowd, killing seven policemen. In the end, four anarchists, including Albert Parsons, as these leaders of the Socialist Party came to be called, were given a very unfair trial and were hanged for this bombing. This became the communist “red scare” that took place in Chicago. As a result of the bombing, people were no longer allowed to meet as freely as before and Socialism was no longer looked on as just another political party; it was viewed more as a threat to the American way of life. Out of necessary, Chicago had become the most productive city in America; along with this productivity, came the many disagreements that only Chicago seemed to face at the time; however other cities would later face many of the same conflicts.

 

 

          Abraham Lincoln is considered the most admired man in history (232) and author Gerald J. Prokopowicz answers the questions as to how Lincoln became the man he was, in his book, Did Lincoln own Slaves? Lincoln was a man of strong principles, behavior, and moral fiber.

            Abraham Lincoln was known to be easy going, honest, and shy. He was non-confrontational except for one time when he said something that almost led to a duel. Lincoln then apologized to the offended and learned how powerful words could be and as a result of this, “his language mellowed” (64). He was self-conscious about his own lack of schooling, but he read everything he could (21). It was not that he did not want to learn, formal education just was not available to him. He made jokes about his own appearance (187), yet that may be what led to his lack of self-confidence around women (62). Lincoln would laugh at himself, for he was often the butt of his own jokes (40), and he could handle the ridicule and sarcasm of others (86).

            There is the story about honest Abe walking two miles to give a customer change that he owed them. However, a better example of what others thought of Lincoln comes from the time when his surveying equipment was repossessed to pay for a debt he owed. It was sold at auction and the person who brought it then gave it back to Lincoln so he could continue to make a living (29). Lincoln was well respected even in his youth, for he was elected, by his men, captain of his volunteer military company during the Black Hawk War (126). Certainly, Abraham Lincoln had a great personality, but what probably shaped his personality, which led to his outstanding character, was his desire to be respected by others. Lincoln said, “I have no other [ambition] so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men” (67).

            When looking at Lincoln’s character, one must see how Lincoln viewed the world. Lincoln was told that he was the descent of a Virginian aristocrat (12). This may have made Lincoln think that he could set himself apart from others, which is what he did. In a time when drinking and smoking were the norm, Lincoln chose not to drink or smoke, yet he was not preachy about his choices and thereby did not alienate himself from others (17). When Lincoln’s father was a child, Lincoln’s grandfather was killed by Indians, but many settlers also were in this time, and Lincoln held no hatred toward Native Americans for this act (11).

            There have been tales of Abraham Lincoln’s father, Thomas, lacking drive; however, Abe’s father was persistent but unlucky in what he attempted to accomplish (10). At the same time, Thomas Lincoln did not support slavery. For one reason, he was in direct competition with the plantations that used slaves. Therefore, one can see how environment did shape Abraham Lincoln.

            One time when Abe Lincoln was young, he was delivering supplies by a river boat, and Louisiana slaves tried to rob him (27). At one point, Lincoln stated it would be best to colonize freed slaves, and this thinking may have been partially a result of his river boat experience. He also feared that blacks would not achieve equality in the white world. After seeing the dedication of enlisted African American soldiers in 1863, Lincoln changed his mind about colonization and was later known to support black suffrage (170).

            Abraham Lincoln was a religious man, but he was careful about how he expressed his views, which made others question his spirituality (32). He thought of himself as a poor lawyer and he was at his best when he believed in his client (56). His feeling on being a lawyer was, “As a peace maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man” (58). Therefore, he felt one needed to be ethical in his dealings with people. Through his experiences with people, Abraham Lincoln built his character and became a trusted voice of the people; this then led to his political career.

            Lincoln’s political career began as a circuit lawyer, where he was able to meet potential voters (59). He was well regarded by others in the Whig party and after being elected to the state legislature in 1836, (and re-elected in 1838), he was nominated to the office of speaker, which he did not get, because the Whig party was the minority party, but at least the party showed their support of him (69). While he was in the State Legislature, he learned “how things got done in a democracy” and he “learned the necessity of compromise and also its limits” (77).

           Lincoln also understood how to gain votes. It was important to talk to the audience, not over them and definitely, not down to them (87). Therefore, Lincoln knew how important it was for him to find his own voice (94). Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846 where he made a name for himself by opposing the Mexican-American War. Lincoln felt, “The President had created imagery reasons to go to war” in order to obtain Mexican land (71).

            Lincoln had always apposed slavery, but felt it was on its own road to extinction until Senator Stephen Douglas introduced “popular sovereignty” in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which reintroduced the slavery issue in to the expanding western territories. Lincoln felt, “Slavery is bad because of what it does to the United States as a whole” (96). He thought it was a threat to everyone’s personal freedom. This belief then fueled Lincoln to try and run against Senator Douglas for the Illinois seat in 1858, which led to seven debates between the two. Douglas was re-elected to the Senate and kept the seat, but Abraham Lincoln became a known name as a result of these debates, which then led to Lincoln’s election as president in 1860.

            When Lincoln was choosing his presidential cabinet, he wanted what was best for the nation. He selected men who were the strongest in the Republican Party regardless of their feelings or lack of support of him (106). Then over time, he proved himself to these same men.       

           Clearly, Gerald J. Prokopowicz gives many examples of how Abraham Lincoln’s personality, character and political ideas came to be formed. The author shows readers how these three traits were intertwined into developing the man, Abraham Lincoln.

 

 

 

            As I reflect on the Philadelphia Expedition I find my feelings are hard to put it into words; there was so much that we did experience.  However, I think one of my favorite things would be going to the sites with people, the professors and guides, who know and understand the placement in history. 

            Independence Mall is outstanding.  These buildings and this area are so important to our history.  The way Independence Hall is set up it gives the feeling like we just stepped back into time and this is where our government is being formed . . .  now as we stand here.

            Going through Washington’s headquarters was pretty amazing.  The thought that we were allowed to touch the same banister that George Washington and other great men used was so cool! 

            When we went to Princeton, we found a marker there that was dedicated to Mary “Mother” Jones and a speech she gave there about child labor.  I had no idea she came to Princeton to speak.  I also went to the cemetery and found Aaron Burr’s grave.  I know that will be a big hit with my students. 

            Also I am grateful for the chance to visit Amish Country, and at the same time, develop a better understanding of their ideas and way of life.

            And as I write this reflection, I realize more and more through the material we studied and the conversations we had  that the men who helped shape this great nation of our, were human beings.   I think this is one of the most important qualities I can teach my students. 

            Yes these people made a difference, but so can my students.  One does not have to be a superhero to influence.  One just needs to be determined, seek help when one needs it and work toward the good of all, not just the one. 

             Thank you again for the great opportunity to learn more about our nation’s history and then to be able to bring this great story back to my students!

Our last day together was spent at Gettysburg.  We first went to visit Dr. Boritt at his beautiful home and discuss his book, “The Gettysburg Gospel”.  It was great to see the man behind the book.  He spoke briefly about his children; he then talked about a movie his son Jake is releasing about the author’s life, “Budapest to Gettysburg”, which I look forward to seeing.  I know this will give me a better understanding of the man and the book he wrote.      

 

We had lunch at the historical Dobbin House.  It is a historic 1776 stone home authentically restored.  Then we had a gentleman join us for a battlefield tour.  He spent two hours with us explaining different aspects of the three day battle.

 

Then I visited the museum which had many objects.  I got pictures of weapons and uniforms I can show to my students.  I also went to the gift shop and picked up some postcard paintings depicting the North and the South that I can use with my students in class discussion.  I can see using these for two different activities.  First I can use them to look at interpretation of the sights they are displaying.  After studying the Civil War, I can also use them to have students write stories of their own historical fiction.     

 

Lastly we visited the place of honor-The National Cemetery.  I think this is a beautiful sight, which shows dedication to the soldiers that died there and gives some recognition to President Lincoln and his Gettysburg Address.

 

 

 

 

Today we went to the home of Henry Francis du Pont-Winterthur.  First we listened to Dr. Cathy Matson and she explained the “Consumer Revolution”.  She stated that people of this time period are not just getting by;  they actually have money to spend on things they don’t necessarily need.  This becomes another type of business.  Dr. Matson also showed us prints from the time period, and I thought  I can use these with my students to explore parts of this time period.

 

Next we went to the Winterthur Library, which houses 87,000 volumes and 500,000 manuscripts and images.  They also allow researchers in.  The librarian shared many different pieces including books on architect to books on teaching manners. It was very interesting.

 

After lunch, we went on an informative Garden tram tour.  The grounds of Winterthur were amazing!  They have trees that are hundreds of year old.  They have fields of flowers as well.  I bet that would have been an unbelievable place to live. 

 

Then we toured the house.  It is a nine story home in which du Pont had furnished each room with items dating back to the mid-eighteen hundreds to the early nineteen hundreds.  At the same time, I had to keep reminding myself that Henry Francis du Pont didn’t live in that time period; he wanted to preserve it for others.  By touring the house, I could see that he had things shipped from all over the world.  That would be a fun exercise to do with my students.  We could take photos of rooms and identify where items came from, dating the items and placing this information on a map.  That would be a great way to show the global market place of a time period. 

 

The last activity we did at Winterthur was an activity called “Maker & Marketplace”.  We looked at a clock shop and discussed all the different job covered in this one shop.  We did an activity where we put pieces of a table leg back together to show how many steps would go into making just one leg.  That would be great to show kids how this was done. 

 

We also looked at trade signs in the house tour.  Then we discussed how important it was to have these because not everyone spoke English, but they knew where the hat maker’s shop was.  Then we simulated a store and used a bargaining system to trade with each other.  That was a good simulation that I can take back to my classroom.  I just hope we get copies of the materials they used. 

 

We were then given artifact bags, in which we were to state where an item came from.  There was an artifact book that we used to guide us to our choices.  We then set the item on a world map, again showing global trading of the time period.  I would love to do this with my students, but I’m not sure how to develop an artifact book.  Clearly, Winterthur was an amazing experience.    

Today we had a real treat, two great speakers- David Waldstreicher and Robert Engs

 

David Waldstreicher talked to us about Ben Franklin and him becoming an abolitionist.  He explained how Franklin really did start out as a “salt of the earth”, self-made man.  He didn’t support anti-slavery until the ends of his life.  At the same time, he started out indentured to his brother, which is somewhat comparable to slavery. 

 

After running away from his brother, he set up his own print shop and climbed the ladder of success.  In the newspapers he printed he advertised run away slaves, and he owned five or six, so it took Franklin a while to come around and join the anti-slavery movement (1787). 

 

Yesterday when we were at Atwater Kent Museum, the guide made the statement that Franklin joined the movement almost “too late”.  That statement makes better sense to me now.  The impression has been that Franklin was always an abolitionist, but apparently he was not.

 

The next speaker, Robert Engs spoke of the “Great American Slave Rebellion”, and stated that the slaves won.  He went on to explain four questions that were considered about slaves:

1.      Would they rebel against their masters?

2.      Did they want their freedom?

3.      Would they fight for it?

4.      Did they know what to do when they got it?

 

He explained what each one meant.  As he was explaining these questions, I thought that these would be great questions to ask students to answer as a warm-up to this discussion. Dr. Waldstreicher and Dr. Engs both gave great insight in their lectures.

 

       

This afternoon, I went to the Second National Bank, where there are many painting on display.  At the same time we asked about the vault in the basement of the bank, and the ranger explained that that is where most of the gold would have been stored; however, for easy access there are “closets” in each corner upstairs where the day’s worth of gold would have been stored.  The door looks like a wooden door, yet they are solid metal.  That was sooo cool!

 

Then we went to Franklin’s underground museum, which holds some of his items and paintings of his family.  At the same time, there is one painting that really bugs me.  It is the one of Franklin’s young son, Franky, that died.  In the painting he looks like a 40 year old man in a child’s body.  How weird is that.  I also want to try and find out more about this son, because in everything we have heard this week, there hasn’t been much information given about him.  I think he died of yellow fever and maybe that’s all there is to know.

 

Today we got the opportunity to view some rare documents.  We got to see two of Lewis and Clark’s journals; the Society actually holds 18-19 of their journals.  I can hardly wait the show students those pictures!  In the case above these journals was another document that had four of the first presidents’ signature on it.  However, I am unclear as to what the document was.  I know our guide said something about it being like an advertisement. 

 

Then he showed us a few letters: from Thomas Paine to George Washington; William Franklin to his son, William Franklin Jr.; and George Washington to Richard Henry Lee.  There are some interesting points that I can use to teach my students from these letters. 

 

You can hear the author’s “voice” in each one.  They are all written for different purposes.  In the Thomas Paine letter it is obvious that he is angry with George Washington for not coming to his aide.  In the William Franklin letter you can feel a friendly tone, father to son.  The handwriting can also be noted.  I know it is George Washington’s letter by his hand writing; I don’t have to see his signature, just like I know it’s so and so’s paper (who never puts his name on his/her paper) because of the handwriting. 

 

Another document that would serve as a great teaching tool would be Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence that the Society has on display.  Many students dislike going through the writing process, where they must reverse their work.  By using this draft, students can clearly see that even Thomas Jefferson revised his work!  Additionally, it is notable that word choice would be the trait (six-trait writing) that is being used.

 

We also went to the Atwater Kent Museum and my favorite piece there would be the painting of John Brown.  Our guide said she thought he looked so intense.  I thought he looked pretty normal compared to some of his other portraits I’ve seen.  Using different painting of the same person with students would be a great way to show the students that the portrait is someone interpretation of the subject, and then discussing what the students felt the author was trying to convey to his audience could finish off this activity.  As you can see I came away with many ideas today. 

Today I experienced a new culture, the Amish culture.  These are people of God, at peace with themselves, their neighbors and their God.  They are not a questioning people.  They just go with the flow that their religion and culture has provided.  At the same time, they also adapt to modern times when they need to.  For example, by law they must have lights and blinkers on their buggies.   However, Amish people shouldn’t all be placed in the same group; each group varies some what in their ideals and practices. 

 

They are, for a lack of a better way to put it, practical people who believe in a simple way of life; they are good stewards in their community and to the land.  They teach discipline and self-control.  Their goal in life is perfection, but they believe in humility. 

 

The Amish children are educated up to eighth grade; then they allowed keep a journal in which they explain what they are doing on the farm.  Wow, what great documentation for historians, if you could get your lands on it!

 

The younger sons get the farm . . .  along with the parents.  When their elders are older, they don’t go into nursing homes; when they are ready to retire, they add on to the house a place where the parents will live and the younger son takes overthe parents and the farm. 

 

We were also told that the Amish population has doubled in the last 10 years. My guess would be because so many people are craving a more balanced, simple way of life.

 

As I reflect on how I would use the information gained today in my classroom, I have a few initial ideas.  Our guide told us that after age 13, children are no longer attended school, but the state requires them to write in a journal what they are learning on the farm.  It would be great to get a hold of some of the journals and use them to learn and explore these children in a more personal level.  Another idea would be taking journals from different time periods and comparing them, looking at the religious and culture differences, ages of the owners and comparing what they felt was important to write about, etc.

 

This would also be a great group of people to study when teaching citizenship in our classes.  Today they serve as fantastic citizens in their own community as well as the outlying communities.

 

Lastly, when I teach about the Puritans coming to the colonies, etc. . . . I could use the Amish as a current example of a group that holds similar religious believes and cultural upbringing.