Post #3 - Mason-Dixon Line

In class this week, we explored the expansion of slavery through a series of maps and crucial events. We have discussed up to the Compromise of 1850, after which the stage is essentially set for a civil war. My question is, was the country destined for a civil war ever since the Mason-Dixon line? It came about in the Missouri compromise in 1820, and essentially split the United Sates into two separate peoples before the country even had all its territory. It made all future space above the line free, and all of the property below the line already slave states. Although the possibility of the South seceding was first brought up in 1846, they were already split 26 years before this. In terms of policy, they two areas were split by the Missouri compromise as well. Anything North of the line was to be free, and anything South of the line was to have slavery, already creating the notion that the North and South were not the same. As Lincoln said in a speech, "a house divided against itself cannot stand," and although this came later in history, the United States was in fact divided at this point in time. So what kept them from a war earlier? Was it that no one was prepared? Were the people not yet ready to go to war yet? Did most believe that war was avoidable? Now, its hard to understand what people were thinking over 150 years ago, but it seems like the problem was beyond repair by this time, and that the "compromise" did not in fact solve this issue.

Post #2 - Middle Passage

After reading this passage over in Lit. class, the first thing I noticed was how dark and depressing it was. In comparison to Equiano, which isn't extremely dark in the first place, it uses more imagery to paint a picture. For example, the section where the author (who is unknown to me at this time) describes the disease Ophthalmia discusses blindness, getting rid of the blind, and the fear that came with the disease. This is a darker point of view for a slave ship than we have seen before, and it is from a person who was not there as a slave. To me, this was very odd. It seems like those who are not in chains, packed in tightly, not fed, and not beaten would be happier. He also refers to a fire that is somehow started, and vividly describes the effects of it. That section posed another couple of questions for me, such as how did the fire start in the first place? Did the slaves start it to escape the misery of a slave ship? Was it one person's carelessness? Overall, the plot of this poem so far has quite a few things that don't seem to add up, and I am wondering what the author will chose to include details-wise later on in the text. Darkness aside, this document is essentially a counterpart to Equiano, as they sort of fill in the limitations for each other. We see a separate mindset in this person's view, and it helps us to understand life on a slave ship even better. 

Chavez Rodriguez 1B

John Adams Documentary - Colony Support

In the video, one conversation interested me but was not discussed in class. That bit is when John Adams is arguing with the man who believes that peace is the only option, and any kind of revolution is a terrible idea. This man also states that he wanted to get his colony, Massachusetts perhaps, away from the rebellious people of Boston, possibly implying secession. I considered what would happen if that had actually happened, and found it hard. Now, I believe that the revolution would have failed, had it even occurred in the first place. The support required for a war where the rebels are under trained, ill-supplied, and the enemy is strong is massive, and without all the colonies being united in the decision, it would be very hard even to begin such a revolution. After considering the other options, I realized how frustrated Adams must have been, knowing that he had to convince the rest of congress before he could enact any revolutionary activity. This also helped me understand why some of the members believed in breaking away from Britain, but did not say so openly. While arguing, Adams gained a reputation as an enemy to a lot of people. So, other congressmen refused to openly support revolution to protect their status, so they could wield more political power the next time a major vote occurred. Overall, I believe all the colonies had to support each other for the revolution to occur, and to do this, many at the conference tried to gain more influence.

Chavez Rodriguez 1B