PART 1. Colonial Society ISSUE 1. Is History True? YES: Oscar Handlin, from Truth in History (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1979) NO: William H. McNeill, from Mythistory, or Truth, Myth, History, and Historians, The American Historical Review 91 (February 1986) Oscar Handlin insists that historical truth is absolute and knowable by historians who adopt the scientific method of research to discover factual evidence that provides both a chronology and context for their findings. William McNeill argues that historical truth is general and evolutionary and is discerned by different groups at different times and in different places in a subjective manner that has little to do with a scientifically absolute methodology.ISSUE 2. Was Columbus an Imperialist? YES: Kirkpatrick Sale, from The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy (Alfred A. Knopf, 1990) NO: Robert Royal, from 1492 and All That: Political Manipulations of History (Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992) Kirkpatrick Sale, a contributing editor of The Nation, characterizes Christopher Columbus as an imperialist who was determined toconquer both the land and the people he encountered during his first voyage to the Americas in 1492. Robert Royal, vice president for research at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, objects to Columbus's modern-day critics and insists thatColumbus should be admired for his courage, his willingness to take a risk, and his success in advancing knowledge about other parts of theworld. ISSUE 3. Were the First Colonists in the Chesapeake Region Ignorant, Lazy, and Unambitious? YES: Edmund S. Morgan, from American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (W.W. Norton, 1975) NO: Russell R. Menard, from From Servant to Freeholder: Status Mobility and Property Accumulation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland, William and Mary Quarterly, 3d series, 30 (January 1973) Professor Edmund S. Morgan argues that Virginia's first decade as a colony was a complete fiasco because the settlers were too lazy to engage in the subsistence farming necessary for their survival and failed to abandon their own and the Virginia's company's expectations of establishing extractive industries such as mining, timber, and fishing. According to Professor Russell R. Menard, the indentured servants of seventeenth-century Maryland were hardworking, energetic, and young individuals who went through two stages of history: From 1640 to 1660 servants provided large planters with an inexpensive labor force, but they also achieved greater wealth and mobility in the Chesapeake than if they remained in England; after 1660 opportunities for servants to achieve land, wealth, and status drastically declined. ISSUE 4. Did Colonial New England Women Enjoy Significant Economic Automomy? YES: Gloria L. Main, from Gender, Work, and Wages in Colonial New England, The William and Mary Quarterly, 3d series, 51 (January 1994) NO: Lyle Koehler, from A Search for Power: The Weaker Sex in Seventeenth-Century New England (University of Illinois Press, 1980) Gloria Main notes that New England women were highly valued for their labor and relative scarcity in the early colonial period and that their economic autonomy increased in the years during and following the Seven Years War as more women entered the paid labor force and received higher wages for their work. Lyle Koehler contends that Puritan attitudes toward rights of inheritance, as well as the division of labor that separated work into male and female spheres, discouraged productive, independent activity on the part of New England women. ISSUE 5. Was There a Great Awakening in Mid-Eighteenth-Century America? YES: Patricia U. Bonomi, from Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial Amerca (Oxford University Press, 1986) NO: Jon Butler, from Enthusiasm Described and Decried: The Great Awakening as Interpretative Fiction, Journal of American History 69 (September 1982) Patricia Bonomi defines the Great Awakening as a period of intense revivalistic fervor from 1739 to 1745 that laid the foundation for socio-religious and political reform by spawning an age of contentiousness in the British mainland colonies. Jon Butler claims that to describe the religious revival activities of the eighteenth century as the Great Awakening is to seriously exaggerate their extent, nature, and impact on pre-revolutionary American society and politics.PART 2. Revolution and the New Nation ISSUE 6. Was the American Revolution a Conservative Movement? YES: Carl N. Degler, from Out of Our Past: The Forces that Shaped Modern America rev. ed. (Harper and Row, 1970) NO: Gordon S. Wood, from The Radicalism of the American Revolution (Alfred A. Knopf, 1991) Pulitzer Prize-winning author Carl N. Degler aruges that upper-middle-class colonists led a conservative American Revolution that left untouched the prewar economic and social class structure of an upwardly mobile people. Prize-winning historian Gordon S. Wood argues that the American Revolution was a far-reaching, radical event that produced a unique democratic society in which ordinary people could make money, pursue happiness, and be self-governing.ISSUE 7. Were the Founding Fathers Democratic Reformers? YES: John P. Roche, from The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action, American Political Science Review (December 1961) NO: Alfred F. Young, from The Framers of the Constitution and the `Genius' of the People, Radical History Review (vol. 42, 1988) Political scientist John P. Roche asserts that the Founding Fathers were not only revolutionaries but also superb democratic politicians whocreated a Constitution that supported the needs of the nation and at the same time was acceptable to the people. Historian Alfred F. Young argues that the Founding Fathers were an elite group of college-educated lawyers, merchants, slaveholdingplanters, and monied men who strengthened the power of the central government yet, at the same time, were forced to make some democraticaccommodations in writing the Constitution in order to ensure its acceptance in the democratically controlled ratifying conventions. ISSUE 8. Was President Thomas Jefferson a Political Compromiser? YES: Morton Borden, from America's Eleven Greatest Presidents (Rand McNally, 1971) NO: Forrest McDonald, from The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson (The University Press of Kansas, 1976) Professor Morton Borden argues that President Thomas Jefferson was a moderate and pragmatic politician who placed the nation's best interests above those of the states. History professor Forrest McDonald believes that President Jefferson attempted to replace Hamiltonian Federalist Principles with a Republican ideology in order to restore America's agrarian heritage. ISSUE 9. Was the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 a Well-Designed Policy to Protect the Latin American Countries from European Intervention? YES: Dexter Perkins, from The Monroe Doctrine: 1823-1826 (Harvard University Press, 1927) NO: Ernest R. May, from The Making of the Monroe Doctrine (Harvard University Press, 1975) According to Professor Dexter Perkins President James Monroe issued his famous declaration of December 2, 1823 to protest Russian expansionism in the Pacific Northwest and to prevent European intervention in South America from restoring to Spain her former colonies. According to Professor Ernest R. May domestic political considerations brought about the Monroe Doctrine when the major presidential candidates attempted to gain a political advantage over their rivals during the presidential campaign of 1824.ISSUE 10. Was Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Policy Motivated by Humanitarian Impulses? YES: Robert V. Remini, from Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832, vol. 2 (Harper & Row, 1981) NO: Anthony F. C. Wallace, from The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians (Hill & Wang, 1993) Historical biographer Robert V. Remini argues that Andrew Jackson did not seek to destroy Native American life and culture. He portraysJackson as a national leader who sincerely believed that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was the only way to protect Native Americans from annihilationat the hands of white settlers. Historian and anthropologist Anthony F. C. Wallace contends that Andrew Jackson oversaw a harsh policy with regard to Native Americans. Thispolicy resulted in the usurpation of land, attempts to destroy tribal culture, and the forcible removal of Native Americans from the southeasternUnited States to a designated territory west of the Mississippi River.PART 3. Antebellum America ISSUE 11. Did Slavery Destroy the Black Family? YES: Wilma A. Dunaway, from The African-American Family in Slavery and Emancipation (Cambridge University Press, 2003) NO: Eugene D. Genovese, from Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made (Random House, 1974) Professor Wilma A. Dunaway believes that modern historians have exaggerated the amount of control slaves exercised over their lives and underplayed the cruelty of slave experience - family separations, nutritional deficiencies, sexual exploitation and physical abuse which occurred on the majority of small plantations. Professor Genovese argues that slaves developed their own system of family and cultural values within the southern paternalistic and pre-capitalistic slave society.ISSUE 12. Was the Mexican War an Exercise in American Imperialism? YES: Rodolfo Acuna, from Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, 3rd ed. (Harper & Row, 1988) NO: Norman A. Graebner, from The Mexican War: A Study in Causation, Pacific Historical Review (August 1980) Professor of history Rodolfo Acuna argues that Euroamericans took advantage of the young, independent, and unstable government of Mexico andwaged unjust and aggressive wars against the Mexican government in the 1830s and 1840s in order to take away half of Mexico's original soil. Professor of diplomatic history Norman A. Graebner argues that President James Polk pursued an aggressive policy that he believed wouldforce Mexico to sell New Mexico and California to the United States and to recognize the annexation of Texas without starting a war. ISSUE 13. Were the Abolitionists Unrestrained Fanatics? YES: C. Vann Woodward, from The Burden of Southern History, 3d ed. (Louisiana State University Press, 1993) NO: Donald G. Mathews, from The Abolitionists on Slavery: The Critique Behind the Social Movement, Journal of Southern History 23 (May 1967) C. Vann Woodward depicts John Brown as a fanatic who committed wholesale murder in Kansas in 1856 and whose ill-fated assault on Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in 1859, while admired by his fellow abolitionists and many northern intellectuals, was an irrational act of treason against the United States. Donald G. Mathews describes abolitionists as uncompromising agitators, not unprincipled fanatics, who employed flamboyant rhetoric but who crafted a balanced and thoughtful critique of the institution of slavery as a social evil that violated the nation's basic values.PART 4. Conflict and Resolution ISSUE 14. Have Historians Overemphasized the Slavery Issue as a Cause of the Civil War? YES: Joel H. Silbey, from The Partisan Imperative: The Dynamics of American Politics Before the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1985) NO: Michael F. Holt, from The Political Crisis of the 1850s (John Wiley & Sons, 1978) Professor of history Joel H. Silbey aruges that historians have overemphasized the sectional conflict over slavery and have neglected to analyze local ethnocultural issues among the events leading to the Civil War. Professor of history Michael F. Holt maintains that both Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats seized the slavery issue to sharply distinguish party differences and thus reinvigorate the loyalty of party voters.ISSUE 15. Is Robert E. Lee Overrated as a General? YES: Alan T. Nolan, from Rally, Once Again! Selected Civil War Writings of Alan T. Nolan (Madison House, 2000) NO: Gary W. Gallagher, from Another Look at the Generalship of R. E. Lee, in Gary W. Gallagher, ed., Lee the Soldier (University of Nebraska Press, 1996) Attorney Alan T. Nolan argues that General Robert E. Lee was a flawed grand strategist whose offensive operations produced heavy casualtiesin an unnecessarily prolonged war that the South could not win. According to professor of American history Gary W. Gallagher, General Lee was the most revered and unifying figure in the Confederacy, andhe formulated a national strategy predicated on the probability of success in Virginia and the value of battlefield victories.ISSUE 16. Did Abraham Lincoln Free the Slaves? YES: Allen C. Guelzo, from Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America (Simon & Schuster, 2004) NO: Vincent Harding, from There Is a River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in America (Vintage Books, 1981) Allen Guelzo insists that Abraham Lincoln was committed to freeing the nation's slaves from the day of his inauguration and that, by laying the foundation for liberating some four million African Americans held in bondage, the Emancipation Proclamation represents the most epochal of Lincoln's writings. Vincent Harding credits slaves themselves for engaging in a dramatic movement of self-liberation while Abraham Lincoln initially refused to declare the destruction of slavery as a war aim and then issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which failed to free any slaves in areas over which he had any authority.ISSUE 17. Did William M. Tweed Corrupt Post-Civil War New York? YES: Alexander B. Callow, Jr., from The Tweed Ring (Oxford University Press, 1966) NO: Leo Hershkowitz, from Tweed's New York: Another Look (Anchor Press, 1977) Professor emeritus of history Alexander B. Callow, Jr., asserts that by exercising a corrupting influence over the city and state governments as well as over key elements within the business community, William M. Boss Tweed and his infamous ring extracted enormous sums of ill-gotten money for their own benefit in post-Civil War New York. Professor of history Leo Hershkowitz portrays Tweed as a devoted public servant who championed New York City's interests during his 20-yearcareer and whose reputation as the symbol for urban political corruption is grossly undeserved.ISSUE 18. Was Reconstruction a Splendid Failure? YES: Eric Foner, from The New View of Reconstruction, American Heritage (October/November 1983) NO: LaWanda Cox, from Lincoln and Black Freedom: A Study in Presidential Leadership (University of South Carolina Press, 1981) Eric Foner asserts that although Reconstruction did not achieve radical goals, it was a splendid failure because it offered African Americans in the South a temporary vision of a free society. LaWanda Cox explores the hypothetical question of whether Reconstruction would have succeeded had Lincoln lived and concludes that, despite his many talents, not even Lincoln could have guaranteed the success of the full range of reform, including land redistribution and political empowerment for African Americans, envisioned by the proponents of radical rule.
