Why the South was wrong

From Justin Taylor:

I have been enjoying Allen Guelzo’s new book Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2012).
The book’s description gives a nice overview of its distinctiveness: “In Fateful Lightning, two-time Lincoln Prize-winning historian Allen C. Guelzo offers a marvelous portrait of the Civil War and its era, covering not only the major figures and epic battles, but also politics, religion, gender, race, diplomacy, and technology. And unlike other surveys of the Civil War era, it extends the reader’s vista to include the postwar Reconstruction period and discusses the modern-day legacy of the Civil War in American literature and popular culture. Guelzo also puts the conflict in a global perspective, underscoring Americans’ acute sense of the vulnerability of their republic in a world of monarchies. He examines the strategy, the tactics, and especially the logistics of the Civil War and brings the most recent historical thinking to bear on emancipation, the presidency and the war powers, the blockade and international law, and the role of intellectuals, North and South.”
On his Thinking in Public podcast, Albert Mohler had a good conversation with Guelzo. You can read the transcript or listen to the audio.
Here was an interesting exchange from their conversation on whether or not the South or the North had better arguments (apart from slavery) regarding the relationship between state rights and federalism.

**********************************************************

Mohler: Who had the better argument in that particular debate? Not in terms of what the preferred outcome might have been in terms of the war and its aftermath, but just in terms of the argument about the essence of the American system of a republican government going back to the early nineteenth century into the early constitutional era. Did the Southerners have the better argument or did the North?

Guelzo: I don’t think the southerners did. I think that the American union as a federation of states was intended to be equipoise between entirely sovereign entities and an entirely centralized homogenous government. The idea being that the states were one more example of a system of checks and balances that were worked into the constitution. A check and a balance is supposed to be existing in relationship with another entity, which in this case was to be the federal government. It was not supposed to be something that led to the very destruction and break-up of the government, and I think that is illustrated in a number of ways in the constitution itself.

One is that the constitution contains no reversion clause. There is no description within the constitution about what to do in case of disaster, catastrophe, or flood or something else. There is no little glass to break marked, “Secession: This is how you terminate the constitution.” It is just not there.

The other thing that is in the very warp and woof of the constitution is the way that the powers of the states are described with relationship to the federal government in Article 1, Section 10, in which the states, the constitution makes very clear, do not have the power to coin money, the power to keep permanent standing armies and navies, to conduct diplomatic relations. By the time you get down to the end of that list, we are not talking about the kind of sovereignty residing in the states, that is the same kind of sovereignty that an independent country has where a member of an existing state has, coming into a federation with others. It was a very different kind of federation than let’s say, the European Union today.
Now, beyond that, there are at least two other considerations that mitigate against the southerner’s argument.

One is the fact that the federal government itself, while it was composed in 1787 of representatives of various states, most of the states that were in existence at the time of the Civil War, had in fact been creations of the federal government. In other words, they were the states carved out of western territories that had been acquired by the United States. Those states didn’t have a prior independent existence, so to claim that they had in fact a level of sovereignty that permitted them to become independent was really begging most of the question that was involved in the secession.

Then the other thing was the practical sense that, suppose the southerners did secede. Where would they go exactly? There would still be southerners looking across the Ohio River at northerners or across the Potomac River, and what would be the result of that? Well, they would beggar each other through trade wars, and up and down the Mississippi, there would be trade wars even more violent. If that was the case, then why? Why secede at all? Because you would only be making yourself poorer in the process. There was no practical way that southerners could simply take their bat and ball and go someplace else.

Connecting boys with books

A couple of weeks ago in one of my classes, we discussed how it is often difficult to get boys to sit down and read.  Many times, they just want to be up and moving around.  Our teacher posted a resource for us with lists of books by genre that boys enjoy. We have it in document form, but I searched online and found what looks to be exactly what we were given:  Books for boys

Another interesting article is about a survey done by the National Endowment of Arts: Why Johnny won't read

Book Review: In the year of the boar and Jackie Robinson

Last semester I took a children's literature class, and really enjoyed it.  One of the resources our professor gave us was a book review sheet to use for every book we read.  As I come across a book that I enjoy, I'll post my review of it, and hopefully it will be helpful for other teachers.

Author: Bette Bao Lord

Title: In the year of the boar and Jackie Robinson

Illustrator: Marc Simont

Publisher: Harper Trophy

Publishing year: 1984

number of pages: 169

genre: Historical fiction

narrative text or informative text? narrative

Summary: A Chinese girl moves to New York, experiences culture shock and then learns about baseball-her new favorite sport

My opinion of the book: Very true to the experience of going from one's native culture to another.  A good book to use when discussing the experience of immigrants, and hopefully help the native American students be more understanding.

Elements of literature: characterization

Theme/Lesson learned in this book: Adjusting to a new culture is hard and often a time of lonliness.

Thematic Unit topics: baseball, Chinese American, culture shock, immigrants, Jackie Robinson

possible objections to this book: Seems every time race or ethnicity is a heavy theme, people tend to point fingers and call 'racist'.

You can buy this book on Amazon.

ALA and Banned Book Week

This week has been proclaimed Banned Books Week by the American Library Association, and is a week that they encourage readers to ignore concerns and challenges raised against some titles, and read them anyways.

Here is a list of banned books:

 Brannen, Sarah. UNCLE BOBBY’S WEDDING. Putnam, 2008.
Butler, Dori Hillestad. MY MOM’S HAVING A BABY. Albert Whitman, 2005.
Richardson, Justin. AND TANGO MAKES THREE. Simon & Schuster, 2005.

Fiction
 Alexie, Sherman. THE ABSOLUTELY TRUE DIARY OF A PART-TIME INDIAN. Thorndike Press, 2009.
 Anderson, Laurie Halse. SPEAK. Farrar Straus Giroux, 1999.
 Avi. THE FIGHTING GROUND. Harper, 2008.
 Brashares, Ann. FOREVER IN BLUE: THE FOURTH SUMMER OF THE SISTERHOOD. Delacorte, 2007.
 Colfer, Eoin, THE SUPER-NATURALIST. Hyperion, 2004.
Collier, James Lincoln, and Christopher Collier. MY BROTHER SAM IS DEAD. Scholastic, 2009.
 Collins, Suzanne. THE HUNGER GAMES. Scholastic, 2008.
 Cormier, Robert. THE CHOCOLATE WAR. Knopf, 1974.
 Crutcher, Chris. STAYING FAT FOR SARAH BYRNES. Greenwillow, 1993.
 Friend, Natasha. LUSH. Scholastic, 2006.
 Anonymous. GO ASK ALICE. Prentice-Hall, 1971.
 Green, John. LOOKING FOR ALASKA. Dutton, 2005.
 Grove, Vicki. THE STARPLACE. Putnam, 1999.
Halpern, Julie. GET WELL SOON. Feiwel, 2007.
 Hartinger, Brent. THE GEOGRAPHY CLUB. Harper, 2009.
 Horowitz, Anthony. SNAKEHEAD. Philomel, 2007.
 LaCour, Nina. HOLD STILL. Dutton, 2009.
 Lee, Harper. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Lippincott, 1960.
Mackler, Carolyn. THE EARTH, MY BUTT, AND OTHER BIG ROUND THINGS. Candlewick, 2003.
 Mackler, Carolyn. VEGAN VIRGIN VALENTINE. Candlewick, 2004.
 Mackler, Carolyn. TANGLED. HarperTeen, 2010.
 McKissack, Frederick, Jr. SHOOTING STAR. Atheneum, 2009.
 Meyer, Stephenie H. BREAKING DAWN. Little Brown, 2008.
 Meyer, Stephenie H. ECLIPSE. Little Brown, 2007.
 Meyer, Stephenie H. NEW MOON. Little Brown, 2006.
 Meyer, Stephenie H. TWILIGHT. Little Brown, 2005.
 Myers, Walter Dean. FALLEN ANGELS. Scholastic, 1988.
 Myers, Walter Dean. HOOPS. Dell, 2009.
 Naylor, Phyllis Reynolds. ALICE ON HER WAY. Atheneum, 1991.
 Naylor, Phyllis Reynolds. LOVINGLY ALICE. Atheneum, 2004.

Nixon, Joan Lowery. WHISPERS FROM THE DEAD. Delacorte, 1989.

Picoult, Jodi. MY SISTER’S KEEPER: A NOVEL. Washington Square Press, 2004.

Plum-Ucci, Carol. THE BODY OF CHRISTOPHER CREED. Harcourt, 2000.

 Pullman, Philip. THE GOLDEN COMPASS. Knopf, 1996.

Rennison, Louise. ANGUS, THONGS AND FULL-FRONTAL SNOGGING: CONFESSIONS OF GEORGIA NICOLSON. HarperCollins, 2008.

 Salinger, J.D. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE. Little Brown, 1951.

Sones, Sonya. ONE OF THOSE HIDEOUS BOOKS WHERE THE MOTHER DIES. Simon & 

Schuster, 2004.

 Sones, Sonya. WHAT MY MOTHER DOESN’T KNOW. Simon & Schuster, 2001.

 Stroud, Jonathon. THE AMULET OF SAMARKAND. Hyperion, 2005.

 Taylor, Mildred D. THE LAND. Fogelman, 2001.

 Twain, Mark. THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN. Bantam, 2009. 

I can understand why many of these books have been banned, since many of them are explicit and overly graphic.  However, I do have to object to having Huck Finn on that list.  Huck Finn is simply classic, and the use of the word "nigger" should not disqualify it from reading.  I do think teachers have to exercise discernment and filter out some of the books out there that are not worth reading.  Children need to read good books to learn to become good writers.  

Here's the website for the Banned Book Week. 

CNN and technology

I've been taking a class in which we learn about and discuss the uses of technology in the classroom.  I ran across this article and thought it interesting: CNN

TED talk: Sir Ken Robinson

Throughout the last few years, various professors have assigned us TED talks to watch.  I definitely don't agree with everything on TED, and I'm not entirely sure if I agree with everything these speakers promote.  I do think though that they have good points to make and that we should think about the issues they raise.

Treasures of which people have not heard!

There are sometimes wonderful little books that I run across and most people never hear about.  So I'm going to change that today. :)  These are all about a third or fourth grade reading level.

The Story of The Monitor and The Merrimac; I read this one in a matter of two hours this weekend and found it quite enjoyable.  I wasn't aware that the first iron steamers were used in the American Civil War in the 1860's.  Apparently, the Southern Confederates made one, and the Northern Yankees made one.  This is the story of the battle in which they faced off.  I'll let you read it to see who won that battle.

Shoes for Everyone; Apparently a free African American gentleman named Jan Matzeliger actually came up with a machine that allowed for mass production of shoes in 1883.  This is the story of how he came up with this machine, and is a biography of Jan Matzeliger. 

The story of Thomas Alva Edison; Another biography which is published by Scholastic.  An enjoyable book, definitely narrative, easily readable in an hour or two.  A good book to use when discussing inventions, Edison or the 1800's.

William Wilberforce, God's Politician; Wilberforce has become popular in American since the release of the movie "Amazing Grace" (which I highly recommend!)  This is a good book for readers who already enjoy reading.  It doesn't have any pictures within the actual text, and is written in an informative style.  I found it helpful that there are citations and an annotated bibliography in the back.  There are also discussion questions after every chapter which are useful for parents and teachers who are looking to have a discussion on what the children are reading.