DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Slavery in the Territories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Slavery in the Territories SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES: The Origins of the Disunion Crisis Thesis: While abolitionists and rebellious slaves played crucial roles in bringing on the conflict between the free labor North and the slave labor South, the disunion crisis hinged on the issue of whether to allow the institution of slavery to expand into the trans-Mississippi territories. 1. The Free Soil Issue: the free soil movement in the North demanded the prohibition of slavery from the western territories, reserving the territories for free non- slaveholding farmers. The Free Soil party emerged in the election of 1848, but the Republican party, founded in 1854, represented the most important expression of the free soil issue. The importance and limits of abolitionism: A) from difference to threat: It was one thing to say that slave labor and free labor made the South and the North different. But difference - even given the economic divisions over tariffs, internal improvements, banking, immigration, and the expansion of federal power these issues might entail - did not necessarily mean war or even antagonism. The abolitionists made sure there would be antagonism. As abolitionists developed their moral and religious indictment of slavery, the slaveholders answered with their own aggressive defense of slavery as a positive good. Anti-slavery and pro-slavery arguments eventually included economic and political and cultural dimensions. Even as anti-slavery forces emphasized the greater efficiency and dynamism of free labor and warned that slavery compromised civil liberties and threaten the Union, they also depicted the South as a backward society of ignorance and stagnation. Abolitionism thus helped set in motion an ideological contest over competing labor systems and the civilizations they supposedly gave rise to. B) Negrophobes and the cotton interests: But it is also crucial to understand the limits of abolitionism’s morally-based arguments. Those limits that also help explain why narrowly economic conflicts alone were unlikely to lead to war. Abolitionism, as a moral indictment of slavery, never won over the highly “negrophobic” populations of the southern tier of Northern states (the unskilled laborers and small farmers of southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois who did not at all like the idea of competing with freed slaves that they feared would flow out of the South after emancipation. Nor did abolitionism win over the most powerful and wealthy classes in the North, the bankers, merchants, textile manufacturers and other commercial groups (insurance, warehousing, the legal profession) who were making excellent money off of the cotton trade or whose key markets remained in the slave South. Some other issue was needed to bring such groups into an anti-slavery (as opposed to abolitionist) movement. The effort to prohibit slavery in the territories provided that issue. Free soilers insisted that they had no intention of abolishing slavery where it already existed (no intention, that is, of unleashing a flood of emancipated slaves into the North or of destroying markets in the 1 slave South). Free soilers simply wanted to preserve economic opportunities for white, free labor in the new territories. On this basis, a powerful anti-slavery movement, not necessarily committed to abolition, began to take shape in the North in defense of free soil, free labor, and free men. The Slave Power and slavery expansionism: For a variety of economic, political, and ideological reasons, slaveholders felt the need to expand. Economically, the slave economy appeared to need fresh expanses of virgin land as the regressive slave- labor agriculture (lacking the capital and incentives to use improved methods and tools) wore out the fertility of the older lands. Moreover, slaveholders in upper South depended on the sale of surplus slaves to the lower South to keep themselves financially above water. Politically, only new slave states - and hence new slave-state senators - could help the slaveholders maintain the balance of power in Congress (they had long since lost control of the House of Representatives which, being based on population, was in the hands of free labor Northerners). Ideologically, since the slaveholders insisted that slavery was not a necessary evil, but a positive good, they were in a difficult position to accept its containment. If it was a positive good, the basis of a superior civilization, they had to ask, then why should it not be allowed to expand? Beginning in the mid-1840s, slaveholders aggressively looked for ways to expand slavery, laying claim to Texas, demanding their rights in the western territories, and even launching military and diplomatic campaigns to annex certain areas of the Caribbean and Latin America. Northerners tended to see the effort to expand slavery’s reach as the workings of the Slave Power, by which they meant an aggressive conspiracy of slaveholders that would stop at nothing to preserve and expand the “peculiar” institution. The idea of the Slave Power had come out of the abolitionist controversies of the 1830s, when slaveholders damned restrictions on free speech and other civil liberties in an effort to silence the abolitionists, and gained influence with every new effort to extend slavery. The Wilmot Proviso (1846) and anti-slavery coalitions: In the midst of the Mexican War (see below), a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, David Wilmot, tried to add a free-soil amendment to an appropriations bill to finance the war. Wilmot’s proviso stipulated that slavery would be forever excluded from any territories gained as a result of the war. Passed by the House of Representatives but defeated by the Senate, the proviso anticipated the platforms of both the Free Soil (1848) and Republican (1854) parties. The proviso impressed upon slaveholders the absolute necessity of maintaining control of the Senate, but it also struck fear into their hearts. For Wilmot himself was a negrophobe who had no sympathy whatsoever for African-Americans or for abolitionists. And yet he was clearly anti-slavery. Here was an issue, saving the western territories for free white farmers and rescuing them from “degrading” competition with slave 2 labor, that might dangerously enlarge the constituency for anti-slavery movements. The Wilmot proviso appealed to the self-interest (and even to the racism) of Northerners, rather than relying upon any sort of moral appeal. The free soil issue remained a crucial element of all future anti- slavery coalitions, including the one that elected Republican Abraham Lincoln president in 1860. 2. Manifest Destiny and Competing Nationalisms: The free soil issue also appealed to a form of American nationalism associated with the concept of “manifest destiny.” Manifest Destiny implied that it was God’s providential plan that Americans spread their institutions and values across the North American continent and, potentially, beyond. But which institutions would be spread and would slavery be one of them? Republicans, who offered one version of American nationalism, insisted that for the American republic to enjoy its rightful influence in the world, slavery must be prevented from expanding across the continent. Nationalism: the “great” idea of the 19th century: The idea of nationalism held that the “people,” or the “folk,” were united by shared language, values, and cultural forms (from cuisine and literature to music and ethnic traditions). I place “great” in quotation marks because the idea of nationalism, on the one hand, could take profoundly democratic forms, uniting the “ordinary people” of Europe against aristocracies which had more in common with aristocracies in other countries than with the people in their own country. But, on the other hand, nationalism could take the form of racial and ethnic aggressive and exclusion as it often still does today (consider, for example, our current debate over immigration). The idea was “great” in impact, but not necessary “good” in its influence. The mid-19th century unification of Germany and Italy suggested the tremendous power of nationalism. The Republican party of the 1850s can be understood, at least in part, as another expression of nationalism, one that unified the North even as it defined the slaveholding South as the great threat to the nation. America’s Manifest (Anglo-Saxon?) Destiny: Initially, “manifest destiny” had a strongly ethnic component; American nationalism was defined to some extent in terms of freedom and liberty and the institutions that embodied that (the school, representative assemblies and the like) but also as a militant Anglo-Saxon conquering of inferior races (especially the Mexican). In the early 1850s, the “American” or “Know-Nothing” party defined American nationalism in terms of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestantism (WASP culture, in modern terminology) and called for the removal of immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants. After a brief flirtation with this nativist position, the Republican party defined American nationalism in terms of liberty, individualism, opportunity, democracy, and freedom rather than ethnic, racial or religious characteristics. But at the end of the 1840s and the beginning of the 1850s, it was not clear what direction American nationalism would take. And the issue of whether to allow slavery to expand into the territories 3 became bound up with that question. The westward movement and the annexation of Texas: The controversial annexation of Texas and its entry into the Union as a slave state was one of the first fruits of manifest destiny. Texas had been a province of Mexico which had abolished slavery earlier in the century, but had also encouraged Americans to settle the sparsely populated areas of eastern Texas. Americans did so, and they brought their slaves. These American slaveholders eventually fought for independence from Mexico (beginning with the famous battle at the Alamo) and became an independent republic in 1836. Texan slaveholders wanted to join the Union, but President Andrew Jackson feared the backlash that might come from the North with the admission of a new slave state and so he blocked annexation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    THIRTIETH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1847, TO MARCH 3, 1849 FIRST SESSION—December 6, 1847, to August 14, 1848 SECOND SESSION—December 4, 1848, to March 3, 1849 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—GEORGE M. DALLAS, of Pennsylvania PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—DAVID R. ATCHISON, 1 of Missouri SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—ASBURY DICKINS, 2 of North Carolina SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—ROBERT BEALE, of Virginia SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—ROBERT C. WINTHROP, 3 of Massachusetts CLERK OF THE HOUSE—BENJAMIN B. FRENCH, of New Hampshire; THOMAS J. CAMPBELL, 4 of Tennessee SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—NEWTON LANE, of Kentucky; NATHAN SARGENT, 5 of Vermont DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—ROBERT E. HORNER, of New Jersey ALABAMA CONNECTICUT GEORGIA SENATORS SENATORS SENATORS 14 Arthur P. Bagby, 6 Tuscaloosa Jabez W. Huntington, Norwich Walter T. Colquitt, 18 Columbus Roger S. Baldwin, 15 New Haven 19 William R. King, 7 Selma Herschel V. Johnson, Milledgeville John M. Niles, Hartford Dixon H. Lewis, 8 Lowndesboro John Macpherson Berrien, 20 Savannah REPRESENTATIVES Benjamin Fitzgerald, 9 Wetumpka REPRESENTATIVES James Dixon, Hartford Thomas Butler King, Frederica REPRESENTATIVES Samuel D. Hubbard, Middletown John Gayle, Mobile John A. Rockwell, Norwich Alfred Iverson, Columbus Henry W. Hilliard, Montgomery Truman Smith, Litchfield John W. Jones, Griffin Sampson W. Harris, Wetumpka Hugh A. Haralson, Lagrange Samuel W. Inge, Livingston DELAWARE John H. Lumpkin, Rome George S. Houston, Athens SENATORS Howell Cobb, Athens Williamson R. W. Cobb, Bellefonte John M. Clayton, 16 New Castle Alexander H. Stephens, Crawfordville Franklin W. Bowdon, Talladega John Wales, 17 Wilmington Robert Toombs, Washington Presley Spruance, Smyrna ILLINOIS ARKANSAS REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE John W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causes of the Civil War
    THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR: A NEWSPAPER ANALYSIS by DIANNE M. BRAGG WM. DAVID SLOAN, COMMITTEE CHAIR GEORGE RABLE MEG LAMME KARLA K. GOWER CHRIS ROBERTS A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Communication and Information Sciences in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2013 Copyright Dianne Marie Bragg 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT This dissertation examines antebellum newspaper content in an attempt to add to the historical understanding of the causes of the Civil War. Numerous historians have studied the Civil War and its causes, but this study will use only newspapers to examine what they can show about the causes that eventually led the country to war. Newspapers have long chronicled events in American history, and they offer valuable information about the issues and concerns of their communities. This study begins with an overview of the newspaper coverage of the tariff and territorial issues that began to divide the country in the early decades of the 1800s. The study then moves from the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 to Lincoln’s election in 1860, a period in which sectionalism and disunion increasingly appeared on newspaper pages and the lines of disagreement between the North and the South hardened. The primary sources used in this study were a diverse sampling of articles from newspapers around the country and includes representation from both southern and northern newspapers. Studying these antebellum newspapers offers insight into the political, social, and economic concerns of the day, which can give an indication of how the sectional differences in these areas became so divisive.
    [Show full text]
  • A. K. Mcclure and the PEOPLE's PARTY in the CAMPAIGN of 1860
    A. K. McCLURE AND THE PEOPLE'S PARTY IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1860 By WILLIAM H. RUSSELL* pOLITICAL campaigns usually are considered important mainly for the election results that follow. Yet the campaign itself can have lasting effects, both in the discussion of issues and in the relations developed among politicians under stress. This was notably true of the campaign of 1860 in Pennsylvania. This cam- paign was to have strong effects on the future of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, and on the state's attitude toward the issues leading to the Civil War. It affected the career of nearly every prominent Republican politician, but none more than that of young Alexander K. McClure, state chairman of the party during this critical time. A. K. McClure. by 1860, was already well known as one of the state's shrewdest and most ambitious young politicians. At the age of eighteen he had founded his own newspaper at Mifflintown, and become a spokesman for the anti-slavery Whigs. Six years later he took over the Whig newspaper at Chambersburg, where he achieved financial success and leadership in community affairs. By 1857 he had become a lawyer and won election to the legislature. There he would be a leader of the anti-Democratic forces for several years. With the decline of the Whig Party, he had dallied briefly with the new Know-Nothing movement, then joined in the effort to unite Whigs, Know Nothings, and anti-Nebraska Demo- crats under the Republican label. In 1860, still just thirty-two years of age, he was called to be state chairman of his party.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilmot Proviso
    Wilmot Proviso The Wilmot Proviso was introduced on August 8, 1846, in the United States House of Representatives as a rider on a $2 million appropriations bill intended for the final negotiations to resolve the Mexican-American War. The intent of the proviso, submitted by Democratic Congressman David Wilmot, was to prevent the introduction of slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. The proviso did not pass in this session or in any other session when it was reintroduced over the course of the next several years, but many consider it as the one of first events on the long slide to secession and Civil War which would accelerate through the 1850s. Background Pennsylvania politician David Wilmot After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed (lithograph by M.H. Traubel). Source: Library to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint (Digital ID cph.3c32936). resolution that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845 in the waning days of his presidency. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. When the war began to wind down, the political focus shifted to what territory, would be acquired from Mexico. Key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory. Both major political parties of the time had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. However, the victory of James Polk (Democratic Party) over Henry Clay (Southern Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the Whigs by surprise.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis-Antithesis: Clark & Casey
    Thesis-Antithesis: Clark & Casey January 31, 2007 by Dr. G. Terry Madonna and Dr. Michael Young The ghost of Joe Clark has been lurking around the edges of political news lately following the election of Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey Jr. to the Senate. Clark served as US Senator from Pennsylvania from 1957 until 1969. Before entering the Senate, he was mayor of Philadelphia, a lawyer, a writer (author of two books), and something of an intellectual (a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences). Clark is remembered due to the historical significance of his last electoral victory; in 1962 he was the last Democrat to be elected to a full six-year term until Bob Casey turned the trick in 2006. Clark and Casey have this history in common. But the two men seem almost polar opposites in most other ways. Tracing the backgrounds, careers, and philosophies of the pair reveal them to be virtual political antonyms--the yin and yang of Pennsylvania politics. Consider: Divergent Family Background--Clark was the quintessential blue blood, coming from a family with roots in the state dating back to the early 19th century. His family hobnobbed with the likes of lawyer/financier Jay Cooke. He attended Harvard as did his dad. He lived a life to the manor born with private country clubs and debutante parties. On the other hand, Casey was the grandson of a coal miner, was reared in a hard scrabble town, and attended Catholic school. One of seven siblings, his early background was solidly middle class, his values solidly middle American, and his politics solidly FDR Democrat.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Hoosiers and the Western Program, 1844-1848 Roger H. Van Bolt* The western program of political action, thoroughly grounded in economic need, was repeatedly rejected by the Polk administration. There had been a traditional support of western interests by both parties for over a decade, but in many respects this support had been one of lip service and of intermittent character. In the period of 1844-1845,however, changes were taking place in the parties themselves and also in government policies, resulting in a growing suspicion in the Northwest that sectional needs were not being met with ade- quate measures to alleviate the stress and strain. Even the parties themselves were becoming distrustful. It is interesting to note that James K. Polk, a political dark horse, had become president because of the failure to resolve the cleavages of the faction.’ Many factors contributed to Indiana’s political action dur- ing this period. The Hoosiers’ interests in the western pro- gram had certain elements in common with their neighbors; yet Indiana possessed no spokesmen for its needs with the en- thusiasm of Jacob Brinkerhoff and Joshua Giddings of Ohio, or John Wentworth of Illinois. Unlike Ohio and Illinois, In- diana’s wool and lead interests were not strong enough to be represented in the national halls. Neither was its lake trade as important as it was to the adjoining states. Michigan City was an enterprising center for the grain growers of northern Indiana, but it was not a Chicago or a Cleveland in importance for Indiana’s trade was not concentrated in the direction of the lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania History (People, Places, Events) Record Holdings Scholars in Residence Pennsylvania History Day People Places Events Things
    rruVik.. reliulsyiVUtlll L -tiestuly ratge I UI I Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Home Programs & Events Researchr Historic Sites & Museums Records Management About Us Historic Preservation Pennsylvania State Archives CRGIS: Cultural Resources Geographic Information Doc Heritage Digital Archives (ARIAS) 0OF ExplorePAhistory.com V Land Records things Genealogy Pennsylvania History (People, Places, Events) Record Holdings Scholars in Residence Pennsylvania History Day People Places Events Things Documentary Heritaae Pennsylvania Governors Symbols and Official Designations Examples: " Keystone State," Flower, Tree Penn-sylyania Counties Outline of Pennsylvania History 1, n-n. II, ni, tv, c.tnto ~ no Ii~, ol-, /~~h nt/n. mr. on, ,t on~~con A~2 1 .rrniV1%', reiniSy1Vdaina riiSiur'y ragcaeiuo I ()I U Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission lome Programs & Events Research Historic Sites & Museums Records Management About Us Historic Preservation Pennsylvania State Archives PENNSYLVANIA STATE CRGIS: Cultural Resources Geographic Information HISTO RY Doc Heritage Digital Archives (ARIAS) ExplorePAhistory.com Land Records THE QUAKER PROVINCE: 1681-1776 Genealogy Pennsylvania History . (People, Places, Events) Record Holdings Y Scholars in Residence Pennsylvania History Day The Founding of Pennsylvania William Penn and the Quakers Penn was born in London on October 24, 1644, the son of Admiral Sir William Penn. Despite high social position and an excellent education, he shocked his upper-class associates by his conversion to the beliefs of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, then a persecuted sect. He used his inherited wealth and rank to benefit and protect his fellow believers. Despite the unpopularity of his religion, he was socially acceptable in the king's court because he was trusted by the Duke of York, later King James II.
    [Show full text]
  • The Democratic Party Resources
    Essential Civil War Curriculum | Al Ronzoni, The Democratic Party | April 2016 The Democratic Party in the Civil War By Al Ronzoni Jr. Resources If you can read only one book Author Title. City: Publisher, Year. Hettle, Wallace The Peculiar Democracy: Southern Democrats in Peace and Civil War. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2001. Books and Articles Author Title. City: Publisher, Year. Baker, Jean H. Affairs of Party: The Political Culture of Northern Democrats in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Reprint, New York: Fordham University Press, 1998. Landis, Michael Todd Northern Men with Southern Loyalties: The Democratic Party and the Sectional Crisis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014. Silby, Joel H. A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860-1868. New York: W.W. Norton, 1977. Smith, Adam I. P. No Party Now: Politics in the Civil War North. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Weber, Jennifer L. Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln's Opponents in the North. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Organizations Essential Civil War Curriculum | Copyright 2016 Virginia Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech Page 1 of 2 Essential Civil War Curriculum | Al Ronzoni, The Democratic Party | April 2016 Web Resources Other Sources Scholars Name Email Al Ronzoni, Jr. [email protected] Google Keywords The Wilmot Proviso, first proposed by Democratic congressman David Wilmot in 1846, prohibited slavery in the new territories acquired from Mexico. Though it never became legislation, the Wilmot Proviso wrenched this traditional division of parties into a conflict between the North and South.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty
    The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty HE introduction of the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, perhaps more than any other single action, broke the uneasy sectional Ttruce regarding slavery and began the process of party and sectional realignments which culminated in the Civil War. As the proviso's basic principle of free soil became the dominant issue of the campaign of 1848, national politicians were forced to come to grips with this question in a variety of ways.* Popular Sovereignty, the Democratic Party's solution to these issues in 1848, had its origins as an acceptable political concept in Vice President George M. Dallas' Qreat Speech ... Upon the Reading Topics of the T)ay> which he gave in Pittsburgh on September 18, 1847. Although Congressmen Caleb B. Smith of Indiana and Shelton F. Leake of Virginia had made earlier vague references to the people of a territory governing themselves, Dallas was the first major political figure to call for popular sovereignty.1 He had been a prominent figure in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania and the nation since Andrew Jackson's first bid for the presidency. He had served as Mayor of Philadelphia (1828-1829), Federal District Attorney (1829-1831), United States Senator (1831-1833), Attorney General of Pennsylvania (1833-1835), Minister to Russia (1837- 1839), and as Vice President under James K. Polk. Clearly his endorsement of popular sovereignty was an important political sign. It appears to be more than coincidental that the Proviso and two of the three leading solutions to the problem of slavery in the territories—extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean and popular sovereignty—originated within the Keystone State.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of the Civil War Causes of the Civil War
    Causes of the Civil War Causes of the Civil War • Northwest Ordinance • Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 • Kentucky and Virginia • Compromise of 1850 Resolutions • Uncle Tom's Cabin • Missouri Compromise • Kansas–Nebraska Act • Tariff of 1828 • Bleeding Kansas • Nullification Crisis • Mexican American war • Nat Turner's slave rebellion • Sumner-Brooks affair • The Amistad • Dred Scott v. Sandford • Texas Annexation • Brown's raid on Harper's • Mexican–American War Ferry • Wilmot Proviso • 1860 presidential election • Ostend Manifesto • Secession of Southern States • Manifest Destiny • Star of the West • Underground Railroad • Corwin Amendment • Battle of Fort Sumter Attempted Solutions • Missouri Compromise • Wilmot Proviso • Ostend Manifesto • Compromise of 1850 • Kansas-Nebraska Act • popular sovereignty • Bleeding Kansas • Dred Scott Decision The Decision of Slavery Missouri Compromise Missouri Compromise 1820 • Regulation of slavery in the western territories • Prohibited slavery north of 36 ̊-30’ N parallel, except in Missouri • Sectional balance • Maine is a free state Part of the Texas Annexation Resolution of 1845 On the Compromise “… but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME ED 304 351 SO 019 E31 TITLE Historic
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 304 351 SO 019 E31 TITLE Historic Pennsylvania Leaflets No. 1-41. 1960-1988. INSTITUTION Pennsylvania State Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. PUB DATE 88 NOTE 166p.; Leaflet No. 16, not included here, is out of print. Published during various years from 1960-1988. AVAILABLE FROMPennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, P.O. Box 1026, Harrisburg, PA 17108 ($4.00). PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020)-- Historical Materials (060) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS History; Pamphlets; *Social Studies; *State History IDENTIFIERS History al Explanation; *Historical Materials; *Pennsylvania ABSTRACT This series of 41 pamphlets on selected Pennsylvania history topics includes: (1) "The PennsylvaniaCanals"; (2) "Anthony Wayne: Man of Action"; (3) "Stephen Foster: Makerof American Songs"; (4) "The Pennsylvania Rifle"; (5) "TheConestoga Wagon"; (6) "The Fight for Free Schools in Pennsylvania"; (7) "ThaddeusStevens: Champion of Freedom"; (8) "Pennsylvania's State Housesand Capitols"; (9) "Harrisburg: Pennsylvania's Capital City"; (10)"Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution"; (11) "A French Asylumon the Susquehanna River"; (12) "The Amish in American Culture"; (13)"Young Washington in Pennsylvania"; (14) "Ole Bull's New Norway"; (15)"Henry BoLquet and Pennsylvania"; (16)(out of print); (17) "Armstrong's Victoryat Kittanning"; (18) "Benjamin Franklin"; (19) "The AlleghenyPortage Railroad"; (20) "Abraham Lincoln and Pennsylvania"; (21)"Edwin L. Drake and the Birth of the
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Guide to Civil War Holdings
    PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION GUIDE TO CIVIL WAR HOLDINGS 2009 Edition—Information current to January 2009 Dr. James P. Weeks and Linda A. Ries Compilers This survey is word-searchable in Adobe Acrobat. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..page 3 Introduction by Dr. James P. Weeks………………………………….………...page 4 How to Use this Guide….………………………………………………………page 6 Abbreviations………….……………………..………………………….………page 7 Bureau of Archives and History State Archives Division, Record Groups………………………………..……....page 8 State Archives Division, Manuscript Groups…………………………………...page 46 State Archives Division, Affiliated Archives (Hartranft) ………………………page 118 PHMC Library …………………….……………………………………………page 119 Bureau of The State Museum of Pennsylvania Community and Domestic Life Section……………….………………………..page 120 Fine Arts Section……………………………………….…….…………...…… page 120 Military History Section……………………………….……..…………………page 126 Bureau of Historic Sites and Museums Pennsylvania Anthracite Heritage Museum………………………….……..…..page 131 Drake Well Museum Eckley Miner’s Village Erie Maritime Museum Landis Valley Museum Old Economy Village Pennsylvania Military Museum Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation State Historical Markers Program………………………………………………page 137 National Register of Historic Places and Register of Historical Landmarks……………………………….………………. ………………….…page 137 3 Acknowledgements This survey is a result of the PHMC Scholar-in-Residence (SIR) Program. In 2001, Diane Reed, Chief of the Commission’s Publications and Sales Division proposed that a book be created telling the story of Pennsylvania during the Civil War using the vast holdings of the PHMC. In order to create the book, an overview of the PHMC Civil War holdings was necessary. A SIR collaborative project was funded early in 2002, and Dr. James P. Weeks of the Pennsylvania State University History Department was chosen to create the survey, working with Linda Ries of the Archives staff.
    [Show full text]