World War I Diary Entries

October 21st, 1914
Yesterday and the day before we had to stand in our trenches as Mother Nature relentlessly rained down on us. The trenches, of course, quickly filled up to our chests with water and mud. We had to stand there for almost 2 days before they finally drained out. It was unbelievably cold and exhausting just standing there like that. At times, I felt like just giving up and letting the icy waters take me, but somehow I willed myself to keep going.
We have already lost quite a few men due to disease and bad conditions this month and the number keeps rising with each passing day. Some of them were comrades of mine, and I can't help but think that tomorrow that might be me. Sometimes I feel like I'll go crazy if I don't get out of these trenches. I love my country, Britain, but fighting the Germans here in France seems hardly worth it.

October 30th, 1914
My ears are still ringing with the sounds of shells blasting and bombs exploding. The sounds follow me around, I can never get away from them. The bright bursts of light and sudden bangs are terrifying and let you have no peace. There's never a break in the noise.
I don't know how much longer I can go on like this. I need silence. I need to live somewhere clean, away from the rats and the stench. I need a warm bed to fall asleep in. Is that too much to ask for?

November 12th, 1914
We are piling up thousands of casualties by the week. I try not to get to close to the boys around me because the next day they'll be dead. I'm positive that I'll be dead by the end of the year. I've seen such horrible things that all I want to do is forget. When will it ever be over? I only want to see my friends and family back home one more time. That's all I want.
It is freezing here all the time, especially at night. I wish I has a nice warm blanket and somewhere dry to sleep. The others in the trench and I huddle together to stay warm. It's going to be a long, long winter if I do make it through.

Reaction Essay to World War I packets

While many people and governments in the U.S. and other countries debated and negotiated, the soldiers of World War I were living in a nightmare. From living in horrible trenches, to being exposed to gas that made your death excruciatingly slow and painful, to the psychological damage of "shell shock", the World War I soldier exhibited great bravery and risked their lives and well being for their countries.
During World War I, most soldiers had to live and fight in trenches which were dug into the ground and lined with sandbags. While in the trenches, they had to endure loud bangs, bright flashes, extreme cold, a terrible stench, and pain. When it rained, the men would have to stand up to their wastes or armpits in mud, sometimes for several days! Some even drowned in the muddy water. Having to stand for days in the wet trenches also caused "trench foot." Trench foot caused the foot to go numb, turn red or blue, and sometimes gangrene would set in. Many soldiers had to have toes or whole feet amputated because of trench foot. Rats, lice, nits, and other disease-carrying pests were in abundance. Soldiers also had to worry about chlorine, mustard, and other gases used by the enemy. Chlorine gas slowly strangled them, and mustard gas rotted the body. Soldiers often were driven insane by the "shell shock" caused by these abominable conditions and constant danger and stress.
The soldiers of World War I had to not only worry about being shot or bombed by the enemy, but also the danger of disease and insanity. The terrible living conditions took their toll and caused many of the deaths of the war. Those that made it out alive were usually never the same afterwards. Life in the trenches was for the soldiers of World War I a living hell.

Which criticism of the Turner Thesis seems most valid?

The view of the "New Western" historians seems the most valid. In contrast to Turner's theory that the frontier was the principal shaper of the nation's and region's character, they believe that a variety of factors including ethnic and racial issues, big businesses, government, and climate and landscape shaped the West and the country's character. This view makes sense because big corporations and railroads were a big part of bringing population and wealth to the West. Different ethnic and racial clashes throughout the West and the rest of the country also molded our country. Clashes between Native Americans and the U.S., blacks and whites, new immigrants and old immigrants, all molded the country and greatly influenced the West. Railroads were also heavily relied upon by Western settlers, making them very powerful. While the frontier did play an important role in our nations history, Turner's Thesis doesn't take into acount all of the other factors that shaped the West and the nation.

Martin Luther King article

The article "Popular view of King ignores his complexity" from The Duluth News Tribune was about the fact that most Americans don't know much about Martin Luther King, Jr. Almost everyone knows that he stood for civil rights and gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but few know much more about him. Before reading this article, I didn't know that King also was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues. He wanted peace and equality not only between races, but between all people, rich and poor. I also didn't realize just how unpopular King was at the time of his death. I knew that the KKK and other racist groups obviously didn't like him, but the hatred was more widespread than I thought it was. The article helped me to see how important it is to not limit our knowledge to certain events or facts because it we do, we will never be able to see the full picture.

Was Reconstruction a "splendid failure"?

In The New View of Reconstruction, Eric Foner says that even though Reconstruction failed to meet the goals of Radical Republicans, painlessly rebuild the South, and give the freed blacks complete rights and opportunities, Reconstruction did give African Americans some new chances and a brief taste of a free society. Political, social, and economic progress was made by blacks through the 14th and 15th amendments. Good things came out of the chaotic period of Reconstruction. The South actually was made more democratic than ever before. Public schools for blacks were established, blacks were granted full citizenship, and a small fraction of political offices were also held by blacks. Many whites in the North and South supported civil rights amendments and wanted to help the blacks. Foner believes that Reconstruction was a "splendid failure".
LaWanda Cox, however, disagrees. In Reflections on the limits of the Possible, she states that even Lincoln might not have been able to make the period of Reconstruction successful. It was a time of economical hardships for both blacks and whites in the South. A combination of poor crops and not enough land for the African Americans made many go into subsistence farming, which was a vicious cycle of poverty. There was much distrust in Congress and many different opinions, so it would have taken a very talented person such as Lincoln to handle the situation.
I agree with LaWanda Cox that Reconstruction was not a "splendid failure". Although, some blacks were able to get involved in politics, many lived in poverty and didn't have the skills of a certain trade or education to get themselves out of the situation. It took more than 100 years after the end of the war for blacks to receive all of their rights. Some good things did come from the war, but the economical situation of the South and the painful way they were brought into the Union caused hostile feelings to go on for generations. There wasn't very much that was "splendid" about the Reconstruction period. Poor leadership from Andrew Johnson, distrust, bad feelings, racism, and the economical hardships all combined to make the Reconstruction period fail to reach the high goals of equality and forgiveness.

Was the Mexican War an Excercise in American Imperialism?

In Manifest Destiny and the Mexican War, Ruiz shows that the Mexican War was an exercise in American imperialism. According to him, the U.S. was picking on the weaker Mexico so that it could gain more territory. Manifest Destiny was what Americans used to justify taking land from Mexico. Manifest Destiny included thinking white Protestant Americans were better than every other race in the world and that Americans needed to spread their freedom and culture across North America. In The Mexican War: A Study in Causation, Graebner concludes that President Polk tried to purchase territory in the Southwest from Mexico, but Mexico refused. Polk then aggressively pursued his goals which he felt were in the best interests of the United States. He feels that since Mexico was weaker, and Americans were persistent in their drive to fulfill Manifest Destiny, war was the result.
I agree with both articles. I agree with Ruiz in that Americans had no right to just steal land from another country because they felt it was their destiny or that they were the superior race. However, I also agree with Graebner because Americans were rapidly expanding westward and had the energy and persistence to settle in the territories and make good use of them. Most of the territories were sparsely populated by the Mexicans. Since Mexico refused, America had to choose between just giving up or being more aggressive. They chose the latter and were met with resistance which led to the war.

Did the Election of 1828 Represent a Democratic Revolt of the People?

In "'Under the Whip & Spur': Politics, Propaganda, and the 1828 Campaign," Sean Wilentz explains how many people were involved in the election of 1828. Jackson's and Adams's supporters used propaganda and extensive campaigning to influence the American public. Each side felt every vote was important, especially in key states such as New York. He believes the election of 1828 was the start of the two-party system and a democratic uprising. In "New Perspectives on Jacksonian Politics," Richard P. McCormick uses facts and statistics to show that the percentage of voter participation stayed about the same in the election of 1828 as it had been before 1824. He says that the real democratic uprising was in 1840 when well-balanced national parties had been organized (unlike in the election of 1824) and there was a much higher rate of voter participation than ever before.
I agree with McCormick that the election of 1828 did not represent a democratic revolt of the people. He made a better argument than Wilentz because he used statistics as concrete evidence to show how the percentage of voters remained the same as in the past and how the election of 1840 brought about a real democratic uprising. He used more logic in his argument than Wilentz.