History Essay Writing

PrimarySourceReaderHistory202-Dodge.pdf

Home >History homework help >History Essay Writing

Primary Source Reader

History 202 DeSales University

Prof. Samuel Alonzo Dodge

Table of Contents Three Contrasting Views of the English Civil war 1-2 John Locke and the Enlightenment 3-5 Religious Liberty and the American Revolution 6-8 Four Contrasting Views of the French Revolution 9-11 Industrialization and its Consequences 12-17 Images of Imperialism 18-21 Arguing with the Victors 22-27

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Three Contrasting Views of the English Civil War Hunt, The Making of the West, vol. II, 3rd edition, 500-501. Introduction: The civil war between Charles I and Parliament (1642-1646) excited furious debates about the proper forms of political authority, debates the influenced political thought for two centuries or more. The Levellers, who served in the parliamentary army, wanted Parliament to be more accountable to ordinary men like themselves (Source 1). After the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, Lucy Hutchinson wrote a memoir in which she complained that Puritan had become a term of political slander. Her memoir shows how religious terms had been politicized by the upheaval (Source 2). Thomas Hobbes, in his famous political treatise Leviathan (1651), develops the consequences of the civil war for political theory (Source 3). Source 1: The Levellers, “The Agreement of the People, as Presented to the Council of the Army” (October 28, 1647) Since, therefore, our former oppressions and scarce-yet-ended troubles have been occasioned, either by want of frequent national meetings in Council [Parliament], or by rendering those meetings ineffectual, we are fully agreed and resolved to provide that hereafter our representatives be neither left to an uncertainty for the time nor made useless to the ends for which they are intended. In order whereunto we declare: – That the people of England, being at this very day unequally distributed by Counties, Cities, and Borough for the election of their deputies in Parliament, ought to be more indifferently [equally] proportioned according to the number of the inhabitants…That the power of this, and all future Representatives of this Nation, is inferior only to theirs who choose them, and doth extend, without the consent or concurrence of any other person or persons [the king], to the enacting, altering, and repealing of laws, to the erecting and abolishing of offices and courts, to the appointing, removing, and calling to account magistrates and officers of all degrees, to the making of war and peace, to the treating with foreign States [in other words, Parliament is the supreme power, not the king]…. These things we declare to be our native rights, and therefore are agreed and resolved to maintain them with our uttermost possibilities against all opposition whatsoever. Source 2: Lucy Hutchinson, memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson (1664-1671) If any were grieved at the dishonour of the kingdom, or the griping of the poor, or the unjust oppressions of the subject by a thousand ways invented to maintain the riots of the courtiers and the swarms of needy Scots the king had brought in to devour like locusts the plenty of this land, he was a puritan; if any showed favour to any godly, honest person, kept them company, relieved them in want, or protected them against violent and unjust oppression, he was a puritan. … In short, all that crossed the views of the needy courtiers, the proud encroaching priests, the thievish projectors [speculators], the lewd nobility and gentry ... all these were puritans; and if puritans, then enemies to the king and his government, seditious, factious hypocrites, ambitious disturbers of the public peace, and finally the pest of the kingdom. Source 3: Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) During the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. … In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof in uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instrument of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industie, and by the Fruits of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will. … This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man. … This done, the Multituse so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Imortall god, our peace and defence. Questions:

1. Why would both the king and the parliamentary leaders find the Levellers’ views disturbing? 2. Why did Hobbes’ arguments about political authority upset supporters of both monarchy and

Parliament? 3. How do these sources connect to other themes we are discussing in class? 4. What sorts of historical arguments could scholars make using these sources?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

John Locke and the Enlightenment Introduction: John Locke (b. 1632 d. 1704) was an English philosopher whose work would profoundly influence the formation of empiricism liberal political philosophy with its devotion to natural law and rights. Among his most influential writings was his Second Treatise on Government in which he explored the elements of political power, human liberty, and the social contract (Source 1). The theories as articulated by Locke gave inspiration to later political movements including England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 and The American Revolution in 1776. Others appreciated Locke’s political insights and as a result he was part of a committee that drafted the first constitution for the British colony of Carolina (Source 2). Locke’s philosophy on human rights was limited, however, as evidenced by his investments in the Royal African Company, the corporation responsible for most of the African slave trade in the British Atlantic. Source 1: John Locke, The Second Treatise on Government, excerpts (1690) Chapter II – Of the State of Nature Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection. . . . Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. Sec. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do. Sec. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE. . . . Sec. 14. It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were there any men in such a state of nature? To which it may suffice as an answer at present, that since all princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world, are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state. I have named all governors of independent communities, whether they are, or are not, in league with others: for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic; other promises, and compacts, men may make one with another, and yet still be in the state of nature. The promises and bargains for truck, &c. between the two men in the desert island, mentioned by Garcilasso de la Vega, in his history of Peru; or between a Swiss and an Indian, in the woods of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature, in reference to one another: for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as men, and not as members of society. Sec. 15. . . . As we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things, needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. But I moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and I doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear. . . . Source 2: John Locke, The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, excerpts (1669) One hundred and one. No person above seventeen years of age shall have any benefit or protection of the law, or be capable of any place of profit or honor, who is not a member of some church or profession, having his name recorded in some one, and but one religious record at once.

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

One hundred and two. No person of any other church or profession shall disturb or molest any religious assembly. One hundred and three. No person whatsoever shall speak anything in their religious assembly irreverently or seditiously of the government or governors, or of state matters. One hundred and four. Any person subscribing the terms of communion, in the record of the said church or profession, before the precinct register, and any five members of the said church or profession, shall be thereby made a member of the said church or profession. One hundred and five. Any person striking out his own name out of any religious record, or his name being struck out by any officer hereunto authorized by each church or profession respectively, shall cease to be a member of that church or profession. One hundred and six. No man shall use any reproachful, reviling, or abusive language against any religion of any church or profession; that being the certain way of disturbing the peace, and of hindering the conversion of any to the truth, by them in quarrels and animosities, to the hatred of the professors and that profession which otherwise they might be brought to assent to. One hundred and seven. Since charity obliges us to wish well to the souls of all men, and religion ought to alter nothing in any man's civil estate or right, it shall be lawful for slaves, as well as others, to enter themselves, and be of what church or profession any of them shall think best, and, therefore, be as fully members as any freeman. But yet no slave shall hereby be exempted from that civil dominion his master hath over him, but be in all things in the same state and condition he was In before. One hundred and eight. Assemblies, upon what presence soever of religion, not observing and performing the above said rules, shall not be esteemed as churches, but unlawful meetings, and be punished as other riots. One hundred and nine. No person whatsover shall disturb, molest, or persecute another for his speculative opinions in religion, or his way of worship. One hundred and ten. Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever. One hundred and eleven. No cause, whether civil or criminal, of any freeman, shall be tried in any court of judicature, without a jury of his peers. Questions:

1. What do Locke’s political theories of rights and man’s state of nature tell us about the Enlightenment when put in context of his views on African slavery?

2. How do these sources connect to other themes we are discussing in class? 3. What sorts of historical arguments could scholars make using these sources?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Religious Liberty in the American Revolution Introduction: John Pemberton was a Quaker Merchant and leader in the Philadelphia yearly Meeting [Quakerism’s governing body]. Quakerism’s theological pacifism placed them in a difficult position with their colonial neighbors as hostility mounted between Britain and the colonies. As pressure to join the resistance to great Britain mounted, Pemberton and other Quaker leaders felt the need to encourage their fellow Quakers to remain faithful to their religious principles and seek accommodation from government leaders ·Source 1). Thomas Paine was an English migrant who had moved to the North American colonies in 1774. In spite of his recent arrival, Paine became an ardent supporter for American resistance against Britain and it was his immensely popular pamphlet Common Sense was a catalyst for pushing the colonies to declare independence in 1776. In 1777, Pain wrote a lengthy defense of American independence (Source 2) in which he devoted several paragraphs to attacking Quaker pacifism as dangerous to the patriot cause. Source 1: John Pemberton, To our Friends and Brethren in religious profession, in these and the adjacent Provinces (1776) Dearly beloved Friends and Brethren, OUR minds being renewedly impressed with a fervent religious concern for your spiritual welfare, and preservation in the love and fellowship of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, by the constrainings of his love, we are engaged to salute you in this time of deep exercise, affliction and difficulty; earnestly desiring, that we may by steady circumspection and care, in every part of our conduct and conversation, evidence, that under the close trials, which are and may be permitted to attend us, our faith and reliance is fixed on him alone for protection and deliverance, remembering his gracious promise to his faithful followers, “Lo, I am with you alway even “unto the end of the world,” Matt. xxviii. 20. And “as it became him for whom are all things, “and by whom are all things, in bringing many loss “unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation “perfect through sufferings.” Heb. ii. 10 Let us not be dismayed, if we are now led in the same path. As we keep in the Lords power and peaceable truth, which is over all, and therein seek the good of all, neither outward sufferings, persecutions, nor any outward thing that is below, will hinder or break out heavenly fellowship in the light and spirit of Christ. G. Fox's Epist. 1685. Thus we may with christian firmness and fortitude withstand and refuse to submit to the arbitrary injunctions and ordinances of men, who assume to themselves the power of compelling others, either in person or by other assistance, to join in carrying on war, and of prescribing modes of determining concerning our religious principles, by imposing tests not warranted by the precepts of Christ, or the laws of the happy constitution, under which we and others, long enjoyed tranquility and peace. We therefore, in the aboundings of that love, which wisheth the spiritual and temporal prosperity of all men, exhort, admonish and caution all who make religious profession with us, and especially our beloved youth, to stand fast in that liberty, wherewith through the manifold sufferings of our predecessors, we have been favoured, and steadily to bear our testimony against every attempt to deprive us of it. And, Dear Friends, you who have known the truth, and the powerful operations thereof in your minds, adhere faithfully thereto, and by your good examples and stability, labour to strengthen the weak, confirm

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

the wavering, and warn and caution the unwary against being beguiled but the snares of the adversaries of truth and righteousness. Let not the fear of suffering, either in person or property, prevail on any to join with or promote any work or preparation for war. Our profession and principles are founded on that spirit which is contrary to, and will in time put an end to all wars, and bring in everlasting righteousness; and by our constantly abiding under the direction and instruction of that spirit, we may be endued with that “wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, “gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy “and good fruits, without partiality, and without “hypocrisy.” James iii. 17. That this may be our happy experience is our fervent desire and prayer. Signed in and on behalf of the Meeting for Sufferings, held in Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania and New-Jersey, the 20 th day of the Twelfth Month, 1776. JOHN PEMBERTON, Clerk. Source 2: Thomas Paine, The American Crisis III, excerpts (1777) IV. But what weigh most with all men of serious reflection are, the moral advantages arising from independence: war and desolation have become the trade of the old world; and America neither could nor can be under the government of Britain without becoming a sharer of her guilt, and a partner in all the dismal commerce of death. The spirit of duelling, extended on a national scale, is a proper character for European wars. They have seldom any other motive than pride, or any other object than fame. The conquerors and the conquered are generally ruined alike, and the chief difference at last is, that the one marches home with his honors, and the other without them. 'Tis the natural temper of the English to fight for a feather, if they suppose that feather to be an affront; and America, without the right of asking why, must have abetted in every quarrel, and abided by its fate. It is a shocking situation to live in, that one country must be brought into all the wars of another, whether the measure be right or wrong, or whether she will or not; yet this, in the fullest extent, was, and ever would be, the unavoidable consequence of the connection. Surely the Quakers forgot their own principles when, in their late Testimony, they called this connection, with these military and miserable appendages hanging to it- “the happy constitution.” Britain, for centuries past, has been nearly fifty years out of every hundred at war with some power or other. It certainly ought to be a conscientious as well political consideration with America, not to dip her hands in the bloody work of Europe. Our situation affords us a retreat from their cabals, and the present happy union of the states bids fair for extirpating the future use of arms from one quarter of the world; yet such have been the irreligious politics of the present leaders of the Quakers, that, for the sake of they scarce know what, they would cut off every hope of such a blessing by tying this continent to Britain, like Hector to the chariot wheel of Achilles, to be dragged through all the miseries of endless European wars. The connection, viewed from this ground, is distressing to every man who has the feelings of humanity. By having Britain for our master, we became enemies to the greatest part of Europe, and they to us: and the consequence was war inevitable. By being our own masters, independent of any foreign one, we have Europe for our friends, and the prospect of an endless peace among ourselves. Those who were advocates for the British government over these colonies, were obliged to limit both their arguments and their ideas to the period of an European peace only; the moment Britain became plunged in war, every supposed convenience to us vanished, and all we could hope for was not to be ruined. Could this be a desirable condition for a young country to be in?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Had the French pursued their fortune immediately after the defeat of Braddock last war, this city and province had then experienced the woful calamities of being a British subject. A scene of the same kind might happen again; for America, considered as a subject to the crown of Britain, would ever have been the seat of war, and the bone of contention between the two powers. On the whole, if the future expulsion of arms from one quarter of the world would be a desirable object to a peaceable man; if the freedom of trade to every part of it can engage the attention of a man of business; if the support or fall of millions of currency can affect our interests; if the entire possession of estates, by cutting off the lordly claims of Britain over the soil, deserves the regard of landed property; and if the right of making our own laws, uncontrolled by royal or ministerial spies or mandates, be worthy our care as freemen;- then are all men interested in the support of independence; and may he that supports it not, be driven from the blessing, and live unpitied beneath the servile sufferings of scandalous subjection! We have been amused with the tales of ancient wonders; we have read, and wept over the histories of other nations: applauded, censured, or pitied, as their cases affected us. The fortitude and patience of the sufferers- the justness of their cause- the weight of their oppressions and oppressors- the object to be saved or lost- with all the consequences of a defeat or a conquest- have, in the hour of sympathy, bewitched our hearts, and chained it to their fate: but where is the power that ever made war upon petitioners? Or where is the war on which a world was staked till now? We may not, perhaps, be wise enough to make all the advantages we ought of our independence; but they are, nevertheless, marked and presented to us with every character of great and good, and worthy the hand of him who sent them. I look through the present trouble to a time of tranquillity, when we shall have it in our power to set an example of peace to all the world. Were the Quakers really impressed and influenced by the quiet principles they profess to hold, they would, however they might disapprove the means, be the first of all men to approve of independence, because, by separating ourselves from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, it affords an opportunity never given to man before of carrying their favourite principle of peace into general practice, by establishing governments that shall hereafter exist without wars. O! ye fallen, cringing, priest-and-Pemberton-ridden people! What more can we say of ye than that a religious Quaker is a valuable character, and a political Quaker a real Jesuit. Questions:

1. What do these sources tell us about the development of religious liberty during the American Revolution?

2. How does Paine define the actions of good citizens within the United States? 3. How do these sources connect to other themes we are discussing in class? 4. What sorts of historical arguments could scholars make using these sources?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Four Contrasting Views of the French Revolution Hunt, The Making of the West, vol. II, 3rd edition, 610-611. Introduction: Contemporaries instantly grasped the cataclysmic significance of the French Revolution and began to argue its lessons for their own countries. A member of the British Parliament, Edmund Burke, ignited a firestorm of controversy within his Reflections on the Revolution in France (Source 1). He condemned the French revolutionaries for attempting to build a government on abstract reasoning rather than taking historical traditions and customs into account; his book provided a foundation for the doctrine known as conservatism, which argued for “conserving” the traditional foundations of society and avoiding the pitfalls of radical or revolutionary change. Burke’s views provoked a strong response from the English political agitator Thomas Paine. Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense (1776) had helped inspire the British North American colonies to demand independence from Great Britain. In The Rights of Man (Source 2), written fifteen years later. Paine attacked the traditional order as fundamentally unjust and defended the idea of a revolution to uphold rights. Joseph de Maistre, an aristocrat opponent of both the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, put the conservative attack on the French Revolution into a deeply religious and absolutist framework (Source 3). In contrast, Anne-Louise-Germaine de Staël, an opponent of Napoleon and one of the most influential intellectuals of the early nineteenth century, took the view that the violence of the Revolution had been the product of generations of superstition and arbitrary rule, that is, rule by an absolutist Catholic church and monarchical government (Source 4). Source 1: Edmund Burk, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) Can I now congratulate the same nation [France] upon its freedom? Is it because liberty in the abstr5act may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate an highway and murderer, who had broke prison, upon the recovery of his natural rights?... Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it; and exists in much greater clearness, and in a much greater degree of abstract perfection: but their abstract perfection is their practical defect. By having a right to every thing they want to every thing. …The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught a priori [based on theory rather than on experience]. Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science; because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate; but that which in the first instance is prejudicial may arise even from the ill effects it produces in the beginning. … In the groves of their academy. At the end of every visto [vista], you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. … To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely. Source 2: Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791) Before anything can be reasoned upon to a conclusion, certain facts, principles, or data, to reason from, must be established, admitted, or denied. Mr. Burk, with his usual outrage, abuses the declaration of the Rights of Man, published by the national Assembly of France, as the basis on which the Constitution of France is built. This he calls “paltry and blurred sheets of paper about the rights of man.” Does Mr. Burk mean to

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

deny that man has any rights? If he does, then he must mean that there are no such things as rights any where, and that he has none himself; for who is there in the world but man? … Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. … A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting a government. … Can then Mr. Burk produce the English Constitution? If he cannot, we may fairly conclude, that though it has been so much talked about, no such thing as a constitution exists, or ever did exist, and consequently that the people have yet a constitution to form. Source 3: Joseph De Maistre, Considerations on France (1797) This consideration especially makes me think that the French Revolution is a great epoch and that its consequences, in all kinds of ways, will be felt far beyond the time of its explosion and the limits of its birthplace. … There is a satanic quality to the French Revolution that distinguishes it from everything we have ever seen or anything we are ever likely to see in the future. Recall the great assemblies, Robespierre’s speech against the priesthood, the solemn apostacy [renunciation of vows] of the clergy, the desecration of objects of worship, the installation of the goddess of reason, and that multitude of extraordinary actions by which the provinces sought to outdo Paris. All this goes beyond the ordinary circle of crime and seems to belong to another world. Source 4: Anne-Louise-Germaine de Staël, Considerations on the Main Events of the French Revolution (1818) Once the people were freed from their harness there is no doubt that they were in a position to commit any kind of crime. But how can we explain their depravity? The government we are now supposed to miss so sorely [the former monarchy] had had plenty of time to form this guilty nation. The priests whose teaching, example, and wealth were supposed to be so good for us had supervised the childhood of the generation that broke out against them. The class that revolted in 1789 must have been accustomed to the privileges of feudal nobility which, as we are also assured, are so peculiarly agreeable to those on whom they weigh [the peasants]. How does it happen, then, that so many vices was sown under the ancient institutions? … What can we conclude from this, then? – That no people had been as unhappy for the preceding century as the French. If the Negroes of Saint-Domingue have committed even greater atrocities, it is because they have been even more greatly oppressed. Questions:

1. Which aspects of the French Revolution most disturbed these commentators?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

2. How would you align each of these writers on a spectrum running from extreme right to extreme left in politics?

3. How would each of these writers judge the Enlightenment that preceded the French Revolution? 4. How do these sources connect to other themes we are discussing in class? 5. What sorts of historical arguments could scholars make using these sources?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Industrialization and its Consequences Introduction: The consequences of industrialization were far reaching. Entire economic systems radically transformed as machines increasingly replaced hand labor in manufacturing, farming, mining, and industries across the board. These radical economic transformation had social consequences as well as millions of country dwellers, no longer needed in fields, migrated to cities in search of new work. The resulting rapid urbanization condemned millions to lives of poverty in slums dwellings and dangerous factory work. William Blake was an artist who frequently targeted the blight brought from the early industrial revolution (Source 1). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles also responded the horrors of industrialization fifty years after Blake offered his criticisms. In The Manifesto of the Communist Party Marx and Engels articulated a new philosophy of economics, history, and social justice in which they argued that capitalist economies of industrialization had reduced previous social diversity into essentially two large classes, workers who had been dehumanized into “instruments of labor” and the bourgeois, who single mindedly-y pursued the accumulation of wealth. (Source 2). In Marx’s estimation, these two classes’ interests were irreconcilably opposed thus locking them in constant conflict with one another. Social justice and peace would only be possible when the working class rose up and seized the means of production for themselves. Marx and Engles’ philosophies would inspire millions of revolutionaries seeking radical social and economic reform throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, up to the present day. It is impossible to understand modern political, social, and economic history without becoming familiar with their work. Source 1: William Blake, London (1794) I wander thro’ each charter’d dtreet, Near where the charter’d Thames does flow And mark in every face I meet Marks of weakness, marks of woe In every cry of every Man, In every Infants cry of fear. In every voice; in every ban, The mind-forg’d manacles I hear How the Chimney-sweepers cry Every blackning Church appalls, And the hapless Soldiers sigh: Runs in blood down Palace walls But most thro’ midnight streets I hear How the youthful Harlots curse Blasts the new-born Infants tear And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse. Source 2: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, excerpts (1848) A SPECTRE is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact. I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself. To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages. I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS* The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master* and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development. The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop. Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune,* here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage- labourers. The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast- frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new- formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West. The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground--what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity--the epidemic of over- production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons--the modern working class--the proletarians.

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed--a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece- meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc. Questions:

1. What do these sources tell us about the social and political consequences of industrialization? 2. Discuss the process through which the bourgeoisie create “a world after its own image.” 3. How do these sources connect to other themes we are discussing in class? 4. What sorts of historical arguments could scholars make using these sources?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Images of Imperialism Introduction: The imperialism of European and American nations of the late nineteenth-century reshaped the geo-political landscape. As European and American powers made ever larger territorial claims around the globe, they devised a philosophy of civilization to justify their colonial enterprises that could often be brutal. This philosophy of civilization largely rested on the premise that European (and by extension North American) culture were superior to those found elsewhere and thus had a responsibility to bring the blessings of civilization to benighted peoples. Rudyard Kipling was an author born in British colonial India in 1865. As such, he had a keen affinity for the British colonial project and depicted it in numerous works of his (Source 1). Other media looked to bolster the colonialism project as well. In 1884, European nations met at a conference in Berlin to discuss the partition of Africa amongst them, no African people were consulted or represented at the conference. Contemporary media portrayed the conference in largely positive terms (Source 2). Other magazines praised the civilization projects by colonial powers such as the United States (Source 3) or individuals such as Cecil Rhodes (Source 4) who sought to make a fortune by building a transcontinental railroad and telegraph from Cape town, South Africa to Cairo, Egypt. In a Punch Magazine portrayal of Rhodes’ ambition, the entrepreneur is posed in way reminiscent of the Colossus of Rhodes, a giant sculpture of the Greek god Helios that allegedly straddled the harbor of the Greek island of Rhode (Source 4). The railway was never completed Source 1: Rudyard Kipling, The White Man's Burden, 1899 Take up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child. Take up the White Man's burden-- In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain To seek another's profit, And work another's gain. Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought. Take up the White Man's burden--

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

No tawdry rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper-- The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead. Take up the White Man's burden-- And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- "Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?" Take up the White Man's burden-- Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you. Take up the White Man's burden-- Have done with childish days-- The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise. Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Source 2: “The conference of Berlin,” Illustrierte Zeitung (1884) Source 3: “School Begins,” Puck Magazine (1899)

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Source 4: “The Rhodes Colossus,” Punch (1892) Questions:

1. What different elements of the imperial enterprise do each of these sources present? 2. What advantages do visual sources have to written ones? 3. How do these sources connect to other themes we are discussing in class? 4. What sorts of historical arguments could scholars make using these sources?

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Arguing with the Victors Hunt, The Making of the West, vol. II, 3rd edition, 818-819. Introduction: The end of World War I aroused hopes around the world. The conquered expected a fair-minded treaty based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points, while a variety of other peoples saw in that same document the promise of self-determination. In particular, men living under colonial domination, such as many in Africa and the Arab states, had taken part in the conflict because the Allies had promised new rights in return for fighting this bloody and destructive war. The emir Faisal had led troops to bring about freedom and Arab unity (Source 1). Like some representatives at the Pan-African Congress, even those Africans who had not fought saw peacemaking as a process that should forge a better future. Many wanted full political rights and parliamentary representation if not outright independence (Source 2). In Paris in 1919, representatives of the victorious powers were besieged by outsiders to Western government, each making a claim for special attention to their needs or for concrete action to realize the noble rhetoric of the Fourteen Points. Feminist- pacifists wanted to ensure the pacifist cause (Source 3), while a Polish representative articulated a concern that Jews had taken too many good jobs in the new Poland (Source 4). The proposals to the peacemakers produced few results. Not all those who lived through the war saw the end of the conflict as an opportunity for reform and progress. Coming out of the conflict were large cultural movements animated by despair and disillusionment. Such bleak interpretations of the post-war world were particularly evident in art and literature, where “modernism” took root as an interpretive schema that explored the anxiety, alienation, and uncertainty of the post-war world. Two British poets, William Butler Yeats (Source 5) and T. S. Eliot (Source 6) explored these themes in much of their work. Source 1: Emire Faisal Claiming Independence for the Middle East The aim of the Arab nationalist movement is to unite the Arabs eventually into one nation. … I came to Europe on behalf of my father and the Arabs of Asia to say that they are expecting the powers at the Conference not to attach undue importance to superficial differences of condition among us and not to consider them only from the low ground of existing European material interests and supposed spheres of influence. They expect the powers to think of them as one potential people, jealous of their language and liberty, and they ask that no step be taken inconsistent with the prospect of an eventual union of these areas under one sovereign government. Source 2: The Voice of Pan-Africanists Resolved

That the Allied and Associated Powers establish a code of law for the international protection of the natives of Africa. …

The Negroes of the world demand that hereafter the natives of Africa and the peoples of African descent be governed according to the following principles:

1. The land: the land and its natural resources shall be held in trust for the natives and at all times they shall have effective ownership of as much land as they can profitably develop. … 3. Labor: slavery and corporal punishment shall be abolished and forced labor except in punishment for crime. …

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

5. The state: the natives of Africa must have the right to participate in the government as fast as their development permits, in conformity with the principle that the government exists for the natives, and not the natives for the government. Source 3: Pacifists’ Goals for the Peace Process The international Congress of Women regards the famine, pestilence, and unemployment extending throughout great tracts of central and eastern Europe and into Asia as a disgrace to civilization.

It therefore urges the Governments of all the Powers assembled at the Peace Conference immediately to develop the inter-allied organizations formed for purposes of war into an international organization for purposes of peace, so that the resources of the world – food, raw materials, finance, transport – shall be made available for the relief of the peoples of all countries from famine and pestilence.

To this end it urges that immediate action be taken … to raise the blockade [of the Central Powers even though the war had concluded].

The terms of the peace tacitly sanction secret diplomacy, deny the principles of self-determination, recognize the rights of victors to the spoils of war, and create all over Europe discords and animosities, which can only lead to future war. … By the financial and economic proposals a hundred million people of this generation in the heart of Europe are condemned to poverty, disease, and despair, which must result in the spread of hatred and anarchy within each nation. Source 4: Anti-Semitism at the Peace Table We have too many Jews, and those who will be allowed to remain with us must change their habits. I recognize that this will be difficult and will take time. The Jew must produce and not remain devoted exclusively to what we regard as parasitical pursuits. Unless restrictions are imposed upon them soon, all our lawyers, doctors, and small merchants will be Jews. They must turn to agriculture, and they must at least share small business and retail stored with their Polish neighbors. I readily admit that there is some basis in the Jewish contention that in says past it was difficult for them to own land or even to work the fields of others as tenants; that they were often compelled by circumstances beyond their control to gain their livelihood in ways which are hurtful to Polish economy. Under our new constitution all this will be changed, and for their own good I hope the Jews will avail themselves of their new opportunities. I say this in their own interest as well as in the interest of restored Poland. Source 5: William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming” (1920) Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough best, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? Source 6: T. S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men,” excerpts (1925) Mistah Kurtz-he dead A penny for the Old Guy I We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar Shape without form, shade without colour, Paralysed force, gesture without motion; Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us-if at all-not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men. II Eyes I dare not meet in dreams In death's dream kingdom These do not appear: There, the eyes are Sunlight on a broken column There, is a tree swinging And voices are

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

In the wind's singing More distant and more solemn Than a fading star. Let me be no nearer In death's dream kingdom Let me also wear Such deliberate disguises Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves In a field Behaving as the wind behaves No nearer- Not that final meeting In the twilight kingdom III This is the dead land This is cactus land Here the stone images Are raised, here they receive The supplication of a dead man's hand Under the twinkle of a fading star. Is it like this In death's other kingdom Waking alone At the hour when we are Trembling with tenderness Lips that would kiss Form prayers to broken stone. IV The eyes are not here There are no eyes here In this valley of dying stars In this hollow valley This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms In this last of meeting places We grope together And avoid speech Gathered on this beach of the tumid river Sightless, unless The eyes reappear

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

As the perpetual star Multifoliate rose Of death's twilight kingdom The hope only Of empty men. V Here we go round the prickly pear Prickly pear prickly pear Here we go round the prickly pear At five o'clock in the morning. Between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act Falls the Shadow For Thine is the Kingdom Between the conception And the creation Between the emotion And the response Falls the Shadow Life is very long Between the desire And the spasm Between the potency And the existence Between the essence And the descent Falls the Shadow For Thine is the Kingdom For Thine is Life is For Thine is the This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.

Primary Source Reader – History 202 - Dodge

Questions:

1. Describe the various contending claims beyond those of the official combatant powers. Did the victorious powers heed these voices when forging the peace?

2. How were the various demands at the peace conference related to the politics and conditions of World War I?

3. Do any of the demands seem more justifiable in addressing the peacetime needs of Europe and the world?

4. What image of the war and the post-war world do Yeats and Eliot evoke? How do these visions compare to those articulated by Faisal or the Pan-Africanists?

5. How do these sources connect to other themes we are discussing in class? 6. What sorts of historical arguments could scholars make using these sources?