Podcast #3 Response, "The significance of Reconstruction"

     After listening to the podcast, I was convinced that the period of Reconstruction is crucial to understand if one wishes to have a complete understanding of our country's history. What especially struck me as fascinating was the transformation in the role of the federal government from before the war to after. Before the war, the federal government was seen as an entity which must not expand in order to protect liberty and freedom as the founders saw it. However afterwards, the federal government was seen as the institution which would be best able to enforce the necessary laws to ensure the ever expanding freedoms were upheld. As mentioned by Foner, the very wording of the bill of rights, such as ,"congress shall pass no law", demonstrated the view of the country at this time, that the federal government must have restrictions placed upon it to preserve liberty. As time goes by, the attitudes change, and the wording of the ammendments goes along with it. In the 14th ammendment, it states, "Congress shall have the power to enforce...". This clearly demonstrates an ideological shift in who is going to protect out liberties. The period of reconstruction not only sought to reconstruct the political system of the South, but to rearrange the power of the federal governments with regard to the states.
     I am deeply saddened and dissappointed that Eric Foner, a so-called intellectual, would not believe in American Exceptionalism. I do not see how anybody, especially somebody who has had the blessing and tremendous opportunity of being born in this country, could be called an an intellectual if he does not realize (or "realise", as he might prefer) that America has always been the hope of the Earth and the Nation most dedicated to liberty for each time period it has been in. It is true that by modern definitions, this country has not always been "free", but by the definition of liberty and freedom in each respective time period, this country has always been at the forefront. It was not an issue that "only" white men could vote or become citizens in the early days, for even the idea that a people can govern themselves and rights to influence and obtain political power were not only restricted to a wealthy elite was truly revolutionary. This country has consistently been adapting to the ever-expanding definition of what truly makes man free. Also, If America were not so exceptional, why would we have had a massive influx of immigrants from every single part of the globe? Is this just because America is just another country? This is a major issue I have with his thinking, and maybe he says that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism to appease a crowd of foreign students, but the attitude that Americans should be guilty for being a productive country is persaive through the upper echelons of university educators, and is in itself a dangerous threat to the maintenence of a society that is truly free.

Podcast #2

     I believe, after listening to this podcast and after reading all of the class materials, that sectionalism really grew along the border and made the civil war possible. The increasingly radicalized parts of the border who looked towards different economic systems to support themselves grew increasingly tense as the issue was forced to the forefront of national politics. There had never really been an increase in the territory of slavery before like there could have been, and the Republicans made the issue become a hot topic. Ayers notes that families and towns along the border that had once been close together and had friendly relationships now looked at each other with animosity. I find this profoundly intriguing, as they have been able to tolerate slavery for so long, but just then when states begin to secede do they have hostilities towards each other.
     My reaction to this podcast is quite interesting and mixed. When I was able to stay awake for it, it made me think how his students are even able to stand listening to him, as there are no points at which he makes a concise point. At other times, especially right before he was about to end, I was left in awe of how he was able to ramble on for so long with so many seeminlgly unconnected points and then finally tie them back together.
     I am left with a couple of questions about the Civil War, however. More specifically, how was it that the Union kept up its morale to preserve itself when times got tough? I would like to know more about the inner workings of the government at that time, which is why I am going to begin to read "Team of Rivals".