You're a Jew in a Polish ghetto during the Holocaust...What would you do?

I was given this scenario in my Antisemitism seminar:

"The Jewish community is now pressed into the poor section of town which has become a ghetto. The Judenrat [Jewish council, leaders of the Jews in the ghetto] is given the responsibility of taxing the incomes of those who work in factories that have been moved into into the ghetto by German industrialists. These industrialists have assured you that 'rescue comes through work.' With rumors that the Russian army is only 125 miles away, the ethic became clear, 'work will save blood.'

One day, as a member of the Judenrat, you are called in by the SS and told that contrary to the decree that there are to be no new cases of childbirth in the ghetto, it has been reported that there are a number of pregnant women. You are told that there is hardly enough food in the Reich to feed good Germans, and that there is no food to feed Jewish 'brats.' You are reminded of an example of in a neighboring village where a whole family was shot because of violation of the decree. You are told to go home immediately and 'set your house in order' or the SS doctor will take care of the women. It is also clearly implied that reprisals will be taken against all in the ghetto.

You return to the Judenrat offices and a debate rages. You know that one of the twenty women reported pregnant had long tried to conceive without success. The choice facing you is whether to press these women to undergo abortions. Your choice is between taking the life of the 'unborn' in the hope of saving the living, or refusing to carry out the order and face SS reprisals.

a. Will you press these women to undergo abortions?

b. If yes, explain why. If no, explain why not."

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P

I was deeply saddened today to read the news of the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr. He was 82. Since the 1950s, Buckley had been at the forefront of the conservative intellectual movement. Buckley made his first splash on the American political landscape in 1951 with the publication of his highly influential book entitled God and Man at Yale. Throughout the 1950s his importance within the movement continued to grow and would become stronger after his founding of the conservative magazine, National Review. During the decades of the Cold War, Buckley was staunch anti-communist and eloquent supporter of free markets. Buckley had a profound impact on the formulation of my own political ideology. For years I have enjoyed reading the National Review, especially his columns. His brilliant insights and stinging wit will be greatly missed by many. May he rest in peace.

That other 200th birthday...Jefferson Davis

All the hoopla surrounding the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln has led some to ask how should we, as a society, remember the 200th birthday of his Confederate counterpart, Jefferson Davis (1808-1889). A recent AP story reported on the struggles encountered by the Confederate president's descendents in their attempt to comemorate his legacy. (read the story here) At the heart of this issue is the topic of memory. How do we, as a people, remember the past.? It's not just about remembering, but how people construct the meanings and symbols they apply to history. What average peole say history means is usually much different than how historians explain and assign meanings to the past. Over the past decade or so, professional historians have started to examine historical memory. The most famous example of this scholarship is David W. Blight's Race and Reunion, which examined the historical memory of the Civil War.

Ronald Reagan redux.

Over the last year the American public has witnessed all the GOP presidential candidates vie for the mantle of Ronald Reagan. As a libertarian/moderate conservative and a staunch supporter of John McCain it has been painful for me to watch the Republicans channeling the former president. However, the next Reagan is running for president and, ironically, he is a Democrat. Barak Obama is the next Ronald Reagan. What?!? Obama is nothing like Reagan!! He's a Democrat and a fairly liberal one at that. This is all true, but he is the candidate that is closest to Reagan. Let me explain. My arguments rest upon the messages that both men were preaching. No, not their platforms, but their respective messages of hope and change. Reagan was an eternal optimist who believed that America was "a city upon a hill." In his farewell address Reagan stated:"I've spoken of the shiningcity all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still. And how stands the city on this winternight? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong andtrue on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. Myfriends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all."

Somehow I could imagine a President Obama bidding the nation farewell in a similar way. Back to my argument. In 2008 it's Obama that is the eternal optimist and not Hillary Clinton (the brooding Lady Macbeth who is attempting rain on the Obama parade with childish banter and racially charged barbs) nor is it McCain (the cool and collected realist who sees the world for what it really is; a very dangerous and unforgiving place). Obama is not a rancid political hack (Clinton). He is also not a realist, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Watching Obama's campaign rallies one can see that Obama is Reagan redux. Even before he steps on stage or speaks a word the image of the "city upon a hill" is conjured up through Obama's campaign song; U2's "City of Blinding Lights." But when 2008's "great communicator" wades into his speech the similarities are unparalleled. Let's examine some portions of speeches from both men. In a recent speech delivered at Janesville, WI., Obama stated: "But how many times have you been disappointed when everyonegoes back to Washington and nothing changes? Because the lobbyists just write another check. Or because politicians start worrying about how they'll win the next election instead of why they should. Because they're focused on who's up and who's down instead of who matters - the worker who just lost his pension; the family that just put up the For Sale sign; the young woman who gets three hours of sleep a night because she works the late shift after a full day ofcollege and still can't afford her sister's medicine. These are the Americans who need real change - the kind of change that's about more than switching the party in the White House. They need a change in our politics - a leader who canend the division in Washington so we can stop talking about our challenges and start solving them; who doesn't defend lobbyists as part of the system, but sees them as part of the problem; who will carry your voices and your hopes into the White House every single day for the next four years. And that is the kind of President I want to be. " (read the speech here)

Now compare that with a portion of Reagan's First Inaugural: "The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, butthey will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed byself-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teachour children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, inshort, ``We the people,'' this breed called Americans. Well, thisadministration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy thatprovides equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotryor discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans backto work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this ``new beginning,''and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism andfair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have astrong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world." (read the complete speech here)

There are, indeed, striking similarities between the two men. (Obama has even acknowledged the significant impact Reagan had on the American political landscape, which can be seen here.) Obama's opponents, however, must be wary of this optimism and hope. Just as Reagan was derided as being mindlessly and hopelessly optimistic, Clinton and McCain are beginning to do the same. And just as it back fired against Jimmy Carter and then Walter Mondale, so to will it back fire against Obama's rivals. Hope, optimism and change can win elections. They can win big!! These sentiments combined with a gifted orator and period of "national malaise" (a term from a speech given by Jimmy Carter) will win over childish partisan politicos (Clinton) and straight-talking realists (McCain).

The president that slavery elected...maybe...maybe not.

Why was Thomas Jeffereson elected president in 1800? A better question is; who elected Jefferson president? I'm conflicted over the answer to this seemingly simple question. The argument can be and has been made, most notably by Garry Wills, that slavery was the reason Jefferson was able to capture the presidency over John Adams. In his book, Nergro President, Wills argued that Jefferson and the South were able to come to power due to the 3/5 clause (article 1, section 2, paragraph 3) of the Constitution. (a short review of Wills's book can be found here.) The "slave power," as Wills labels it, handed Jefferson a majority of votes in the Electoral College. This is true, but, as much as I don't like Jefferson, I must admit slavery was not solely responsible for his election to the presidency. Jefferson, according to John H. Aldrich, was also the choice of the people (or the choice of the white males population who were the only people that could vote). Aldrich, using voting records, was able to show that Jefferson also captured the popular vote; Jefferson had 150,778 votes to Adams's 138,685. A map of the election results can be seen here. It seems as if the will of the people and the "slave power" combined to make Jefferson president over Adams....Though one could also argue that Congress elected Jefferson, but I won't delve into that.

Hello

I created this blog to share my thoughts and experiences as a graduate student in the history program at Rutgers University. I will mostly comment and attempt to analyze and critique the works and theories that I am currently reading for my seminars. Another goal of this blog is to shed some light on what it's like being in graduate school, which sounds simple enough. I will also comment on developments and arguments in the various fields of history that interest me: the American Civil War, military history, early American history, and the history of conservatism. However, from time-to-time I will comment on subjects and issues other than historiographical ones. Since the country is in the midst of a fairly important and historic presidential campaign I will also comment on politics and other current events. I'm a libertarian/moderate conservative, but I welcome comments from all p.o.v.'s as long as they are civil and respectful.

So....I will be posting the first real entry soon.

Josh