Hours after telling you that the Obama presidency is regularly compared to the Carter administration, this is what I read :

American decline is the specter haunting our politics. This could be President Obama's undoing—or it could provide him with the opportunity to revive his presidency.

Fear of decline is an old American story. Declinism ran rampant in the late 1970s and early '80s. Stagflation, the Iranian hostage crisis, anxiety over Japan's then-commanding economy and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan all seemed to be symbols of a United States no longer in control of its destiny.

The NYTimes has an interesting review of a book on the beginning of Prohibition. How does prohibition of alcohol fit in with the rest of the 1920s ? Here's a short paragraph from the NYTimes review which I think you might find interesting since it places the 18th Amendment in the context of the conflict of cultures of the 1920s :

• "The 18th Amendment was a rarity in that it limited the rights of the individual rather than the activities of the government, thereby guaranteeing a hostile reception. As such, it holds the distinction of being the only constitutional amendment ever to be repealed. Which leads one to ask: How did this happen in the first place? Why would Americans curtail their precious right to drink?
• “Last Call,” by Daniel Okrent, provides the sobering answers. Okrent, the author of four previous books and the first public editor of The New York Times, views Prohibition as one skirmish in a larger war waged by small-town white Protestants who felt besieged by the forces of change then sweeping their nation — a theory first proposed by the historian Richard Hofstadter more than five decades ago. Though much has been written about Prohibition since then, Okrent offers a remarkably original account, showing how its proponents combined the nativist fears of many Americans with legitimate concerns about the evils of alcohol to mold a movement powerful enough to amend the United States Constitution."

Political ads

For the political ads of the 1950s and 60s : this is a link to an earlier posting on this blog.

For the podcast that might help you prepare for this week's seminar : http://dl.free.fr/iUcaFbb8c

A report on the evacuation of Saigon in April 1975 by a BBC journalist for News at Ten. It's all very stiff upper lip and restrained and yet very moving. Note the comments by viewers explaining that many Vietnamese were trying to flee the communist regime and saying that Americans should take credit for the war instead of reading it as an illegal war waged by war criminals (that's what the reference to Jane Fonda means).

Here's another video by a British reporter :

SEMINAR 7 : audio of the sermon

Dear students,

I'm sorry, it slipped my mind that I was supposed to put the sermon on the web.

My apologies for the tardiness ; the sermon is available here :

http://dl.free.fr/hVsFTzfkG

Tea Party references in American history

This is a very short summary of an interesting op-ed piece from the NYtimes.

During the Revolution and the first decades of the 18th century, the Boston Tea Party was almost universally frowned upon. But as time passed and the possibility of suing the perpetrators faded, the rebellious Patriots' act came to symbolize the American spirit of fighting for freedom and even a model of civil disobedience . All sides used the historical event to bolster their opinion : from the governor of South Carolina who threatened to seceed during the 1831 nullifcation crisis to abolitionnists openly flouting the Fugitive Slave Act and the Temperance movement activists who ransacked saloons.

John J. Miller, the author of the article, argues that today's Tea Party movement might have a better grasp on American history than most of its critics think and that they are the latest incarnation of a deep trend running through American politics. Reading the comments on the article is also full of insight on the possible bias of the author. What do you think? Is he really supporting the modern Tea Party movement by exploring how

The NYTimes is also running a series this month on the Civil War entitled Disunion. You can even join their facebook group for those of you who spend time on the social network.

There is also a good article on Southern women in the secession crisis. They are reported to have supported secession en masse, thus challenging traditional gender roles by errupting into the public sphere. Again reading the comments is quite enlightening on the diversity of the readership!

Some have argued however that the South later lost the war partly because women lost faith in the cause, were dispirited by the suffering entailed by the war and communicated this loss of morale to their male relatives.

David Blight on the Civil War

David Blight's lectures on the civil war are incredibly interesting and I would recommend listening to them. You can download them from i-tunes or from Yale's website. The transcripts are also available.

For a good summary of his research into the memory of the civil war : listen to this lecture.

Here's David Blight telling the story of two slaves that escaped from the South during the Civil War. It's a great example of the nature of historical inquiry.