Department of History, The University of British Columbia, Spring 2014
HISTORY 331: THE UNITED STATES, 1865-1900
Prof. Paul Krause, #1122 BUTO
Office Phone: 604.822.5168; e-mail: krause@mail.ubc.ca
Questions for the Final Written Exercise
Due: Wednesday, April 23, at noon
LATE PAPERS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED OR MARKED. PLEASE REFER TO THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS
REGARDING PERSONAL EXIGENCY, AND THE SUBMISSION OF PAPERS IN GENERAL, IN THE SYLLABUS. RECALL
THAT ALL WORK MUST BE SUBMITTED IN HARD COPY; E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS, ETC., ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
In parts one and two – both of which are mandatory – aim for tightly argued, well-written essays of no
more than 10 pages each. Each of your essays should put forward an interpretation in your own voice. While
invoking critical authorities might seem helpful, this exercise is really about how well you produce arguments of
your own. Feel free to discuss these questions with your colleagues and with me, but take care to ensure that your
final submission is your own work and conforms to UBC standards of personal and professional integrity.
I will be in my office on April 23 until noon to accept your papers. My office and mailbox will close at
that time; after 12:00 p.m. on that day, the “Kreider Wastebasket Rule” will be invoked. This means that late
papers cannot be marked.
Some parting words of advice about writing: Instead of making facile dismissals or points, look to real
people – real historical actors, groups and individuals – to make your case for you. To be sure, it should be your
case, but your argument will be much more convincing if you anchor your analysis in the lived experience of the
groups and individuals you are considering. Do not write off human striving by invoking normative analytical
terms. If you pass judgment, try to summon all of the humility and empathy that you can.
AGAIN, BE MINDFUL THAT THIS ASSIGNMENT HAS TWO PARTS, AND THAT EACH PART
MUST BE COMPLETED.
Superior essays will explore the multiple contexts of U.S. History that figure in and inform the questions.
When writing about Andrew Carnegie, for example, try to situate your answer not merely within the issues of
urban labour and business which seem, at first glance, most immediately relevant. Or, when writing about the
U.S. and various indigenous nations, try to offer an argument that seeks out the antecedents and historical
parallels and consequences which flowed into and out of this complicated relationship.
PART ONE. IN THIS PART, QUESTION #1 OR QUESTION #2 IS MANDATORY, UNLESS YOU ANSWERED
ONE OF THEM FOR THE OPTIONAL PAPER THAT WAS DUE ON THE LAST DAY OF CLASS. IF SUCH WERE THE
CASE, AND ONLY IF SUCH WERE THE CASE, THEN YOU MUST RESPOND TO QUESTION #3.
1.) The historian Richard Hofstadter, in writing about Abraham Lincoln, observed that “the competitive
society out of which the success myth and the self-made man have grown may accept the Christian virtues in
principle but can hardly observe them in practice.” Evaluate Hofstadter's comments in light of your understanding
of the life and times of Andrew Carnegie. (Hint: superior essays will take into account the agrarian insurgency,
Reconstruction, and the foreign relations of the American Republic in the late 19th Century.)
2.) In what ways can the life of Andrew Carnegie be interpreted as exemplary of the broad issues, trends,
and conflicts that characterized Gilded-Age America? In answering this, be certain to consider Carnegie’s
involvement in the Homestead Lockout of 1892 and the values and aspirations of those who opposed him there.
(Hint: superior essays will take into account the agrarian insurgency, Reconstruction, and the foreign relations of
the American Republic in the late 19th Century.)
3.) We have studied a wide range of people and issues in our effort to understand the United States in the
late 19 Century. Taking into account the multiple problems we have explored this term, and with an eye aimed at
offering your own definition, assess the evolving meaning of democracy in the United States from the 1860s into
the 1890s. Your answer should offer a series of descriptions, as well as analyses of the descriptions, and it should
engage each of the seven modules of the course.
th
PART TWO. CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
4.) With specific reference to the Sioux Nation, explain and analyze the conflict between the United
States and the indigenous peoples of Western North America in the late 19th Century. How do you assess the
significance of this conflict? Are there any parallels that you can draw between this conflict and the one that raged
between white Southerners and African-Americans in the years following the Civil War? Do you see any parallels
between the resistance offered by the Sioux and that by African-Americans?
5.) In his article on the meaning of freedom in the 19th Century, the historian Eric Foner argues that an
important result of the battles of Reconstruction was the idea that economic and political freedom occupy separate
and unrelated spheres. What does Foner mean by this, and what is the significance of his argument? Does your
understanding of U.S. History from 1865 through the 1890s support and/or contradict Foner’s interpretation?
How and where does the issue of gender and of women’s rights figure in the meanings of post-Civil War
freedom?
6.) In February, 1901, Mark Twain, looking back over the second half of the 19th Century, and
considering the course of the on-going hostilities in the Philippines, created a fictional “Person Sitting in
Darkness” who offered the following observations about the USA: “There must be two Americas: one that sets
the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive’s new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him
with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land.” Explain Twain’s remarks by way of constructing an
argument about them – one that situates his remarks in the context of the essay from which they have been lifted,
Twain’s “The War Prayer” and his “The United States of Lyncherdom,” and your own understanding of U.S.
History from the 1860s through the 1890s. In what ways do Twain’s comments apply to the history of the
Western Plains Indians and the U.S. Government in the Gilded Age?
7.) Brooklyn Bridge, built with steel that was produced in mills owned by Andrew Carnegie, was
dedicated in 1883. The ceremonies were quite spectacular: the President attended, a future President also was
there, and thousands of New Yorkers came to celebrate. The main speaker was Congressman Abram Hewitt, a
friend of Carnegie, a leader of the Democratic Party, and a very wealthy metalmaker. Hewitt declared that the
bridge signified the triumph of technology over nature and constituted a peculiarly American genius. Another
keynote speaker, the Rev. Richard Storrs, said that it was important to note that the bridge was made of steel, and
that steel is “the chiefest of modern instruments” and “the kingliest instrument of peoples for subduing the earth.”
The bridge, he went on to say, was “a durable monument to Democracy itself.” Hewitt, for his part, concluded
that the bridge in fact was “a monument to the moral qualities of the human soul.”
Interpret these remarks as you see fit, taking care to put forward an argument about, and an assessment of,
the meaning of democracy and of the moral qualities of the collective American soul in the Gilded Age. Be
certain that your response engages the issue of steelmaking and the continent-wide uses of steel.
8.) What master narrative of American History does Andrew Isenberg engage and attack in The
Destruction of the Bison, and what counter narrative does he put forward? In answering, evaluate and assess this
counter narrative, taking care to explain what it seeks to teach, as well as what it may overlook. A superior answer
inevitably will rely on its own interpretive narrative of late 19th-Century American History.