Economics and trade would appear to be the biggest area impacted as trade, tax collections, and commerce generally slowed, if not stopped all together. Economic slow down would impact local, regional, and global economic forces hitting all classes of society right when the World was developing a global stage. Thus, when economics is slowed, politics tends to accelerate in some form or fashion. The law passed in South Carolina making the inoculation illegal is intriguing, as we see anti-vaxer movements today. Debate among scientist and doctors must have been quite arduous at times. Studying those 18th c. trade routes and indigenous histories, one can see the devastation wreaked upon indigenous populations in the Colonies, and also the impact of slaves discovering inoculation leading to a successful inoculation. In the field of technology, one can see the human ingenuity at play. Edward Jenner's discovery of combating small pox with a lesser variety of pox can allow for deeper thought on the potentials of not having discovered the inoculation. Jenner was able to take advantage of a revolution in science and expand upon his own temerity to lessen the suffering slightly in the 18th century. History, particularly European history, could have turned out quite different if Jenner had not lived when he did.

The benefits of using a disease to study history can allow students to see the human will to survive and conquer other invading hosts which cannot be seen and have no answer. Questions arise, so how does one go about answering... The impact of science and those unique humans with the fortitude to experiment and fail have generated tremendous resilience for human beings. The general will to survive and carry on are basic, but important benefits. Studying diseases can allow for understanding of technologies which could help with other diseases. The drawbacks seem to be more sinister, as in anti-vaxer movements. That may be unfair, but this could have a potential devastating impact because one can never know what experimental results might become favorable or rewarding. What religious dogma might dig in and prevent cures or inoculations? Being a teen in the 80's, you could witness first hand the taboo of studying anything related to HIV/AIDS, so it might not be to difficult to see how diseases throughout history have been utilized for nefarious purposes. Diseases have always been on that bifurcated path where one side sees results, and the other sees conspiracy.

Politically, the US Congress immediately passed the Postal Act of 1792 - which established a rapid dissemination of info. The Act would further support the 1st Amendment rights of speech and press. One can also see the South's first attempts to challenge the US Constitution by having abolitionist material outlawed. This would further create a divisive question over how much power the Federal government should have versus state's rights. Technology and communication would improve overall infrastructure as new routes and methods would need to be created to get the mail delivered.

Reading the passage about the changing argument of slavery in the South was interesting. Having just read Colson Whitehead's The Underground Railroad, I never really focused on how different the State's treated and interacted with their slave population. The changing excuse for slavery being a positive force is intriguing. Also, the South's direct challenge to the 1st Amendment backs up prior knowledge, but the fact states in the South were able to outlaw mail fortifies the notion of state's rights and attempts to paint a federal government structure as too powerful. That issue still resonates today quite intensely.

Technologically, the musket ball is the fruition of both gun powder originally invented by the Chinese and developing iron and steel into usable functions on the battlefield. This would enhance military strategy and create a whole new military class of officers intent on victory in a new human epoch. Being that Europeans were the first to harness firepower through guns and steel, European actors would compete for world hegemony, and regions outside of Europe proper were up for grabs. Thus, leading to European dominance/advancement through destruction, depending on how you view European influence. Economically, the musket ball is a small slice of the Industrial Revolution. As steel became the necessary component for industry, resources would be needed - iron ore, wood, rubber, etc., - to further European actors hegemony over the world. Vast networks of labor would be created, and secured under threat by this tiny object. Innovations would be made to make this round ball more accurate, deadlier, and generally more potent on the battlefield. Politically, this round bullet would make the sword mightier than the pen.

There are many discussions one could have in investigating the impact of the musket ball on armies and the way people viewed them. For general military purposes, the smooth bore and musket would instill fear into the various indigenous peoples who could not fathom the power generated by the weapon. The musket would create a new kind of soldier's discipline in maintaining lines and battlefield formations. No longer did armies necessarily need to collide with spears, pikes, and cavalry, they could now unload a series of volleys and then collide with bayonets and cavalry. This would instill a definite fear in anybody faced with a European army. That European professional army would however lead to a mistrust in the colonies and the newly formed United States of America. It would seem the power brought forth by the musket would also lead citizens in the US to question and suspect standing armies of something untoward when it came to political power. Demobilization would lead America to ask some serious questions - Can we have a volunteer army? Do we need a standing army? - questions that would ultimately not get answered until December 7, 1941 - arguably. Ultimately, the musket ball represented a new kind of warfare and killing power. People in the late 18th c. typically fell into three categories - Europeans, colonials, or indigenous populations. All three groups would come to view armies respectively as progress, tyranny, or bewildering.

The shoe would seem to indicate a dramatic shift in US political and economic systems. The shoe would promote a need for greater mass production, leading to technological advancements and innovations. Resources would need to be gathered for the shoes to be made and shipped. The shoe itself represents a vast infrastructure which would end up on the foot of a soldier fighting to keep the Union intact. Politically, its interesting to think about the shift in federal government power. The challenges in outfitting an enormous army has generally been a huge cost factor throughout history, but for the US, government oversight, hiring more employees, and holding manufacturers accountable would create a much bigger federal government leading to and exiting from the Civil War. And as we see today, the question of federal power is still contentious. Socially, the boot could represent a split between volunteer service and conscription, leading to questions about democratic values with a draft present.

Being the South lost the Civil War, that in itself sets up a continuing debate about federal power vs. state's rights. The 13th Amendment would further create animosity towards the federal government and the notion of a "reconstructed" South would create an individual state system of oppression towards blacks throughout the South in order to evade federal laws. The Jim Crow Laws - in which Congress looked the other way for the most part - would seem to be a way in which the US Congress absolved itself temporarily from having to enforce citizenship questions and abuses. With the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling which would let Congress off the hook, and provide state's with the right to determine "separate but equal." A weird twist. So while slavery would be outlawed, oppression would be justified, creating further need for coming generations to define the role of the federal government in protecting minority rights, and state governments arguing for majority rule. This divide still remains today, as the Dem. Party and Rep. Party still refer to when stumping or debating a bill. Coming out of the Civil War, the relationship between the Federal government and citizens would greatly depend on which section of the country you were born in, and whether or not you were a minority.