The dress connects to the broader theme of women's independence over their own lives, ranging from rights over their own bodies, clothing choices, and activities, to gaining the right to vote and fully be a citizen. Up until the 20th- century (truly, and beyond), women were considered under the control and legal property of men. They were expected to perform domestic duties which included sewing and mending clothing by hand. The sewing machine helped women do this faster and more efficiently, but it also created an industry of impersonal labor taking women away from their families and into factories. As women entered the workforce outside the home, their fashion also changed.They ditched corsets and bustles and opted for trousers. They were also playing sports, wearing shorter dresses, and cutting their hair short. For many women, this felt like being released from slavery, which created some tension between abolitionists and women's rights reformers. Women's rights advocates, such as the International Woman Suffrage Alliance argued that giving women the legal right to vote but also legal right over their bodies would protect future generations. They wanted to make birth control and health and sanitation information legal and available to all. Influential women like Isadora Duncan believed free bodies in flowing, unrestrictive costumes, such as the ones you'd see in ancient Greek sculptures and paintings, were adopted by the Women's rights movement. This was a perfect connection to the founding ideals in the US like the statues of Justice and Liberty who can be seen wearing flowing white dresses. Justice and Freedom represented the main causes of the movement: full citizenship through the right to vote. The connection between the US's founding principles and women's suffrage was also emphasized the Declaration of Sentiments from the 1848 Seneca Falls Woman's Rights Convention. As technology and transportation improved, women were able to better organize and connect with each other, even with their sisters in Europe. But not everyone agreed Women's rights and suffrage was best. Many thought it was an attack on motherhood and the family and was simply not a right, but a privilege. Opponents like Grace Goodwin believed women were performing a greater duty by maintaining their home and family and not seeking to disrupt these institutions. However, in the late 1910s, women's tone and their tactics changed becoming more bold and direct, especially by appealing directly to President Wilson by protesting outside the White House. In March of 1913, women marched in a parade in Washington DC. There women from different backgrounds, including black women, boldly came together wearing white, academic realia or professional symbols to show these diverse women united for a cause. Unfortunately, black women were expected to march in the back of the parade, but one black woman, Ida B. Wells-Barnett refuses and joins in closer to the front showing that black women would not stand back – they wanted and deserved to have an equal role. Feeling as though they were close to a tipping point, many suffragists continued bold and direct tactics such as Alice Paul (and others) who deliberately breaking the law (blocking roads, bonfires, picketing etc). Once they were arrested they considered themselves more like political prisoners, all to draw more supporters. Finally, in 1919 Congress passes a joint resolution proposing a Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. In 1920, the amendment was ratified and officially giving women the right to vote.

Of course having students use their textbooks to gain a basic understanding of women's suffrage movement in the 20th century might be a decent secondary source with which to start. Compiling biographies of both proponents and opponents of some of the key players in the suffrage movement could help students understand the context/lens from which their ideas came. It would be interesting to find more recent newspaper or magazine coverage reflecting on the issue, especially as we're approaching the 100 year anniversary of women's suffrage. Additionally, students always (mostly!) seem to enjoy documentaries-type videos and I particularly love anything by Ken Burns. In this case, I think students would find his PBS documentary “Not For Ourselves Alone” beneficial to helping them gain an understanding (also perhaps the film “One Woman, One Vote”). And lastly, the National Women's History Museum has a nice website with virtual tours, and biographies, as well as sources from the anti-suffragist movement.

The mail connects to slavery and it's lasting social and political (state's rights) impact on life in America from the time of our Founding Fathers through the Civil War. Even though our country was founded on the idea that every person be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those ideas didn't apply slaves. The colonies had a long history of using slaves and by the time of the American Revolution, African American slavery was in many of the the British colonies, particularly in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. At the Constitutional Convention, the topic of slavery was a contentious one. Many prominent members of the Constitutional Convention were also slaveowners. While they knew owning slaves went against the high ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary era, for many, like George Washington, slavery was necessary to make their way of life possible. Upon their deaths, or the death of family members however, many slaveowners of the founding generation did provide for the freeing of their slaves. Although this was a move in the right direction, it still didn't change the fact that they owned slaves. The Constitutional Convention also saw other divisive topics and debates on which the delegates had to find compromise. Politically, our Constitution would never have been ratified if delegates couldn't find a compromise on how our government would deal with the issue of slavery within each state. One such compromise included apportioning representation in congress. Slave-owners wanted each of the 700,000 slaves to count as 3/5 of a person, although those slaves were not given a vote. Another compromise was the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves in 1807, which outlawed the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years even though, unfortunately, slaves still continued to be bought and sold during that time. Be that as it may, it seems that these compromises showed a desire of the founding generation to compromise on the issue of slavery in the hopes to end slavery for good. However, in the Southern states, new and different ideas about slavery were taking hold and slavery was anything but going away. Some thought the institution of slavery was a good thing and that slavery was mutually beneficial to both blacks and whites. For many wealthy Southerners, such as politicians, artists, and philosophers, they believed the use of slaves freed them from daily chores and tasks in order to do better, more grand things with their time. They believed giving slaves structured tasks was beneficial to them since it was believed slaves were unable to take care of and govern themselves. In the North however, not only were there anti-slavery abolitionists who were exploring slower methods to end slavery, there were also abolitionist groups who called for it's much quicker end. Many of those abolitionists were using the postal system to send almost 200,000 anti-slavery writings through the mail, such as William Lloyd Garrison's newspaper, The Liberator, denouncing slavery as a terrible evil. But the Southerners didn't like that the Northerners were using the mail to bombard them with anti-slavery literature. An interesting issue between the federal Post Office and a local postmaster arose in Charleston, SC. After he claimed there were worries about safety, the local postmaster simply refused to deliver the mail. Soon after, an angry mob stole mailbags and burned them along with images of Northern abolitionists. The Charleston postmaster then asked the US Postmaster General (who's at the federal level) to stop the abolitionist mail. Since the Constitution called for the Post Office to disseminate political information and protect political speech, the Postmaster General refused his request, but still let Southern postmasters not deliver anti-slavery materials. Soon, in an attempt to exert their states' power and rights, Southern states made it illegal to send abolitionists materials through the mail, thus violating the Constitution. With our nation not only strongly divided by slavery, many Southerners felt that the states needed stand up to the federal government in order to preserve their rights. So, the mail symbolizes how much the issue of slavery impacted the social and political lives of Americans at the time.

Although most people know slavery was a major cause of the Civil War, the issue of slavery often overshadows the role of states' rights. The way history is often taught, themes are presented as chopped up, isolated events. Textbooks and teachers (not all) don't always have the time to ensure the content is weaved throughout various units presented during the year. This module served as a nice reminder that the institution of slavery was present from America's founding up to the Civli War and beyond. It demonstrates that slavery wasn't just an issue framing the Civil War, it's so much more than that. Our Founding Fathers tried to create a government that allowed for compromise, particularly between the federal and state governments and slavery tested those limits.

The dishwasher connects to the decades-long distrusting relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States. Both countries believed their respective social and economic philosophies (namely communism versus capitalism/freedom) were superior and hoped to spread those ideas as far and wide as possible. Before entering World War II, the United States had been supporting the Allies overseas, including the Soviet Union, by sending much needed supplies such as equipment and cold-weather gear. Once America had entered the war on the side of the Allies, not only did the United States need to create supplies and such, America needed public support to get behind all the changes necessary for a country at war. It was especially important that the government drum up support for our Soviet allies because Americans saw the communist Soviet Union as being at odds with the ideals on which our country was founded – freedom both economic and social.-Being asked to support a war where we're now allied with a country with such a different philosophy was confusing for many Americans. In response, the US government produced many different types of propaganda posters meant to convince the public that this alliance, and war, was important in order to defend our freedoms as Americans. Americas ultimately did support the war and as it was eventually winding down, the United States began to experience increased tensions with Russia. As military officials were considering options for the end of the war, there were some military officials, like General George S. Patton, who were vocal that the US Army keep going though Berlin to Moscow to remove the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin from power. It was believed that Stalin, who had labor camps for political enemies and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Great Purge, was known to be just as cruel as Hitler and should not be trusted. With the US and Soviet Union already on a tense path, the plan to divide Berlin led to even more trouble between the two countries. At the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin negotiated and decided that Berlin was to be divided into four zones controlled by each leader's respective countries, and France. Additionally, leaders agreed to other items such as war reparations for Germany, the fate of Poland, and the Soviet Union's desire for a communist “sphere of influence.” Over the next few years, Americans believed the Soviets were becoming less trustworthy, such as when they did not follow through with free elections for Poland and when they eventually cut off overland traffic into the other three sections of Berlin in an attempt to push out Western forces. This latter attempt to expel Western forces was unsuccessful because for 11 months President Truman decided to deliver supplies to the Western forces by air causing Stalin to ultimately lift the blockade. According to Churchill in his famous “Iron Curtain” speech, “A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytizing tendencies.” Since the Soviet Union had continued adding to their “sphere of influence” by taking control of much of central and eastern Europe, Sec. of State George C. Marshall, in an effort to keep devastated European nations from turning to communist influence, suggested a plan that would help rebuild European economies ruined by war. For Europe, the fighting lasted almost six years and took a devastating toll on not only industries, but also civilian life. The United States saw this as an opportunity to fill the void in European economies by sending $13 billion to help rebuild infrastructure, create jobs, and raise the standard of living by creating consumer goods such as cars, refrigerators, televisions and dishwashers. Showing capitalism's ability to increase people's standard of living was one way for America to contain Soviet/communist influence in Europe. The Soviets on the other hand, saw America interfering with their affairs and “sphere.” As the relationship between the United States and Soviet Union continued to deteriorate in subsequent years, the antagonism between the two nations was on full display in 1959 during the “kitchen debate” in Moscow. During the exhibition, initially intended as a way of sharing ideas, Nixon and Khrushchev were at each other's throats about the benefits and values of their own national systems. Among the many things discussed, Nixon was attempting to stress capitalism's ability to provide a high standard of living, while Khrushchev saw America as a society that had chosen materialism over values such as communism. This antagonistic relationship would go on for about 3 more decades and in some respects still exists today.

The resources in this module helped me to remember to look at some of the sources that we don't always have time to teach or might be glossed over textbooks that could help students see things from a different perspective. In particular, the resources such as the kitchen debate and the Berlin Airlift, or taking a closer look at Churchill's speech had me to asking more questions and thinking about other sources that might help students. All too often we're told that capitalism/America's way is the best, and while I like to think we try to do the best things in America, that may not always the case. The resources in this module reminded me to strive for balanced, and perhaps unique, sources to offer differing perspectives for the students to decide for themselves.