Semester II Final

Part A (1-8):

1. Before doing any research, I predict the three most highly ranked presidents in US history will be John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Abraham Lincoln, and the worst might be Richard Nixon.

2. After looking at the Presidential Historians Survey, a few names that have consistently been at the top of the list among the first four spots are Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. No two names have gone back and forth between the fourth and fifth spots because Theodore Roosevelt was ranked fourth all three times the survey was conducted (Truman was fifth in 2000 and 2009, Eisenhower was fifth in 2017).

3. Looking at the data from the survey, Dwight D. Eisenhower's ranking has increased each time the survey has been done, going from ninth in 2000 to eighth in 2009 to fifth in 2017.

The bottom three names on the list have remained constant with each survey, even as new presidents have been added to the list. From worst up the list, they are James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce.

The largest jump in ranking between surveys was Ulysses S. Grant, as he went up ten spots on the list from 33rd to 23rd between 2000 and 2009.

4. The survey participants all seem to be well educated, as the page lists their respective universities (maybe where they are professors?), and many of their professions are lawyers, journalists, authors, and historians. I believe C-SPAN has included this data to show the legitimacy of their participants' education and knowledge of history, as questions about how informed and well-educated the participants were might be asked if this was not included. I think that by knowing the legitimacy of this survey's participants, it makes the results seem more accurate or at least more credible and reliable, and might even sway an average person's opinion on the presidents on the list.

5. The ten qualities used in the methodology for which the presidents were ranked are as following:

• "Public Persuasion"
• "Crisis Leadership"
• "Economic Management"
• "Moral Authority"
• "International Relations"
• "Administrative Skills"
• "Relations with Congress"
• "Vision/Setting An Agenda"
• "Pursued Equal Justice for All"
• "Performance Within the Context of His Times"

6. C-SPAN made each of the categories have an equal weighting in the survey, and they were added up to yield a total score.

7. If I was conducting the survey and wanted to weight some categories more than others, I would have "Performance Within the Context of His Times" as the most highly weighted one because I think that it shows truly how successful each president really was, taking in all factors that might have affected his presidency. The second most highly weighted category would be "Administrative Skills" because I believe that it is extremely important for a president to be in control of his administration and be able to have their respect and admiration. The third most highly weighted category would be "Public Persuasion" because earning the trust and admiration of the public is one of the most important things for every president to do, as the people are the ones who support them and truly have the power.

8. My initial predictions were not exactly right, but also were not too far away from the actual rankings by C-SPAN. I said Abraham Lincoln would be one of the three most highly ranked presidents, and he was ranked first in all three surveys. I also said John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan might be in the top three most highly ranked presidents, but they were only 8th and 9th, respectively, in 2017. I said that Richard Nixon might be the worst ranked president on the list, but he was actually 28th in 2017. I think I based my predictions off of popularity more than success initially, but my limited knowledge about the specificity of each person's presidency was also a factor.

Part B (9-10):

9. "On March 16 we celebrate the anniversary of James Madison's birthday. Madison, traditionally viewed as the Father of the United States Constitution, is also seen by many as a defender of open government. He once wrote, "[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." In a similar vein, he asserted that "the advancement and diffusion of knowledge" is "the only Guardian of true liberty."
This is an excerpt from the Department of Justice's article entitled, "Celebrating James Madison and the Freedom of Information Act"

Paraphrase of James Madison Excerpt:
A well-liked government that does not have access to important, relevant information is bound to fail and/or be made into a mockery. People and governments who have access to the important knowledge and information will always be in power, never the people who have none. If people want to be self-empowered and rule over themselves, they have to gain the knowledge and information that is necessary because that knowledge yields power. Knowledge must be passed on over time and taught to people everywhere, because that will lead to liberty for those people.

10. " . . . [K]nowledge of our own history is essential in the making of Americans. The reasons for this belief may be summed up under four main heads. History makes loyal citizens because memories of common experiences and common aspirations are essential ingredients in patriotism. History makes intelligent voters because sound decisions about present problems must be based on knowledge of the past. History makes good neighbors because it teaches tolerance of individual differences and appreciation of varied abilities and interests. History makes stable, well-rounded individuals because it gives them a start toward understanding the pattern of society and toward enjoying the artistic and intellectual productions of the past. It gives long views, a perspective, a measure of what is permanent in a nation’s life. "
This is an excerpt from the American Historical Association's article entitled, "Chapter 2: Why Should Americans Know Their Own History?"

The two excerpts above are similar in the since that they are both discussing how important knowledge is to the people of a society. However, each excerpt contains different arguments for why this knowledge is so important. James Madison focuses on knowledge in general and says that knowledge and access to relevant information is important because it allows governments to come to and stay in power, people to become more self-governing, and people to create more liberty for themselves. The American Historical Association focuses more on knowledge of U.S. history and how that helps make people more loyal and patriotic, how it makes them better and more educated voters, how it makes them better and more tolerant members of their community and society, and how it makes them more well-rounded and appreciative of the past.
I think that Madison's excerpt is more relevant to knowledge in general and the pursuit of knowledge to gain power, while the American Historical Association's excerpt is more applicable to Americans who need help understanding why learning about the United States' past and history is so important and relevant in today's society. Both passages definitely underline the importance of the pursuit of knowledge and information, and how that learning can make someone a better person as well as help them become more powerful and self-reliant.

Part C (11-15):

11. I believe that I have become a much better researcher this year, as I have better learned how to use the sources that I find. Coming into this year, I really did not know what it meant to paraphrase something, which put me at a risk of accidentally plagiarizing someone's work. However, over the course of this year, I have learned how to properly use someone else's work, and have become much more skilled at effectively paraphrasing and summarizing, and can use either technique when the situation calls for it.
I have also become much better at keeping track of my research and using my log of sources and citations to my own benefit. At the beginning of the year, I would only have copied the link to the source for which I got my information, without any description or title, but throughout the year, I have learned how to title each source, how to hyperlink them to the website that I got the information from, and how to provide a detailed annotation of each source that describes how that specific source helped me in my research. This really helped me to become more organized in my research, and I was able to keep track of which sources I used, what information and notes I gathered from those sources, and why each source was important in my research.

12. Looking back on my film-history blog posts, I am most proud of the menu that I created for my event. I think that I was very detailed and creative for that part of the project, and spent a lot of time perfecting and giving reasoning for each item on the menu. I think that I was able to think outside of the box and come up with applicable but fun foods and drinks that fit the situation of my White House Lock-In event very well. This menu took me a lot of time, but it was also really fun to make connections and use symbolism with the food to represent the themes of my event and movie. It made me think deeply about the underlying tones that the Cuban Missile Crisis and the movie Thirteen Days really contained, and pour all of those ideas out into the foods that are seen on my menu.

13. I think that the work that Lily did on her film-history blog posts was extremely informative and engaging. I think that all five blog posts were well-done and creative, but her in-class write was my favorite. She elegantly discussed her topic and movie, comparing and contrasting the two very well. She explained that the movie was not truly about the details of the Watergate Scandal itself, but rather about President Nixon's role in the scandal, how the nation reacted to the situation, and how the American people saw Nixon during and after the scandal came out. In her writing, she showed both knowledge of her event, as well as the detailed manner in which she watched and critically observed the film. I also really like how Lily chose to spend the hypothetical 20 extra minutes of the film, because instead of just adding on to the themes that were already in the movie, she wanted to add the U.S. people's opinions and view of Nixon before the scandal happened to explain that he was actually pretty well-liked and why that was. She used her knowledge of the broader situation that was not included in the movie to make a great suggestion about a potential addition to the film.

14. “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction.” - John F. Kennedy
This quote by John F. Kennedy is inspirational to me for a few different reasons. Firstly, because I watched the film Thirteen Days and focused on the Cuban Missile Crisis for my film-history blog posts, I feel like I understand that historical event and the mindset of JFK a little bit better. I think that this quote really reflects the details of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as Kennedy and his advisors had to make bold and daring decisions in order to come up with solutions to the crisis. If they had not done this, and had simply stood by or took a "diplomatic" approach that involved doing nothing, the crisis might have ended in the disaster of nuclear war as opposed to the resolution and peace that actually occurred. I also like this quote because it speaks to the importance of taking risks and being courageous in life. I think that it talks about the importance of not letting fear and worry hold you back from being bold and taking action, because complacency will only yield more severe repercussions in the long run.

15.

This is a picture of people immigrating into the U.S. through Liberty Island. I chose this image to represent the immigration that occurred during the 19th and 20th centuries, and all the families that came to American through places like Ellis and Liberty Island. I think that immigration is an important topic for my exhibit because of all the work we did this year about how immigration has changed and evolved from its early form in the 19th century to modern immigration in today's society. 

This is a picture of President John F. Kennedy's Executive Committee (called the ExComm) during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I chose this image due to my focus on this topic in my last project, and the importance of the Cuban Missile Crisis that I learned so thoroughly about. This picture represents the stress and duress that the president and his advisors were under during the crisis, and how they had to rush to come up with possible solutions to the nuclear missiles in Cuba.

This is a picture of President Abraham Lincoln alongside some Union soldiers during the Civil War. I chose this image because I think it represents Lincoln's leadership and personal involvement in the Civil War, as well as his fight for the abolition of slavery. He was not just fighting against the Confederacy, but also the immoral ideas such as slavery and injustice, which he tried his best to resolve through acts such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

2.15 - In-Class Write

1. By watching the movie Thirteen Days, a person can gain valuable knowledge of the historical event known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. This big occurrence was actually a series of smaller events and decisions that lead up to a paramount situation in which the world was on the brink of nuclear war. By watching the film, a viewer will learn just how close the situation was from turning into a third world war, as well as get an inside view into the level of stress and intense decision-making that the president and his staff were experiencing during those two weeks in 1962. The film focuses on the United States' view of the crisis, and doesn't delve much into what the Soviet Union's experience was like, but it still informs the viewer of the communication between the two sides, the decisions made by both leaders, and why and how they came to resolve the situation.
     Many specific details are shown in the movie, as the film did a very good job about being as historically accurate as possible, but the movie also does a good job of interpreting how the major government officials would have reacted to and handled the situation. One of the major takeaways from the film is how hard of a decision it was for the president, John F. Kennedy, and his advisors to make about what course of action to take to get rid of the missiles. They are shown throughout the movie stressing and arguing over what is the best plan to remove the threat of missiles, which is backed up by historical sources that describe how the White House and Pentagon reacted to the news of the missiles. The president formed the Executive Committee of the National Security Council, known as ExComm, in order to generate solutions to the pressing issue. This group of advisors included people in the president's office, like his brother and the Attorney General Robert Kennedy and his Special Assistant Kenneth O'Donnell, but also chiefs and officers that handle military affairs. Many of the people in his office prefer a more diplomatic approach, while the military hot-heads want to take immediate action and perform and air-strike followed by an invasion. The president eventually decides on an intermediate course of action, a naval quarantine, as it takes physical action while not initiating war when there is still hope for peace. The film shows the duress and anxiety that John F. Kennedy is under while everyone is telling him what the best thing to do is, but also how well he handles the pressure and stress of the situation, and never panics or loses hope.
     Another important takeaway from the movie is the communication between Kennedy and Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev, and between the White House and the Kremlin, all leading up to how crisis is avoided. It shows the letters from Khrushchev and backwater sources like the Russian spy Alexander Feklisov, but also shows how even though there was communication between the two nations, there was still a sense of uncertainty throughout the whole encounter. Neither side knew the other's true intentions, and they were constantly second-guessing what the other side was doing and what decisions they should make. This is shown in the movie on the American side of things, as the White House scrambled to try to verify if the Russian Agent was a legitimate source sent from Khrushchev, and if he could be trusted or not with the news of the possibility of a peace deal. However, even when Khrushchev was the one directly communicating via teletype letters, there was still uncertainty in what he intended to do and how he felt about the situation, shown through a team of officials analyzing his letters and speculating as to what he meant, his tone, and all other sorts of conjectures. A viewer will be able to see and experience the stress and miscommunication during the Cuban Missile Crisis if they watch this film, and can get a better understanding of why the situation was so close to ending in disaster.

2. The film Thirteen Days was a very good representation of the real-life situation that was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but there were still a few things that are important that could not be learned from the film. This could be because of time reasons and the simple fact that the filmmakers cannot include every detail in a two hour movie, or because it could not completely capture some of the more broad aspects of the situation due to its focus on the crisis itself.
     The film did not really show the public view of John F. Kennedy, or how his handling of the crisis affected that public opinion. The movie included some hints about his reputation after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion early in his presidency through the military chiefs attitude and language towards him, but never really showed the general population's thoughts of him. Furthermore, there was nothing at the end of the movie showing how his reputation changed after the crisis was resolved. He obviously has the respect and admiration of some of his close advisors and people in his office, but the broader view of his success is not shown, even though my research says that his image was strengthened and improved both domestically and internationally because of the crisis. I think this would be an interesting addition to the film, to display how his decisions and actions during this event changed public opinion of him to the citizens, as well as other government officials, at the time.
     The other thing that the film did not show was how the Cuban Missile Crisis, its events, and its result globally affected the Cold War society. There was not much detail on what the world relations were like at the time of the crisis, and definitely not anything about how things changed after narrowly escaping nuclear war. I think the film could have shown what steps were taken by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. after the missile crisis was over, such as the installation of the teletype "Hotline" between the White House and Kremlin and the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Both sides were reflective after the crisis, and realized how devastating and destructive a nuclear war could have been and how close they really were to disaster. In this spirit of improvement, tensions between the two sides lessened a little, and small steps to peace were made. The Hotline was installed to give a direct telephone link between their nations, and hopefully prevent a lack of communication in the case of another similar situation. The sides also took the first steps in agreeing to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, as they realized that the nuclear arms race could potentially be a very destructive ordeal.

3. If the film had an additional 20 minutes, I would suggest that they add on to the end of the film in continuation of the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think they could show how the crisis truly affected the worldwide society, and not just that it was resolved and everything was over. I think this makes the resolution of the crisis even more impressive, as it shows that it not only temporarily solved disaster, but also led to decreased tensions between the nations in the years following. It not only saved the U.S. from destructive nuclear missiles and the world from a nuclear war in that moment, but also for the future as it set up the possibility for peace and safety. So, if scenes were added that showed the Hotline being installed, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty being signed, or of JFK talking about his hopes for peace between the sides (a little more than the audio part of the speech that they played over the scenes at the end), I think it would give a little more resolution to the movie and to the historical event.

2.14 - Annotated Sources

Thirteen Days (2000) Movie

America's History, 9th Edition, Chapter 24, "Cold War America, 1945-1963," Pages 755, 758, 774-776 Background information for the events surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis and other Cold War facts

History.com, "Cuban Missile Crisis" Information about the events that transpired leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, how the crisis played out, and the aftermath of the crisis in the Cold War world

Office of the Historian, "The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962" Description of how decisions were made throughout Crisis, and what went through the minds of the leaders and advisors of both nations

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, "Cuban Missile Crisis" An overview of the Cuban Missile Crisis, along with many primary sources and other great resources surrounding JFK, the crisis, and the Cold War

Washingtonpost.com, "A Thrilling 'Thirteen Days'" A movie review of Thirteen Days, describing its effectiveness and historical accuracy.

Washingtonpost.com, "'Thirteen Days': Just the Facts?" Another film review by the same writer, describing some different aspects of the movie Thirteen Days.

Entertainment Weekly, "Kevin Costner Talks About 'Thirteen Days'" An interview with a major actor in the film, Kevin Costner, in which he talks about his role in the movie as well as its effectiveness at telling the story

The Guardian, "Thirteen Days: On the Brink of Nuclear War, Hollywood Steps In" A film review discussing both the movie's entertainment aspect as well as its historical accurateness and effectiveness.

2.13 - Menu

White House Lock-In Menu

Drinks:

Coffee would be one drink served at the overnight meeting as it would be an essential beverage for the attendees to stay awake and alert throughout the night while thinking of solutions to the Crisis. Characters in the movie are seen constantly drinking cups of coffee throughout the day and night to help keep them vigilant.

Whiskey would be another drink served at the lock-in, as it would help reduce some of the stress and anxiety that would be running rampant in everyone in the meeting. Kenny O'Donnell, one of the main characters in the movie, is seen pouring and drinking a glass of whiskey to show the level of duress him and all the other government leaders are under.

Snacks:

Candy will be available as a snack at the meeting, because it is a quick way to get some sugar and energy without taking the time to eat a full meal. A bowl of candy is shown in one of the White House offices in the film, as Kenny walks by and takes some on his way to see the president. 

Appetizers:

New England Clam Chowder will be the appetizer of choice, as it was one of John F. Kennedy's favorite meals. One reason he liked this dish is because he was a Massachusetts native, born in Brookline very near Boston. It is also thought that he liked soups like this chowder so much because he wasn't a very big eater, and so small meals of this sort fancied him more than larger, more-filling dishes.

"Nuclear" Hot Wings will be another appetizer served at the lock-in, as its name represents the nuclear missiles that were being constructed in Cuba. Also, the hot and spicy aspect could represent the flaring tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during this time.  

Cheese fondue will be the final appetizer on the menu, as it was a very popular American cuisine during the 1960's. The blending and melting together of the cheeses could also represent the attempts to make peace and strike a deal at the end of the Crisis, liquifying any tension between the United States and Soviet Union.

Main Courses:

Cuban Sandwiches will be served as one of the main courses due to their namesake, Cuba, and the importance of that country in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The sandwiches are also made up of a large variety of ingredients, which could represent the many layers of events and decisions that led up to the brink of nuclear war. 

A Pig Roast will serve as the primary dish for the lock-in because of the failed military invasion of Cuba, known as the Bay of Pigs invasion. The roasted dead pig could serve as a representation of how the mission was a failure, but at the same time the delicious meal that it makes could represent how things worked out in the end and people get to enjoy the outcome (temporary world peace). Also, roasted pig is a very popular dish in Cuba, and is known as Lechon Asado. 

Deserts:

Bird's Milk Cake will be the dessert for the lock-in, as it is a traditional Russian dish known as Ptichye Moloko. A Soviet dessert could also represent the U.S.S.R. agreeing to work with the U.S. to end the Crisis by offering a "sweet" deal with good intentions.

2.12 - Exhibit

Exhibit

One of the photographs taken by a U.S. U-2 reconnaissance plane flying over Cuba, which captured the first view of the Soviet missiles being constructed, will be featured at the lock-in.

The U-2 plane that was shot down over Cuba on October 27, 1962, flown by Major Rudolf Anderson\
 Jr., will be exhibited as a major artifact for the overnight meeting.

The teletype "Hotline" that was set up between Washington D.C. and Moscow after the Cuban Missile Crisis will be brought specially to this lock-in to be previewed by all the guests.

The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Document that was signed by the U.S. and Soviet Union in 1963 after the Cuban Missile Crisis will be transported to the lock-in for an extraordinary viewing opportunity.

A rare, authentic newspaper by the New York Times with headlines about President Kennedy's decision on how to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis will be displayed at the lock-in

Document of President Kennedy's televised address to nation about situation of Cuban Missile Crisis.

The table and furniture that the President's executive committee (ExComm) used for their meetings in the White House has been found and will be brought to the lock-in for viewing.

A ship that was a part of the U.S. naval quarantine around Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis will be brought to the exhibit to be publicly shown for the first time ever.

2.11 - Invitation

My event will be a lock-in, where all guests spend 10 hours in an overnight meeting. It is a lock-in because during the Cuban Missile Crisis, government officials were pressed for time and had to work late nights and early mornings in order to save the world from nuclear disaster. The location is the White House because that is where John F. Kennedy and his advisors primarily worked from during the crisis. The date will be October 27, because that is when the Cuban Missile Crisis was at its peak intensity, and tensions were at their height. The theme of this event will be a stressful, all night adventure where the guests will be simulating the pressure of the crisis in 1962.

John F. Kennedy (Jack) - John F. Kennedy should be invited to the lock-in because he was the president of the United States at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was the one ultimately making all of the tough decisions throughout the thirteen day ordeal.

Robert Kennedy (Bobby) - Robert Kennedy should be invited because not only was he JFK's brother and one of his closest advisors, but he was also Attorney General at the time and had a crucial discussion with the Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. about making a deal to prevent nuclear war.

Kenneth O'Donnell (Kenny) - Kenneth O'Donnell should be invited because in the movie he was very close to the Kennedy brothers and advised John throughout his presidency, so he would know the dilemma they were facing better than anyone else in the world. I also think it would be interesting to hear him talk to the actor that portrays him in the movie, Kevin Costner, about how accurate the representation of his role in the crisis was.

Nikita Khrushchev - Khrushchev should be on the guest list because no deal could have happened without him, and nuclear war would have broken out, therefore changing the course of history forever. I think it would be interesting for him and Kennedy to talk together in person about the Crisis, and not have to guess each others intentions through indirect communication.

Adlai Stevenson II - Adlai Stevenson should be invited because of his role in showing the world that the Soviets were lying and were, in fact, constructing nuclear missiles in Cuba. He presented evidence at a United Nations meeting that was indisputable and undeniable, not letting Zorin and the other Soviet leaders off the hook.

Alexander Feklisov (Alexander Fomin) - Alexander Feklisov should be invited because of his crucial role as an intermediary who delivered information about a possible deal from the Soviet government to the White House. Without his message that a deal for peace was plausible, hope to avoid nuclear war seemed bleak.

Kevin Costner - Kevin Costner should be invited because he played the role of Kenny O'Donnell in the movie, the character through which the story was primarily told. I think it would be good for him to be able to have a discussion with the character he is playing about how the crisis really felt like, as well as get to meet the real John and Bobby Kennedy, two people he was close to in the film.

Roger Donaldson - Roger Donaldson should be at the event because he directed the movie and had to decide what parts of the crisis to include and not include, as well as where to stretch the situation's historical accuracy for the sake of telling the story and still making it entertaining. I think it would be good for him to get first hand accounts of what this major historical event was really like, and their opinions on his interpretation.

2.10 - Debating the War in Vietnam

American soldier and group of Vietnamese villagers

This article included a collection of six primary source excerpts, three from U.S. presidents of the time that were justifying the war in Vietnam, and three from groups that were critical of the war. The presidents believed that it was America's duty to get involved in Vietnam to help the civilians there and to prevent Communist ideas and groups from spreading and gaining traction. Groups that were opposed to the war believed that it was not the U.S.'s business to get involved, and that they were only impeding on the peace, freedom, and self-sufficiency of Vietnam, as well as getting thousands of young American men killed in a fight that was not worth their deaths.