Image analysis

Image result for the proclamation of the german empireAnton von Werner, The Proclamation of the German Empire, 1877, Originally placed in White Hall of the Berlin City Palace moved in 1892 due to redesigning and later destroyed on February 2, 1945 in an air raid on Berlin, 14 ft. 2 in. x 24 ft.


The painting,The Proclamation of the German Empire, depicts the moment when the all the royalty of the German states publicly agreed to the German Empire. This took place after the complete Reichstag, or legislative branch, ratified the Constitution of the German Empire. Anton von Werner was at this scene and did some small sketches at the time during the short proclamation event. In 1877 Werner painted this version on request of German Princes as a present to William I of Germany for his 80th birthday/

March Quotation of the Month

I note the obvious differences
in the human family.
Some of us are serious,
some thrive on comedy.
Some declare their lives are lived
as true profundity,
and others claim they really live
the real reality.
The variety of our skin tones
can confuse, bemuse, delight,
brown and pink and beige and purple,
tan and blue and white.
I’ve sailed upon the seven seas
and stopped in every land,
I’ve seen the wonders of the world
not yet one common man.
I know ten thousand women
called Jane and Mary Jane,
but I’ve not seen any two
who really were the same.
Mirror twins are different
although their features jibe,
and lovers think quite different thoughts
while lying side by side.
We love and lose in China,
we weep on England’s moors,
and laugh and moan in Guinea,
and thrive on Spanish shores.
We seek success in Finland,
are born and die in Maine.
In minor ways we differ,
in major we’re the same.
I note the obvious differences
between each sort and type,
but we are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.
We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.
We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.

–Maya Angelou

Transcription & Source Analysis

Article 6.  The federal council shall consist of the representatives of the states of the confederation, among whom the votes shall be divided in such a manner that Prussia, including the former votes of Hanover, the electorate of Hesse, Holstein, Nassau, and Frankfort shall have 17 votes; Bavaria, 6 votes; Saxony, 4 votes. Würtemberg, 4 votes; Baden, 3 votes; Hesse, 3 votes; Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 2 votes, Saxe-Weimar, 1 vote; Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 1 vote; Oldenburg, 1 vote; Brunswick, 2 votes; Saxe-Meiningen, 1 vote; Saxe-Altenburg, 1 vote; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 1 vote; Anhalt, 1 vote; Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, 1 vote; Schwarzburg-Sondershaunsen, 1 vote; Waldeck, 1 vote; Reuss, elder branch, 1 vote; Reuss, younger branch, 1 vote; Schaumburgh-Lippe, 1 vote; Lippe, 1 vote; Lubeck, 1 vote; Bremen, 1 vote; Hamburgh, 1 vote; total 58 votes. Each member of the confederation shall appoint as many delegates to the federal council as it has votes; the total of the votes of each state shall, however, be cast by only one delegate.

Article 7. The Federal Council shall take action upon-

  1. The measures to be proposed to the diet and the resolutions passed by senate.
  2. The general provisions and regulations necessary for the execution of the laws of the empire, so far as no other provision is made by said laws.
  1. The defects which may be discovered in the execution of the laws of the empire, or of the provisions and regulations heretofore mentioned. Each member of the confederation shall have the right to introduce motions, and it shall be the duty of the presiding officer to submit them for deliberation.

Legislative action shall take place by simple majority, with the exception of the provisions in articles 5, 37 and 78. Votes not represented or instructed shall not be counted. In the case of a tie, the vote of the presiding officer shall decide.

The Constitution of 1871 was the constitution that set up the German Empire that last from 1871 to 1918 and the beginning of the Wiemar Republic. Some moves Bismarck made include, bribing the King of Bavaria with 300,000 marks a year he gained from the secreting paying that Hanover was paying for a loan they needed given in 1867. The physical writing of the Constitution of 1871 was by officials in multiple capitals including Berlin, the capital of Prussia; Munich, the capital of Bavaria; Stuttgart, the capital of Wurttemberg; Karlsruhe, the capital of Baden; Darmstadt the capital of Hesse. The Constitution of 1871 today is in printed form in the Library of the British Museum as the British copy as it was when Bavaria but not yet when Wurttemberg had accepted the constitution. The constitution transferred to the library at its conception in 1973. Since, German was the original language of my source I am using the translation, by the Germans, given on May 6, 1871 to the US ministry in Berlin. The embassy shipped the constitution to Washington D.C. to the State Department headquarters for their records. The State Department published it later that year for the public. The University of Wisconsin-Madison library now has it with a large collection of State Department publications in electronic format.


State Department. The executive documents printed by order of the House of Representatives during the second session of the forty-second Congress. 1871-’72. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1871.


February Quotation of the Month

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” -Abraham Lincoln


December Quotation of the Month

“Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph. “- Haile Selassie


“A fool thinks to himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool” – William Shakespeare


“Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.” – Jimi Hendrix

November Quotation of the Month

“We need to understand the past in order to make informed moral choices about the present, to connect our personal histories to a larger collective history. But the larger history can never be fully comprehended; the complexities and pluralities of the past always resist definitive evaluation and summary. Reconstructing the infinitely complex experiences of the past through the paltry bits of evidence about it available to historians inevitably renders some aspects of the past as incommunicable.” – George Lipsitz

20 Years of Irish American History & No Lamps Were Lit for Them

Roger Daniels and Kevin Kenny both talk about the histography of two specific minority groups, Asian and Irish respectively. Kenny discusses more about the difference of time and how the groups had the agency Miller’s Emigrants and Exiles did not give them. Kenny brings up Guinnane and Doyle both criticize Miller’s work for being too focused on the system and not the people, a removal of agency. Kenny also investigates the racial aspects of Irish migration through the research on whiteness. Kenny with the evidence from Fields decide that the question of whiteness is to presumptive to ask of academics and remove the agency of the migrants as well. Daniels focuses on the Asian-American research and makes the argument that the academic field needs more conversation on the field in general. Daniels discusses the “The Invention of Ethnicity: A Perspective from the USA,” as a prime example of how these top five immigration historians of America do not discuss Asian-American migration because they see it as an exemption and not something to discuss further. Daniels also researches the laws of the time that decided the fate of many Asian-Americans, mostly Chinese, through Selig Perlman. Daniels does consider Mary Coolidge how in the first and most anti-Asian immigration period that lasted until the 1920’s did have supporters. Daniels splitting up of the research into four different periods does show the growth of the field and how it is more dynamic better than Kenny does through the dates different works were written.

Pegler-Gordon Book Reviews

John Bukowczky’s review of In Sight of America is one of basic praise. Bukowczky discusses how the book and Pegler-Gordon, as the author, bring new insight into both the specific field of immigration but also histories on race could also use this book as Bukowczky said. Bukowczky does say that Pegler-Gordon could be giving too much order to the immigration policies of the turn of the Twentieth Century. Krystyn Moon focuses much more on what the article specifically states. Moon divides the book into three parts and explains both what Pegler-Gordon writes but also her own understanding of the text. Moon also begins and ends the article with her opinion of the article in a very formulaic approach. David Hernandez’s approach to writing a review on Pegler-Gordon’s book was to write to create an argument. Hernandez does still discuss the plot of the book as with Moon, but Hernandez does not just give a summary of the plot like parts . Hernandez give just enough plot to understand the what the book was saying while using the rest of the review to back the argument that Pegler-Gordon’s book is all about race and their stereotypes during this time. Hernandez also gives a specific reference to one example of Pegler-Gordon to make this point, that of the ‘paper son’ ploy by Chinese migrants. Hernandez, in the end of her review, does state her opinion of the book that it is exceptional for demonstrating the strain between execution of immigration policy and the policy itself which from my understanding is a peripheral argument of the book. Hernandez’s review seems to be the prime example of a book review, just enough written so the reader knows what the book is about, examples taken from the book to prove evidence for your argument for the main argument of the book, and at the end give your opinion of the said book.