The Mexican-American War

The justification of America's actions during the Mexican-American war are widely questioned, even today. There are many disagreements as to whether or not our motives were Constitutional, and for these arguments we can turn to Gregory Hospodor and Lee Eysturlid. Gregory Hospodor maintains that Mexico had a prior right to the territory between the two countries, while Lee Eysturlid claims that manifest destiny is enough to absolve any injustices on America's part.

In defense of Mexico's rights we have Gregory Hospodor. Hospodor's argument is perhaps the most believable of the two; through references to documents and historical events Hospodor presents a convincing argument for Mexico's claim to Texas. Though his first point is trite -- that had Mexico not lost the war they would have written the treaty differently -- later observations are more relevant. He sites the Adams-Onis Treaty, written in 1819, in which the United States relinquished any claim to Texas. The treaty was, admittedly, between America and Spain (Mexico had since gained independence from Spain), but this does not mean tat America has any right to back out on past promises. Having already declared that she had no claim on Texas, America had no right to take said land, especially not through violence. Also note that the people being harmed by America's breach of treaty were the same people associated with the treaty in the first place, only by a different name. Mexico made it clear that they did not want to part with their land; when offered money, Mexico declined. Disrespecting this, America refused peace; she took what she wanted by force, when money wasn't enough.

Lee Eysturlid's argument in defense of America is somewhat lacking in valid points, but his self-assured writing voice masks what his mind lacks. The majority of his argument assumes an agreement with Manifest Destiny, or a God-given right to expand our borders no matter what it takes. However, rather than describing why manifest destiny was right, he simply speaks of it as obvious fact, rather than questionable theory. Following this very weak but decently written point is a selection of ideas that seem more like a pile of excuses. One of his weaker points is that if deciding who the land really ought to belong to, we should be giving it back to the Native Americans who were there before any of us. However, far from proving his point, it simply brings up yet another point of injustice. Eysturlid's only remaining point with any credibility is that European nations also had their eyes on Texas, meaning that the only real choice was take Texas ourselves or risk having a European power at our borders. While this may be true enough today, it was hardly motivation at the time; it is hard to consider this point more than an observation when looking back, not an idea that existed while our ancestors looked forward.

Of the two arguments, the latter is the more convincingly written, but the first is more realistic. By naming legitimate facts and data, Hospodor offered realistic proof, while Eysturlid made confident excuses. This makes it difficult for the reader to sift through good writing and real point, meaning either argument could convince an unattentive reader. Overall, Hospodor's argument is far more valid, though neither is superior given Eysturlid's writing style.

After reading both arguments carfully, it becomes clear that America was not, in fact, justified in claiming Texas. No matter how much people of the time thought manifest destiny was ample justification, today the treaties broken and greedy violence can hardly be considered just. Mexico had every claim to Texas, but America disrespected that right for her own selfish gain.

(Mr. Kulowiec! I'm sorry this is up so late, I couldn't get internet and then I was away, while I was away I typed it but couldn't post it, and when I got back to where I had internet it wouldn't let me copy-paste onto the blog so I had to REtype it! Hope you had a great vacation =] )

Fredrick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis

It was the opinion of Fredrick Jackson Turner that all of America could be acredited to the new frontier. America itself, as a nation, began in the pursuit of a new frontier; this can be traced as far back as the very arrival to America; when the first visitors to the New World landed, our entire country was a new frontier. It was a place almost unimaginable, where everything from the location to the wildlife to the flora was unknown. America was not only the New World; it was the first frontier.



Clearly, the soon-to-be Americans could not be stopped with only a single step. They not only visited this new land; they claimed it. By disregarding Native Americans, and after a bloody battle to shake Britain off their heals, America was a claimed frontier. Americans now had success, they had drive, and they had inspiration. But more than this, they had a future; they had the next frontier.



And so, they moved West. Regardless of who was pulled up from their own homes and what the effect of the process, it was west that they went. Turner's theory states that it was at these moments that Americans were the most purely American. Set back to the state of absolute starting-over, they were forced to be completely what they were, no media or propaganda to influence them. It was through tackling the new, the undeveloped, and the uncharted that Americans were forced to resort to the very core of how they defined themselves. It was this Americanism that shaped how the communities were built and what they would become.

Critics of Turner's theory argue that there was much more to shape this country than just a pile of new land and a journey to claim it. Our nation was shaped on war, on revolution, on writing a Constitution and declaring independence. Our people were shaped by industrialization, slavery, and the goal of becoming the "City Upon a Hill," a model to the world around us. Having limited land boundries is hardly more powerful than all of this.

However, upon further thought, it is the new frontier awaiting that led to everything that has since then shaped America. A new frontier, a new land, is more than simply a pile of dirt and grass; it is potential and opportunity; it is hope. Without the inspiration of a new world to shape and build, who would have come to America? Who would have written a constitution for a land already under control? Who would have debated slavery in a land where the decision had already been made? It is the potential and opportunity of a new frontier that inspired everything that shaped America. No, it did not create our country singlehandedly, but it did create the opportunity for us to become what we are today.

The XYZ Affair and the Alien and Sedition Acts

1. The XYZ Affair increased tension between France and America dramatically. When Talleyrand refused to directly meet with the American representatives (Charles Pickney, John Marshal, and Elbridge Gerry), it was a direct insult that expressed a total lack of respect for not only the representatives, but also toward the country. However, as if this were not bad enough, the three agents he provided for them to meet with (Known now as X, Y, and Z) met Pinkney's group with contempt. They even went so far as to demand a $250,000 bribe and $12 Million loan to France before they would even begin negotiations. America refused, and many hoped the country would even go so far as to declare war. Adams, however, refused to take such drastic measures. He instead set to work building American armies. This is not to say they remained peaceful; but full-out war was not declared. It was this simple snobbish snub that led to the end of the Alliance of 1778, and this one insulting demand that would end the peaceful attitudes between France and America.

2. There was no justification in the Constitution for the Alien and Sedition Acts. While logically, the threat of foreigners can make sense as having been worrying (especially considering the tensions between France and America), the reality of the prejudice in such a decision is completely contradictary to the peace and acceptance preached in the Constitution. Rather than the liberty and justice for all implied by this beloved Constitution, these acts were simply enforcements of unfair judgements that had little provocation and were nothing more than an abuse of power. The Alien and Sedition Acts simply twisted people's rising fears of foreigners to manipulate the people who had made this country possible into having a single common enemy, whom they could feel reliant on the government to protectthem from.
Further than this, the Sedition acts directly contradicted te Bill of Righs. They directly prohibited any "free" speech that spoke against the government in any way, completely repealing the First Ammendment.

3. Kentucky and Virginia were completely justified in their responses to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Acknowledging the lies and abuses of these acts, they called on the power of individual states to protect their citizens from any abuse to their rights. The Constitution directly stated that the People had the right to freedom of speech, as well as equality, and Kentucky and Virginia simply spoke to stop the abuse of power on the part of the Adams administration.

Washington's Farewell Address

The preview has grown too large for this area. Check it out below.
Click on the thumb below to preview the document.

Click on the link below to preview the document.
Farewell address summary

Who is to blame for the Revolutionary War?

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddtpc6tc_34f6vkhdx

News During the French and Indian War

Newspaper coverage was essential to the unification of the thirteen colonies. The main focus of this intercolonial communication was, of course, the French and Indian War. Newspapers were a way for everyone to know what was going on everywhere, be it in the North or South, East or West. This knowledge of what was going on in the surrounding colonies brought a sense of community that would tie together the people that would soon create the United States of America.
Newspapers provided a common enemy, a common world, and through this, a common nation. The realization that every colony was fighting France and the Native Americans turned into a realization that every colony had some common ground. Through this the colonists were able to see a reason to work together, and eventually they were able to come together into the one nation that we now know as America.

"Join or Die" Analysis

Benjamin Franklin's famous cartoon "Join or Die" strongly displays his views on the colonies during the French and Indian war. Franklin believed that the colonies stood little chance against the French, as the French had "the very great advantage of being under one Direction, with one Council, and one Purse." Franklin declared that 13 individual and disunited colonies, even with the help of their beloved Britain, stood no chance against a powerful and united mass of French and Indians who were completely capable of coming to common agreements, working together, and following one law. Also, the distance from North America to Europe was a great danger for the colonists; with so far between the two, the French felt that they could break all treaties held by France and Britain, seeing them as canceled out by the distance.







Indeed, the distance did add a great danger for the colonists. The French were killing, siezing, and imprisoning British traders, taking their belongings, murdering and scalping farmers, and taking over whatever parts of the British colonies they desired. Franklin's cartoon depicts that disunited, the colonies were incapable of fighting back. Joined together, they could effectively battle to defend their own rights, beliefs, and even lives.

The "Join or Die" cartoon was created by Benjamin Franklin to portray to the colonies the importance of unification. Each colony was represented (Though four colonies were combined into New England, and Delaware and Georgia were completely left out for unknown reasons). At about this time there was a superstition that if a snake was cut up, then the parts put back together before sunset, the snake would come back to life. Franklin wished to portray that the same went for the colonies: if they united before the war ended, they could succeed. If they didn't unite, they would be murdered by the French. This same cartoon was later used during the American Revolution to portray the same message.

Benjamin Franklin also created another political cartoon, this one entitled Magna Britania: Her Colonies Reduc'd.

This cartoon depicts Britain as a young woman, with her limbs cut off and spread out around her. This cartoon was intended to display that if the colonies were destroyed, Britain would be, too.