Friday, June 4, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Northern Perspective Leading Up To the Civil War
Prior to the Civil War, the North was in a state of total change. While the South was a slave society, the North was becoming a market society; all success was based around trade and industry. The North was changing, in new and incredible ways. This time was called the Market Revolution.
Once upon a time, people were self-reliant. The grew their own food, and only enough for their own families; they made everything themselves, and bought very little. With the Market Revolution, this would change for the North. It was a whole new era, something frightening and unknown. People stopped making everything, and started buying them in stores. Meanwhile farmers grew not only for themselves, but for market also. Food was no longer just for eating; it was for selling. Inspired by this new discovery of selling and purchasing, the North went into fast-forward; change began to spread like wildfire.
Cities grew, new modes of transportation sprang almost out of nowhere, and travel began. It was said that Americans would build a house and then move before they got the roof onto it/ There was a constant moving, a constant advancement, and a constant bustle across the North. A new world was on its way, and few could say where it would lead.
One unfortunate aspect of the advancing of the North was the inequality it created. As wealth grows, the inequality of wealth's distribution also increases. There were those who were in a position to make a huge profit of the new America around them, yes, but there were also those trapped working in factories and making barely enough money to survive. Change was growing in the North, and where it would lead everyone was completely individual.
Yet, the People seemed to become less individual with the growth. Everyone was a piece of the community; each man, woman, and child had a specific purpose. It was as though everyone were a piece of a machine, and they all rolled togother to accomplish unimaginable things. While this created an efficient society, it would also completely alter our idea of individual rights. If everyone was part of the whole, then who was truly the individual? Was benefiting the individual the same as benefiting the majority? Life as it had been known was changing, and no one really had answers; the world would go where it would go, and it was the goal of Northerners to simply not get left behind.
Everyone worked. It was no longer just men, but now also women and children, all with jobs in factories or else in shops or other small, family-owned businesses. This had an interesting effect on the definition of childhood; while children were now money, pay checks and contributions to the family, it was also a lesson in parenting; parent swere now less different from their children, and parenting began to take on new meaning. Every member of the family contributed, meaning everyone was immensly important. Families were a team.
Overall, the North before the Civil War was focused on progress. Somehow, the country would move forward, be it with the building of railroads or the building of cities, the expanding of boundries or the claiming of patents. Only one thing was truly certain: the world was changing, and northern America wanted to be the first one there.
Once upon a time, people were self-reliant. The grew their own food, and only enough for their own families; they made everything themselves, and bought very little. With the Market Revolution, this would change for the North. It was a whole new era, something frightening and unknown. People stopped making everything, and started buying them in stores. Meanwhile farmers grew not only for themselves, but for market also. Food was no longer just for eating; it was for selling. Inspired by this new discovery of selling and purchasing, the North went into fast-forward; change began to spread like wildfire.
Cities grew, new modes of transportation sprang almost out of nowhere, and travel began. It was said that Americans would build a house and then move before they got the roof onto it/ There was a constant moving, a constant advancement, and a constant bustle across the North. A new world was on its way, and few could say where it would lead.
One unfortunate aspect of the advancing of the North was the inequality it created. As wealth grows, the inequality of wealth's distribution also increases. There were those who were in a position to make a huge profit of the new America around them, yes, but there were also those trapped working in factories and making barely enough money to survive. Change was growing in the North, and where it would lead everyone was completely individual.
Yet, the People seemed to become less individual with the growth. Everyone was a piece of the community; each man, woman, and child had a specific purpose. It was as though everyone were a piece of a machine, and they all rolled togother to accomplish unimaginable things. While this created an efficient society, it would also completely alter our idea of individual rights. If everyone was part of the whole, then who was truly the individual? Was benefiting the individual the same as benefiting the majority? Life as it had been known was changing, and no one really had answers; the world would go where it would go, and it was the goal of Northerners to simply not get left behind.
Everyone worked. It was no longer just men, but now also women and children, all with jobs in factories or else in shops or other small, family-owned businesses. This had an interesting effect on the definition of childhood; while children were now money, pay checks and contributions to the family, it was also a lesson in parenting; parent swere now less different from their children, and parenting began to take on new meaning. Every member of the family contributed, meaning everyone was immensly important. Families were a team.
Overall, the North before the Civil War was focused on progress. Somehow, the country would move forward, be it with the building of railroads or the building of cities, the expanding of boundries or the claiming of patents. Only one thing was truly certain: the world was changing, and northern America wanted to be the first one there.
Southern Pre-Civil War Defense of Slavery
The South before the Civil War had many defenses for slavery, each with its own tactic and approach to the issue. There were moral explainations, religious references, and legal sources. However, of all that was written and said in the defense of slavery, the following are the key points:
The first major point was that everything in the world relies on balance and contrast; structure and tradition is necessary to balance out new ideas. While those using this argument generally acknowledged that slavery wasn't exactly pleasant for the slaves, they said it was necessary in order to balance out freedom. While this argument is not entirely correct, its point is not untrue; contrast is necessary for comprehension. If we did not know evil, then good would have no meaning, and if we did not know war, peace would be nothing special. The same applies to slavery and freedom; as horrible as it is to realize, slavery has had a positive effect on the world today. Because we know what slavery was, we have a deeper understanding and appreciation for the freedom we now know. Therefore, the point is, in a way, valid. On a logical basis, it can be considered a good argument. However, on a realistic level, it is not an argument that one can agree with. Balance is necessary, yes, but not at the cost of another's liberty.
Perhaps the best argument cited history. All across history, success began with slavery. Leading cities were built by slave, leading minds owned slaves; it was through the labor of slaves that the great thinkers had time to do their thinking and the great leaders had time to do their leading. Arguers for this point said that whatever your view on slavery itself, it had always proven to be an "engine of good," so to speak. Without slaves to do the manual work, there would be no one free to plan success, meaning that slavery was simply the path to success. Citation of historical cities and events to prove this argument made it particularly convincing, so much so that it is hard to say whether any of us would have gone unconvinced by a lecture to that effect.
Another true but ineffective argument stated that change takes time, and that when the world is ready for said change, it will occur. The problem with this argument is that it is only inspiring; change will take time, but that does not mean it can not be reached, and if time was what it would take, then the sooner begun the sooner achieved. Without effort on the part of the people, the world would never truly be ready, and so the People did what it took to make the world ready for the abolition of slavery. It could be said that this is the least effective argument, as it only hurries the actions to be taken; the longer something will take, the better to start early.
One very effective argument -- though not necessarily very true -- involved the citation of biblical quotes. Scattered all throughout the bible are verses demanding the obedience of slaves, or else descriptions of circumstances in which slaves were involved. Defenders of slaver would often choose the quote most likely to suit their cause, and as religion is so heart-felt yet confusing, it was effective in causing a double-take, at the very least. However, to combat these arguments were biblical quotes found that could be used against slavery; the Bible is so detailed and in-depth that a quote can be found for almost any side of almost any argument; without the full context, there is nothing to tell listeners what one phrase is intended to mean. This made it a good argument if only slavery enthusiasts were speaking, but with the arrival of abolitionists came the arrival of a whole new batch of verses.
Biblical verses were not the only things that the South picked and chose their favorite points from; John Locke's theories were equally picked through. Taking what was in their favor and leaving the rest behind, supporters of slavery would describe "natural rights"...but with a different twist. They said that everyone is born with natural rights, but that not everyone is born with the same natural rights. Through the twisting of Locke's theories, slavery defenders were able to proclaim that the real order of the world is not so much natural equality as it is natural rank. This argument is unimpressive; however, with quotes from highly-respected scholars such as Locke mingling through it, it could easily have fooled listeners.
Perhaps the worst argument, however, was the Property argument. Those defending themselves with this argument generally acknowledged slavery as wrong; however, they said it was too late to be changed. Now that slaves were property, there was no fair way to take them away. The means may not have been good, but fixing the means may be worse. This argument is least convincing because it is so purely greedy; to declare a human being to be nothing but property, and acknowledge the treatement of said being as unfair yet go with it for one's own profit, is hardly convincing as being just. Justice should not be so reliant on wealth.
One of the more convincing arguments is the defense of slavery as a "necessary evil." These followers had a tendency to truly wish that slavery were nonexistant, but also lacked a knowledge of how to fix it. People such as Charles Jones truly and sincerely wished to perfect slavery, to question deeply their own treatement of slaves. Though they saw slavery as wrong, they also saw freeing slaves as impractical both for the slave and the owner. Was freedom really what was best for a slave at that point in time? Likely not; the world wasn't ready for such a sudden transition. As previous arguments said, change requires time. It is this honesty and acknowledgement that makes this argument the most convincing of them all; it has a true desire to fix what's wrong. It is simply accompanied by the unfortunate absence of possibilities for mending the situation.
The most insulting argument stated that negros were like big children; they needed slave owners to raise them, to teach them...to train them. This is an immensly unconvincing argument, as there were many blacks like Fredrick Douglas who were living proof of the intelligence of slaves. Sadly, the whites were so desperate for reassurance that they were right that many of them were willing to believe anything that would leave them right.
The final argument was a Utopian dream. Defenders of this argument said that slavery existed to give whates an opportunity to do good; blacks were an opportunity for slave owners to be "fair" and "just". This argument is similar to the argument of contrast, but unconvincing; we do not say that just because someone is an opportunity to do good means we shouldn't completely heal them; few would look at someone homeless or hurt and say to themselves "This man needs help. What a wonderful opportunity to do good! However, I'd better not fully cure them because if I do there will be no one left to help." This ought not to have been the case with slavery, either. When given an opportunity to do good, one should take that opportunity to the very fullest.
The first major point was that everything in the world relies on balance and contrast; structure and tradition is necessary to balance out new ideas. While those using this argument generally acknowledged that slavery wasn't exactly pleasant for the slaves, they said it was necessary in order to balance out freedom. While this argument is not entirely correct, its point is not untrue; contrast is necessary for comprehension. If we did not know evil, then good would have no meaning, and if we did not know war, peace would be nothing special. The same applies to slavery and freedom; as horrible as it is to realize, slavery has had a positive effect on the world today. Because we know what slavery was, we have a deeper understanding and appreciation for the freedom we now know. Therefore, the point is, in a way, valid. On a logical basis, it can be considered a good argument. However, on a realistic level, it is not an argument that one can agree with. Balance is necessary, yes, but not at the cost of another's liberty.
Perhaps the best argument cited history. All across history, success began with slavery. Leading cities were built by slave, leading minds owned slaves; it was through the labor of slaves that the great thinkers had time to do their thinking and the great leaders had time to do their leading. Arguers for this point said that whatever your view on slavery itself, it had always proven to be an "engine of good," so to speak. Without slaves to do the manual work, there would be no one free to plan success, meaning that slavery was simply the path to success. Citation of historical cities and events to prove this argument made it particularly convincing, so much so that it is hard to say whether any of us would have gone unconvinced by a lecture to that effect.
Another true but ineffective argument stated that change takes time, and that when the world is ready for said change, it will occur. The problem with this argument is that it is only inspiring; change will take time, but that does not mean it can not be reached, and if time was what it would take, then the sooner begun the sooner achieved. Without effort on the part of the people, the world would never truly be ready, and so the People did what it took to make the world ready for the abolition of slavery. It could be said that this is the least effective argument, as it only hurries the actions to be taken; the longer something will take, the better to start early.
One very effective argument -- though not necessarily very true -- involved the citation of biblical quotes. Scattered all throughout the bible are verses demanding the obedience of slaves, or else descriptions of circumstances in which slaves were involved. Defenders of slaver would often choose the quote most likely to suit their cause, and as religion is so heart-felt yet confusing, it was effective in causing a double-take, at the very least. However, to combat these arguments were biblical quotes found that could be used against slavery; the Bible is so detailed and in-depth that a quote can be found for almost any side of almost any argument; without the full context, there is nothing to tell listeners what one phrase is intended to mean. This made it a good argument if only slavery enthusiasts were speaking, but with the arrival of abolitionists came the arrival of a whole new batch of verses.
Biblical verses were not the only things that the South picked and chose their favorite points from; John Locke's theories were equally picked through. Taking what was in their favor and leaving the rest behind, supporters of slavery would describe "natural rights"...but with a different twist. They said that everyone is born with natural rights, but that not everyone is born with the same natural rights. Through the twisting of Locke's theories, slavery defenders were able to proclaim that the real order of the world is not so much natural equality as it is natural rank. This argument is unimpressive; however, with quotes from highly-respected scholars such as Locke mingling through it, it could easily have fooled listeners.
Perhaps the worst argument, however, was the Property argument. Those defending themselves with this argument generally acknowledged slavery as wrong; however, they said it was too late to be changed. Now that slaves were property, there was no fair way to take them away. The means may not have been good, but fixing the means may be worse. This argument is least convincing because it is so purely greedy; to declare a human being to be nothing but property, and acknowledge the treatement of said being as unfair yet go with it for one's own profit, is hardly convincing as being just. Justice should not be so reliant on wealth.
One of the more convincing arguments is the defense of slavery as a "necessary evil." These followers had a tendency to truly wish that slavery were nonexistant, but also lacked a knowledge of how to fix it. People such as Charles Jones truly and sincerely wished to perfect slavery, to question deeply their own treatement of slaves. Though they saw slavery as wrong, they also saw freeing slaves as impractical both for the slave and the owner. Was freedom really what was best for a slave at that point in time? Likely not; the world wasn't ready for such a sudden transition. As previous arguments said, change requires time. It is this honesty and acknowledgement that makes this argument the most convincing of them all; it has a true desire to fix what's wrong. It is simply accompanied by the unfortunate absence of possibilities for mending the situation.
The most insulting argument stated that negros were like big children; they needed slave owners to raise them, to teach them...to train them. This is an immensly unconvincing argument, as there were many blacks like Fredrick Douglas who were living proof of the intelligence of slaves. Sadly, the whites were so desperate for reassurance that they were right that many of them were willing to believe anything that would leave them right.
The final argument was a Utopian dream. Defenders of this argument said that slavery existed to give whates an opportunity to do good; blacks were an opportunity for slave owners to be "fair" and "just". This argument is similar to the argument of contrast, but unconvincing; we do not say that just because someone is an opportunity to do good means we shouldn't completely heal them; few would look at someone homeless or hurt and say to themselves "This man needs help. What a wonderful opportunity to do good! However, I'd better not fully cure them because if I do there will be no one left to help." This ought not to have been the case with slavery, either. When given an opportunity to do good, one should take that opportunity to the very fullest.
Fredrick Douglas vs. George Fitzhugh
Leading up to and during the civil war, one very clear disagreement was what should happen regarding slavery. On this topic there were two contrasting sides, one in favor of slavery and the other against. There were many spokespersons for each perspectives, two of whom were Fredrick Douglas and George Fitzhugh. Each posed a convincing argument, with Douglas against and Fitzhugh in favor of slavery.
Fredrick Douglas, once trapped in the unfortunate position of slave, posed a powerful argument, though its lack of educated tone took away from his apparent credibility when compared to Fitzhugh. Douglas argued that African-Americans were just as American as any other citizen; most of them had been born in the country, and this was where they belonged. There was no necessity for concern regarding what to do with the African-Americans; there was no need to do anything about them. America was their home, where they belonged, and previous interference from the whites had only led to negative effects. He begged the white man to leave African-Americans alone, to simply let them be and if it ended badly then so be it. While his meaning was inspired and convincing, his wording made the argument sound almost whiny and childish; repeating a desire for total independence seemed to demonstrate a lack of ability to handle such. No one can survive totally independent of the rest of the world, and to request that blacks be permitted to live completely seperate from whites, yet in the same location, was completely unrealistic and thus far from convincing. Spoken, this argument would have been powerful; written, however, Douglas lacked the skills required to transfer the inspired tone into the words while keeping the sense of dignity.
Fitzhugh, however, posed an immensly convincing argument, if one's mind was not made up. Fitzhugh's writing was calm and well-written, and described blacks as being benefitted by slavery. As slaves, they lacked responsibility, and therefore lacked any cause for stress. Blacks recieved food, shelter, and purpose through their enslavement, while white men were left to all the true work, specifically the handling of mental and emotional burdens. All whites asked in return was assistance on the farm, claimed Fitzhugh. Fitzhugh further stated that African-Americans lacked the intelligence or ability to handle independence; free in a white world, Fitzhugh claimed, African-Americans would be unable to make their way. They were like children, needing to be led and directed at all times. Fitzhugh's paper was written convincingly, and though today we know better, at the time of Fitzhugh's writing this argument would have been startlingly convincing.
While Douglas's point was the right one, the one we agree with today and hope will continue to be seen as correct, his wording ruined the argument. If anything, Douglas seemed to prove Fitzhugh's point that slaves were like children through his rather whiny, immature tone. Fitzhugh, however, made a better argument; word choice was excellent, phrasing was educated, and his description of slavery, had it been accurate, would have left us with a true understanding of when not having to make decisions could be the better option.
Unfortunately, Fitzhugh's argument was better. While today we are far more inclined to agree with Douglas, Fitzhugh's argument fit the time and was well written, giving an impression of superior intelligence. Perhaps if the two arguments had been written with the opposite balance of skill the end would have been more interest. While today our perspectives have changed, in their day and time Ftzhugh was turly the better writer and more experienced debater.
Fredrick Douglas, once trapped in the unfortunate position of slave, posed a powerful argument, though its lack of educated tone took away from his apparent credibility when compared to Fitzhugh. Douglas argued that African-Americans were just as American as any other citizen; most of them had been born in the country, and this was where they belonged. There was no necessity for concern regarding what to do with the African-Americans; there was no need to do anything about them. America was their home, where they belonged, and previous interference from the whites had only led to negative effects. He begged the white man to leave African-Americans alone, to simply let them be and if it ended badly then so be it. While his meaning was inspired and convincing, his wording made the argument sound almost whiny and childish; repeating a desire for total independence seemed to demonstrate a lack of ability to handle such. No one can survive totally independent of the rest of the world, and to request that blacks be permitted to live completely seperate from whites, yet in the same location, was completely unrealistic and thus far from convincing. Spoken, this argument would have been powerful; written, however, Douglas lacked the skills required to transfer the inspired tone into the words while keeping the sense of dignity.
Fitzhugh, however, posed an immensly convincing argument, if one's mind was not made up. Fitzhugh's writing was calm and well-written, and described blacks as being benefitted by slavery. As slaves, they lacked responsibility, and therefore lacked any cause for stress. Blacks recieved food, shelter, and purpose through their enslavement, while white men were left to all the true work, specifically the handling of mental and emotional burdens. All whites asked in return was assistance on the farm, claimed Fitzhugh. Fitzhugh further stated that African-Americans lacked the intelligence or ability to handle independence; free in a white world, Fitzhugh claimed, African-Americans would be unable to make their way. They were like children, needing to be led and directed at all times. Fitzhugh's paper was written convincingly, and though today we know better, at the time of Fitzhugh's writing this argument would have been startlingly convincing.
While Douglas's point was the right one, the one we agree with today and hope will continue to be seen as correct, his wording ruined the argument. If anything, Douglas seemed to prove Fitzhugh's point that slaves were like children through his rather whiny, immature tone. Fitzhugh, however, made a better argument; word choice was excellent, phrasing was educated, and his description of slavery, had it been accurate, would have left us with a true understanding of when not having to make decisions could be the better option.
Unfortunately, Fitzhugh's argument was better. While today we are far more inclined to agree with Douglas, Fitzhugh's argument fit the time and was well written, giving an impression of superior intelligence. Perhaps if the two arguments had been written with the opposite balance of skill the end would have been more interest. While today our perspectives have changed, in their day and time Ftzhugh was turly the better writer and more experienced debater.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
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 =] )
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 =] )
Thursday, April 1, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
