Week 7 Day 2: Manifest Destiny

Manifest Destiny: From Coast to Coast

Historical Context

America was a growing country, and the only way to satisfy the influx of people was to create more space. The only way to do that was through expansion, so naturally people looked to the inhabited but not yet claimed lands of Oregon and Texas. Oregon, at the time, was shared by Britain, while Texas was a newly independent nation, having just separated from Mexico, and the dictatorship of Santa Anna. 

Origins

"And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." - John O' Sullivan

The term Manifest Destiny was coined in John O' Sullivan's article regarding Mexican Annexation in the United States Magazine and Democratic Review. 

Meaning

Manifest Destiny was the idea that it was the nation's destiny to spread from one coast to the other. Similar to the French's idea of extending to its "natural frontiers," originally founded as a "city upon a hill," Americans used a similar reasoning for their desire to annex Oregon and Texas. Following the Second Great Awakening, they used God as a justification, claiming that it was God's wish to have America expand. Other motives for this expansion include California's gold, Oregon's fur, and the general wealth accumulated with land. With these motives, Americans used this idea of "destiny" to justify their desire to expand, as they took over more land. Some even believed that these reasons provided them the ability to even take all of Mexico and maybe even Canada. With these expansionist ideas put in place, James Polk was elected as president, as he promised to fulfill America's destiny.

American Progress by Gast is often chosen to depict the idea of Manifest Destiny because it shows Columbia, the representation of America, leading the American settlers west. 

Expansionist Trend

Even though this phrase was adopted for the first time by Sullivan, the idea that expansion is their right has been seen in other instances. 

1.  When Americans wanted Texas, Jackson used the justification that Florida was apart of American territory, and therefore, Jackson could use force to "reconquer" what was once theirs. 
2.  When the settlers wanted the Ohio River Valley, they forced Indians out during the Trail of Tears, moving further west. 

Americans constantly wanted to expand west, and as they did so, they pushed the Native Americans out further and further, rejecting their contracts, as they felt expansion was necessary for the benefit of the nation, and constantly used this "right" to do so as justification.

Week 7 Day 2: A brief military descciption of the Mexican American War

As we learned in class, the Mexican-American War was started (at least in definition) over a territory dispute in Texas. The US claimed that the border between Texas and Mexico was the Rio Grande; Mexico claimed it to be the much more northern Nueces River. As such, there was a buffer zone between the two rivers that both nations claimed to be their own. President Polk, who favored expansion, instigated the war by moving troops into the disputed area. As expected, Mexico reacted to what they thought was an invasion. On April 25, 1846, a Mexican cavalry unit attacked a group of American soldiers under the command of Zachary Taylor. Then, the Mexicans laid siege to a fort on the Rio Grande, where they were beaten back. Within three weeks, Congress declared war.

America had two main forces in the war. One was led by Zachary Taylor (who would later become president), while another slightly smaller force was led by Col. Stephen W. Kearny. Kearny's troops went westward to occupy the territory that the US sought in New Mexico and California. Most of this land was sparsely, and he had very little trouble with what population there was. Taylor's army plunged south into Mexico. He encountered more resistance, but still had little trouble, capturing Monterrey and winning the battle of Buena Vista. However, he did not really want a full scale invasion of Mexico, like Polk did.

Meanwhile, on the Mexican side, the Mexican government brought back General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, a hero from their war of independence. He talked to Polk and made a deal that said that if he went back to Mexico, he would end the war on terms beneficial to the US. However, as soon as he got back to Mexico, he broke his vow and took control of the army.

Meanwhile, Polk, disgusted with Taylor's lack of aggression, gave General Winfield Scott and army and orders to land at the port of Veracruz and attack. Scott took the port in three weeks. Then, he basically followed the route inland that Hernan Cortes had taken centuries ago to Mexico City. Just six months later, Scott's troops marched into the Mexican capital city.

Week 7 Day 1 (places for improvement on the wikis)

In class today we discussed the wiki project that we did last week. There were a few kinks that needed to be worked out, and here are some of the ones we discussed:

1. Almost as important as writing your own wiki is reading the other pages. The wikis were supposed to be a source of information for every aspect of the time period we would need to know. By focusing all of our attention on our own pages, we missed a vast majority of the necessary information, which is one reason that many felt less prepared and didn't do as well on the test.
2. The Job of Editors: According to Mr. Stewart, many groups waited until it was too late to edit. 
3. Communication vs. Confrontation: Many groups felt uncomfortable talking to the groups whose pages they were editing. For instance, if the group did not have anything up on their page, the editors didn't want to ask when they would, because they didn't want to seem condescending or confrontational. However, the ability for communication between writer and editor needs to be one where discussions can take place freely.
4. Make sure every question is answered. Many groups made their wikis to show information, but didn't always make sure that they were answering every part of each question. Apparently the part that most groups left undone was connecting their topic to larger, complex historical themes.
5. Talk to Mr. Stewart: Like your editors, Mr. Stewart won't bite (usually). If you have a problem, technical or content-based, go to him, explain it to him, and odds are, he'll try to help you out. 
6.  Make it look good. Add pictures. Add graphs. Add links to other pages, both inside and outside the project. Not only does it make your page look better, but when you go back to use the wikis to review for tests/finals/AP exams, it'll make it easier to use and understand.

Week 7 Day 1: Document Based Question

Document Based Questions

Document based questions are worth 25% of your overall exam score (1-5) and are graded on a scale of 1-9, 9 being the highest score one can get. Because of this, it is important to know exactly what the essay graders are looking for, so we can be sure to get all the points possible. 

A DBQ asks us to use provided documents to take a stance on a prompt, and use these documents as evidence. That being said, they also want to see outside knowledge incorporated into the essay, often rewarding an extra point. A nine-scored essay will also have a thesis with clear organization of body paragraphs. Try to use as many of the provided documents as possible. 

When College Board is grading an essay, they have a checklist of possible arguments or interpretations that a student could have argued. To see exactly what these possible arguments could be for a specific topic, read through the example below (click on the link), that specifically outlines document information, inferences, and potential outside knowledge. 

Example

Below is an example of a rubric College Board would use to grade our DBQ on the AP Test. Notice the requirements of each score, as well as the actual information they are looking for in response to the prompt, "Analyze the impact of big business on the economy and politics and the responses to these changes [corporations growing in size]." 

To see all the information the graders are looking for throughout the entire essay, see the rest of the example at the link: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap12_us_history_q1.pdf.

Week 5 Day 4

      In class on Thursday, we finished the movie God in America.  This time the focus was in the revival and religious conflict aspects of the Second Great Awakening.  We began learning about James Finley, who had doubts about his faith, similar to the doubts of Marin Luther.  He went to one of the revivals that characterized the Second Great Awakening with their dramatic and exciting sermons.  There he and his friends became dedicated to Christianity just as so many did during that time in american history as it became the center of culture again.
      With the new focus on Christianity came some conflict as well.  Since the Christianity that everyone in America came to love was Protestantism, the Catholics weren't too happy about this.  The Protestants were the majority at that point and had a lot of influence in other aspects of american culture, one of which being the education system.  Around 1840, Ireland suffered from a potato famine, causing many Irish to flee and emigrate to America.  This large influx of Catholics caused much unrest in the religious world as the Catholic numbers began to rival that of the Protestants.  Soon enough, there were riots and churches of Catholicism and Protestantism being burnt down.
      One major issue was found in the public school system.  The Catholics didn't like that the Protestants dictated what was being taught, as they were afraid of future generations being lost to Protestantism.  A catholic priest named John "Dagger" Hughes fought against the protestant public school system on behalf of all the Catholics.  His persistence brought a lot of awareness about the issue, even though the courts did not fix the issue or give him money to fund catholic schools.
      Once the movie ended, we were assigned a reflection which was to make an argument of how religion helped democratic reforms in American history.

Students attempting to make some history...

Check it out...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-student-protests-story.html

Wikipedia's Wiki on Writing Wikis

While looking for tips on writing wikis, to assist me on our current project, I made a quite fascinating discovery: Wikipedia, the mother of all wiki databases, has a wiki article on writing wiki articles! You can only imagine my glee at happening upon something so meta and applicable to what we are doing in class! I hoped that it would be filled with entertaining and interesting information . . . ehhh, kinda. The article is incredibly informative and descriptive regarding Wikipedia's expectations and suggestions for articles submitted into its database, giving almost an excessive amount of detailed information. For example, explaining that a subheading should go under a heading. But there are some useful writing techniques the can be taken from the article and applied to our wikis. For instance, the "Provide Context for the Reader" heading (which you can conveniently navigate to through a well organized table of contents!) makes suggestions for writing clearly so that anyone who might read the article can understand what it's trying to say. For anyone who might want to sift through this extensive resource the link is below. Go forth, and wiki informed!
Wikipedia:Writing better articles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Period 5 Discussion Question Link

Hey guys!

For the wikispaces project, the entire class has to make a page called "Final Discussion Question" where we answer the question, "Explain Jacksonian Democracy, focusing on the effects it had on American society in the mid-19th century and describe the legacies that endure in American politics as a consequence of these effects during the period."

To contribute to this part of the assignment, please log in to your Google account (so that you get credit) and go to this link to edit.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/14twQNVvwq07CZpzd_BfK3o3oXKo_SCnGuxk7B8sDKhs/edit?usp=sharing
(You will need to share it with yourself then edit so that it won't be anonymous.  Sorry if there was any confusion!)

One of us will transfer the information to the wiki before it is due :)

Thanks,
Period 5

After our Documentary on religion in the early 19th century...

You might reflect upon this article...

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/22/6826415/five-most-surprising-findings-from-pew-faith-politics-study

A Diversion: Plagiarism! Can we spot it?

In our class we have access to a lot of information from a lot of different sources.  For everyone involved the question properly addressing the issues of "citations" from our sources will constantly come up.  You might be interested in trying to test your skills at identifying plagiarism (unauthorized/undocumented use of intellectual ideas).

First dictionary definition of plagiarism...

noun

1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne.

Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft,borrowing, cribbing, passing off.

2.a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation:

“These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said,tossing them angrily on the floor.

from Dictionary.com (see I cited my source!)

And now the quiz! (takes about 5-10 minutes).

https://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/plagiarism/item1.html

Week 5, Day 4

Today (Thursday, Sept. 18th) we continued to watch the documentary that we started on Tuesday. Because of the Bill of Rights, suggested by Thomas Jefferson and other Democratic Republicans, Americans gained religious freedom. Although there were many advantages to those who had religious freedoms, some people began to rethink the religion that they been brought up practicing, and considered changing religions. Others questioned religion altogether, and considered not practicing a religion at all. One man, named James Finley, who had been raised Protestant, began to question why he should pray. He assumed that if he was going to be in the elect, God already decided that, and if he wasn't, there was nothing he could do to change God's mind.

There were some cases like James Finley when the freedom of religion was given to the people, but there were also many just the opposite. Large gatherings of people formed a "revival" where preachers would passionately preach the word of God. The masses were so awestruck by the word of the Lord and consumed by his spirit, that they would fall on their knees to pray. Finley finally decided to attend a revival, without much hope to understand why everyone there was so passionate about religion and God, but was completely overtaken by the spirit of the Lord. He became fiercely religious, to make up for all the times in his life when he had let God down, like when he stopped praying and practicing his faith. Finley also went on to become a preacher.

Also in this documentary, there was an issue in public schooling in America. Many lessons taught to the students encouraged the religion of Protestantism. Catholic parents were furious about this that they took their children out of the schools. John "Dagger" Hughes was so passionate about this issue, that he appealed to the court to get money from the state to fund exclusively Catholic schools. Although he lost, he still spread awareness about what these public schools were teaching to their students.

After the movie ended, we discussed the project on Wikispaces that is due next Thursday. Those that had not chosen partners or topics did so and the rest of us worked on the project, and decided what we wanted to accomplish on each project workday.

Immigration!

As immigration was one of the major topics from a recent documentary (Irish Catholics, 1830s) here are some modern day numbers...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/immigration-statistics-fast-facts/

Week 5, Day 2

      During class on tuesday the sixteenth, we began to watch a movie about the different sects of christianity that popped up around the 13 colonies.  These different forms of christianity were mostly protestant and included the Puritans in the New England colonies), Anglicans and some Baptists in the southern colonies, and mixed protestants in the mid-atlantic colonies.  This emergence of baptists in the south created a lot of religious tension, especially since the southern elites held most of their power because of anglicanism.  Nowadays we may not understand why there was so much tension, as we have the Bill of Rights that protects our freedom to worship as we please.  However, this was before even the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, let alone the Bill of Rights.  Fortunately, America was home to one named Thomas Jefferson.  

      Jeremiah Moore, a Baptist pastor, was similar to George Whitfield (talked about in the beginning of the video session before anything about Baptists) in the way they preached and what they believed.  They were both oppressed by Anglicans for unorthodox methods of preaching and because of their different beliefs on how to experience the holy spirit and be a true christian.  Despite Jeremiah's incarceration, he would preach through the bars of his prison to the congregation. Imprisoning minority religions for simply being different angered Thomas Jefferson and he supported Moore's petition to end state-supported religion, the system that was being used where states would only tolerate one religion.  It was because of these feuds that prompted the first congress to propose a Bill of Rights, which is where we left off in the movie. 

Norton I: Emperor of the United States

      Since America's birth, there have been 44 presidents (well, technically 43).  However, this number doesn't count for America's one and only dictator:  Joshua A. Norton, or Emperor Norton I.  Norton, a once successful businessman driven to bankruptcy, declared himself Emperor of the United States on September 17 1859.  As you may have already realized, today is September 17, making today the 155th anniversary of the beginning of his rule.  Interestingly enough, this rise to power took place right up the peninsula in San Francisco.  The emperor originally made a fortune in the real estate business, but lost it all when he became too ambitious and tried gain control of the San Francisco market during a rice shortage.  After that, he seemed to have lost his mind in addition to his money.  

      Despite this man's ridiculous claims of being emperor, the citizens of San Francisco embraced this claim, sort of like an ongoing joke.  Restaurants would let him eat for free in return for seal of approval and theaters would reserve front row seats for him.  Under the rule of Emperor Norton, a new currency was created with his his seal.  Army officers would provide uniforms for him.  Police officers would salute and civilians would bow to him when he walked past them on the streets.  He even made laws, one of which would fine anyone who called his city "Frisco."  Not only that, but he was the first to propose the construction of a bridge connecting San Francisco and Oakland.  Norton's rule was brought to an end when he died from a stroke on January 8, 1880.

      Although many believe America to be the greatest democracy in history, it was actually "ruled" by an autocrat for 20 years.

9 Things You May Not Know About "The Star-Spangled Banner"

http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-star-spangled-banner

9 Things You May Not Know About "The Star-Spangled Banner"

This article, posted 4 days ago on History.com, reveals 9 things that most people do not know about the author of "The Star-Spangled Banner", Francis Scott Key, and how our national anthem came to be. Many of these facts were recently discovered and shed a new light on our national anthem. 

1. Francis Scott Key intended his verses to be song lyrics, not poetry.

2. Key was not imprisoned on a British warship when he penned his verses.

3. The flag Key “hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming” did not fly “through the perilous fight.”

4. The song was not originally entitled “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

5. It did not become the national anthem until more than a century after it was written.

6. The national anthem has four verses.

7. Key opposed American entry into the War of 1812.

8. Key was a consummate Washington insider.

9. Key was a one-hit wonder who might have been tone deaf.

So basically, we have been singing 1 verse of a lie for 100 years (#3, #5, #6), written by a guy who was tone-deaf(#9). 

yay for 'merica!!!!!

Week 5, Day 1

9/15/14

Today in class, we enacted a simulation of the economy. A small group of the class were entrepreneurs, and the rest were regular "household" people. The regular people started with natural, human and capital resources, while the entrepreneurs started with money. The goal of the entrepreneurs was to gain more money and the goal of the people was to get as many "econos" as they could (1 econo= 1 natural, 1 human, 1 capital resource) by trading their resources into a factory. The catch was that only entrepreneurs could go to the factory to trade, and the people had to make deals with the entrepreneurs to get them to trade in their resources.

Soon into this simulation, the class came across a problem. The regular people did not have any money because they did not start with any and almost all the entrepreneurs were not willing to give the people money, or buy econos off of them for money. So, when the entrepreneurs got a fraction of the econos for trading in the resources, they had no way to sell them because the people had no money, and the other entrepreneurs did not want to buy them.

The purpose behind this simulation was to teach us about why there are economic crises and "panics." When there is not a steady flow of money in the economy, it is basically impossible to buy or sell any products.

Although this game was very frustrating at the end when no one would give me any more money, I still enjoyed it because I won....just letting everyone know!!!

Fun Fact relating to War of 1812 (and American History in General)

Enjoy!  See link below.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-star-spangled-banner-200-anniversary-20140912-story.html

Week 4 Day 3

Today we took a 75 point test on Chapters 9 through 12 from our textbook. Then we watched a documentary called "A White Man's Democracy". The main focus of this documentary is on Andrew Jackson. We got mostly through Question 7 on the worksheet.

As more economic opportunities became available to more people, everyday citizens saw the need to have more say in the government. They saw the link between economic opportunities and political power, so there was a great surge in participation in government. Jacksonian Democracy appealed to the common, everyday American.

Andrew Jackson reflected the vitality and irascibility of the common man. He was masculine, rough, rugged, and a successful military man. His rough childhood and lack of formal schooling or military training made more people relate with him, made him appear less threatening, and made him seem like an underdog. The Panic of 1819 also made people very distrustful of rich people.

However, Andrew Jackson did not appeal to everyone. His reputation for violent outbursts, his obsession with honor and revenge, and his multitude of duels alarmed people. People were actually very scared of him because of his temperament and actions.

Andrew Jackson was a contradictory man. On one hand, he held a lifelong suspicion of the rich and wealthy, but also proudly displayed his own wealth. As a believer in equality and freedom, he was one of the biggest slaveholders in Tennessee. He demanded deference, yet was unwilling to defer to the elites, who he thought had looked down on him his whole life.

Although both Democratic Republicans, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson had differing views on what a democracy should look like. In a Jeffersonian Democracy, the average man would choose leaders, but would not become representatives themselves. The leaders would be chosen from a pool of educated aristocrats. In a Jacksonian Democracy, however, the role of the electorate was to choose, as well as produce, leaders.

The Corrupt Bargain took place during the Election of 1824. The election was between Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford, and Henry Clay. Although Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes out of the four candidates, he did not win the majority, so the vote went to the House of Representatives with just the top three candidates. Out of the running, Henry Clay threw his support behind John Quincy Adams, who then won the election. In the new Adams administration, Henry Clay was named Secretary of State. Andrew Jackson was furious at this and believed a deal between Clay and Adams had taken place. There is no evidence of such a deal, but the events do point to a possible deal between the two men.

The 1828 presidential election between John Quincy Adams, running for a second term, and Andrew Jackson was a very nasty one. Supporters on both sides tried to sully their opponent's name. John Quincy Adams was accused by Jackson's supporters of corruption, pimping, and supporting special interests. Jackson, on the other hand, was called a vigilante, an unprincipled adulterer, a dueler, and a bastard son of a prostitute by the National Republicans, Adams' supporters.

Unfortunately for the National Republicans, their strategy backfired and helped Jackson's campaign instead of hurt it. By emphasizing his fiery, iconoclastic nature, they made it easier for the people to relate with Jackson and see him as one of their own.

Week 4 Day 2

Today we finished up the documentary and worksheet on the Supreme Court and took a quiz on Chapters 9-12 on Edmodo. The test on the block day will have questions on the documentary as well.

The rest of the documentary was about various court cases that enhanced and solidified the judicial branch's power and authority. In all the cases, the Supreme Court ruled that federal power wins over state powers.

Years before, the Georgia Legislature sold many acres of land for about one cent per acre. The land went to four big landholders, who then sold it to others for a much higher price. It was not known until later that all the legislators had been bribed to sell the land for cheap. People were furious and the new legislature wanted to take the land back. What made this more complicated was that the land had, at this point, been sold to people unrelated to the scam. The people who now owned the land did not want to give it back and sued, which became the Fletcher v. Peck case. The question the Supreme Court had to consider was whether or not legislature can take back land that has been sold. The Supreme Court ruled that the legislature cannot interfere in private affairs such as this. John Marshall believed that the legislature had attacked order and private property and that people had the right to acquire and keep land. The ruling stated that states cannot void contracts. Marshall wanted to protect the basic rights of property and contract, as well as individual rights.

The Second Bank of the United States had its charter renewed and was charged with creating a more uniform currency. However, the bank was actually a private enterprise run by private shareholders, and competed with local banks. The bank became very unpopular, especially when the economy got worse. The situation got so bad that Maryland decided to pass a bill that would tax the bank set up by the federal government in Maryland. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and sued Maryland. He lost in the Maryland court, but then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court knocked down the Maryland tax and stated that the bank is constitutional because of the "necessary and proper" clause. The Supreme Court did not let the tax stand because with the power to tax comes the power to destroy. This ruling clearly declared that states cannot tax the federal government and do not have the right to destroy part of the federal government.

Jefferson was furious at this and accused the Supreme Court of taking away state sovereignty. He encouraged states to assert their rights. The Supreme Court believed that the national government was founded by the people, not by the states, and that it was for the people.

During the time of the McCulloch v. Maryland case, Virginia's economy had been falling apart, making Virginians more pessimistic and paranoid. When they learned of this ruling, they worried that it would open the door to Congress eventually abolishing slavery and pushing states around. The states would be powerless to oppose this because it had been made clear in the McCulloch v. Maryland case that the federal government is supreme over the states.

The quiz is 20 questions long and has a time limit of 10 minutes. The questions are not multiple choice, so answers have to be typed in.

Week 4 Day 1

Today in class we reviewed the Era of Good Feelings slide from the War of 1812 PPT and covered the Missouri Compromise as well as the Monroe Doctrine. We then watched a documentary on the Supreme Court and filled out the worksheet through question 6.

The Missouri Compromise delayed answering the question of slavery by stating that new states north of the southern Missouri border would not allow slavery. This compromise only applied to the lands acquired through the Louisiana Purchase. Maine separated from Massachusetts and also became a free state to balance the number of free states and slave states. Slavery was slowly going out of existence because with the US slowly transitioning from agrarian to manufacturing, slaves were taking away jobs from workers, and were not as efficient as machinery. The slave states were aware that the free states would only grow in number, so they were worried the free states would try to impose a constitutional amendment banning slavery.

The Monroe Doctrine (1823) stated that European nations should not be allowed to interfere or colonize in the Western Hemisphere unless they were already there. In exchange, America would stay out of European affairs. The doctrine was inspired by the Central and South American colonies' attempts to gain independence from Spain. The Europeans were fine with this because then they could focus on other matters. The Doctrine may have played an indirect part in the Scramble for Africa that would later occur.

The documentary is called "The Supreme Court: One Nation Under Law" and is about how the Supreme Court gained such enormous power and prestige. John Marshall is the main focus of the documentary. The Marbury v. Madison case began at the very end of John Adam's presidency. Federal judges are appointed for life, so Adams tried to stuff as many Federalists into those positions as possible the very last night of his presidency. Unfortunately for him, he was not able to send out all the commissions in time and so the posts remained unfilled. Jefferson and Madison, both Republicans, refused to send out the commissions and left them alone. Ten months later, however, Marbury, who had been promised a position as a federal judge, demanded that Madison give him his commission. James Madison refused and Marbury sued.

Through the Marbury v. Madison case, Marshall created the concept of judicial review and gave it to the Supreme Court. He did so by ruling in favor of Madison, Jefferson's ally, but also implicitly stating that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the laws and make sure they are constitutional. This put Jefferson in a difficult position because if he argued against judicial review, and therefore the ruling, he would have to fill the federal courts with Adam's handpicked Federalist judges, an action he was not willing to take. Marshall's strategy put Jefferson in a lose-lose situation, and so the Supreme Court became a coequal branch along with the legislative and executive branches.

The War of Assertion, and the Aftermath

      The lecture that happened on Friday covers the events that were started by the election of 1800; the world's first peaceful party power shift, and concludes with the advent of true American Independence.
       Referring to the previous statement, true American Independence would be a very confusing assertion due to the fact that independence was already claimed after 1783; even though the French, British, and American delegates concluded agreements for the Revolutionary war, many of those points were disregarded by the British and some of those offenses were even enacted by the French. The reason why the British disobeyed the treaty was in part with their desire to control the remaining American territory, and also had to do with America's trading system with the French. The french disobeyed because the Treaty of Paris wasn't upheld by the Americans and the Americans had trading with England. In short both sides wanted America to pick one side to support, which was a confrontation that America didn't like. The American side issued many acts: one such act as the Embargo act, which prohibited American goods at foreign ports. This leads to the Non-Intercourse Act meant to target the French and British specifically, and finally giving way to Macon's Bill, which at first was a fair document; one that punished the Nation which further impressed American ships, however the American side decided to trade with the French even though they had broken the rule written in Macon's Bill. Needless to say the British go berserk and targets the American Nation. Soon a group known as the War Hawks form and begin to spark the state's passion for battle with the British. Soon enough is enough and war is finally declared. With the current state of Britain and the war against Napoleon, America believes that the British would soon lose; however the Battle of Trafalgar occurs, which leaves Napoleon utterly beaten and America in the full gaze of the British army. The remnants of the Federalist party meets at the Hartford Convention to discuss options with the new situation with Britain. Soon the word leaks out that such a convention happened and the Democratic-Republicans dismiss the Federalist as traitors which changes the evolution of politics in the coming century. Luckily for America they are fighting on home territory, and the British while not out-numbered, or out-classed, remain out-matched and lose the war. A new peace agreement, Treaty of Ghent, comes to fruition truly proving America's independence, and any huge disputes in the coming century. But this leads to a new problem. The great amount of land obtained from all of the events. Whether they were to be labeled as Slave or Free states; in turn labeling which political affiliation they would be branded with. But only time will tell.

British Embassy Jokes About Burning Down the White House

     On August 24, 1814 during the War of 1812, the British captured Washington D.C., and burned down many public government buildings, including the White House. This event's 200th anniversary just passed, and as a result the British Embassy tweeted this picture with the following caption:

"Commemorating the 200th anniversary of burning the White House. Only sparklers this time!"

     As a result, many angry Americans, offended by this statement, tweeted the British Embassy mentioning things like how the Germans should drop firecrackers on a London cake in 2140, referencing the "London Blitz" in World War II where Nazi Germany strategically bombed London, and how grateful Americans were that the United States was not the only country that had diplomats with the inability to tweet. 

     Because of the strong backlash the British Embassy received for their joke, they tweeted an apology the following morning complete with a link to an article on the Huffington post written by the head of the British Embassy discussing the historical event and how both countries have put it behind them. Similar to the actual outcome of the War of 1812, the apology was met with acceptance from the American public and things returned to how they were before. 

Week 3 Day 3

The War of 1812 erupts. In 1805, Britain and France were at war amidst Napoleon's empire. At the Battle of Trafalgar, the British beat France, and France tries to employ the Continental System. Basically, both nations were trying to blockade each other, but ultimately Britain was more successful because of the size of its navy. This frustrated the USA, as they were unable to trade with either country because of the various blockades. Even more than that, the British and some of the French were hostile towards American ships, practicing the seizure of boats and impressment of sailors, as exemplified in the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair. Thomas Jefferson, as president, passes the Embargo Act in 1807, an attempt at peaceable coercion. This prevented all American trade with European nations. This badly hurt the U.S. economy, and angered many merchants and sailors, especially those that carried Federalist sentiment. The Embargo Act is repealed by Congress later on, to be replaced by the Non-Intercourse Act in 1809. This was aimed specifically at France and Great Britain. Later came Macon's Bill No. 2, which said that America would side with and trade exclusively with whatever country, Britain or France, that would agree to stop hostile naval practices against American ships. Napoleon immediately accepted these terms, even though his navy wasn't the major threat to the U.S.A. This act really angered Britain, who saw France and America as enemies.

The British then decided to ally with the Indians however they could. Indians began to unite under Tecumsuh and the Prophet, but were ultimately quashed by American forces, notably at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811. The War Hawks in America, a new congressional generation, pushed for war because they saw British as the instigator of the Indian-American problem, and wanted land in Canada that a victory over Britain promised. President Madison tried to avoid war as best he could, but once the War Hawks of the Democratic-Republicans gained the majority in Congress, war was declared on Great Britain in 1812.

At first, Britain was focused on defeating France in Europe, but once France was defeated in Russia, Great Britain sent an army to the U.S. in 1814. They burned down the capital building in Washington D.C. and began to target New York and New Orleans, the stronghold of the southern territories. Eventually, peace was announced, even though the Battle of New Orleans, an American victory, was fought 3 months after the treaty was signed. This Treaty of Ghent in 1814 brought back the status quo and peace, and the Napoleonic Wars were resolved as well.

Thus began the Era of Good Feelings, when there was only one political party in existence, as the Federalist party fell apart around 1816. The second bank of the U.S. was created, and Henry Clay developed the American system, featuring a focus transportation and infrastructure reforms. The Great Migration west began, and people saw land as money. However, the value of the land was over speculated, and prices climbed and climbed until they collapsed completely, causing the Panic of 1819 and a subsequent recession.

The Louisiana Purchase was carried out in 1803 by Jefferson, an ironic large exercise of federal power. Lewis and Clark were sent to explore these new territories, and people followed them and began to settle. Eventually, these territories and their people desired to become states, and every single time, the slavery question was raised in each potential state. The Missouri Compromise was released in 1819, stating that all territories above the southern Missouri borderline would be free of slavery, and all states below that would be slave states.

Sorry about the length, ttyl,
Addie Feldman

Week 3 Day 2

After we've cleared the basics of the Federalist program vs. the Democrat-Republican program, we can move forward in time and see how the nation stabilized itself and attempted to move forward atop its shaky new federal government. Understandably, America was swamped in debt after the Revolutionary War. Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton, appointed Secretary of the Treasury by President Washington, introduced his new policy in order to save the economy first and foremost. He planned for excise taxes, assumption of state debt, and a national bank. Not all of these concepts were new, but all caused suspicion and apprehension among Democrat-Republicans and everyday Americans alike. They were afraid of the federal government gaining too much power, and disliked the focus on commercial and industrial production instead of on the agrarian lifestyle. Despite objections, Hamilton's plan went through, and effectively so. The economy stabilized, and America accepted the debt as a manageable blessing.

Fast forward to the end of Washington's presidency, and he warns the nation not to become too entangled in foreign affairs in his farewell address. His preach of neutrality goes a long way with his successor, John Adams. He does his best to preserve the peace with France, but damn John Jay signs his treaty with Britain in 1796. These loose peace terms enrage France, causing an unofficial but costly maritime war between the U.S. and France. Thus, "damn John Jay, damn everyone who won't damn John Jay, damn everyone who won't stay up all night damning John Jay!" (if you missed class today please do yourself a favor and ask Mr. Stewart to hear this portion of the short movie we watched). Democrat-Republicans were angry with Jay for signing the treaty because they favored France and were upset when America entered into the undeclared naval war. During Jay's term, the Alien and Sedition Acts were also passed, which basically legalized Federalist censorship of the Republican press, and made it harder for foreigners to become citizens. Many questioned the constitutionality of these acts (and constitutionality in these didn't exist, if you ask me), including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who responded to these repressive measures with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. There was talk of secession from the nation by a few states, because they found that if they could nullify acts passed by the federal government, they could nullify the entire government. However, the Union held together until the 1800 election.

In this election, the first distinctive political parties were formed, being the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The election went to Thomas Jefferson instead of the other Republican, Aaron Burr, by a slim margin, after the decision of the House to elect Jefferson over his competitor. The significance of this election was in the shift of regimes from Federalist to Democratic-Republicans. The transition was peaceful, showing there could be smooth changes from party to party during elections. What's not peaceful, however, is damning John Jay.

Also sorry this is so long,
Addie Feldman

The Lecture and the Short Film

     Over the lecture that consisted of about two days of class, the material that was covered delved into the time starting from the British recognition of an American Nation, to the point in time where America clashes with debt, disorganization, and weakness, in order to remain an independent country.
     When the Treaty of Paris (1783), was signed the newly formed United States, faced a great debt which challenged the nation to find a method of reducing that said massive debt, whilst maintaining law over the people.  From this struggle to control the people the Articles of Confederation was created, which sadly resulted in a weak federal government at the mercy of the states power. Eventually the people realized how weak the AOT were and soon a "revision" was desired by the government. At this time two factions, the Anti-Federalists, and the Federalists which argued about which part of the government should receive the power, the states or the federal government respectively. This division, caused the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights to have certain attributes about them that contained both ideals of elasticity and stone construction in them. Whilst at the convention to create the Constitution, plans which helped balance power between the states were produced, The New Jersey and Virginia Plan. In addition to that, a balance with the voting rights of respective men in their respective state, 3/5 Compromise. Although these issues were dealt with relatively gracefully and swiftly, the rivalry between Hamilton's party, Federalists, and Jefferson's party, the Anti-Federalists, would continue for a number of years, until Hamilton dies. The two parties bickered about the future of America's economy, an industrial one vs an agrarian one, and bickered even more so when given the question of who controls the power. In short these discrepancies caused the laws created to be variable and appeal to both crowds. Till Jefferson's election in 1800 the parties were at each other's throats and both sides believed that the struggle would erupt into something greater. However through a careful move that leads to a precedent the power shifted from one party to the other peacefully which helped the American Nation truly grow. Which would help them in the next struggle in their second war for independence.

Violations of the First Amendment: Ferguson, Missouri

Unless you have been living in the Sahara Desert for the last month, you probably have heard about the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. On August 9, 2014, officer Darren Wilson shot Brown resulting in a large investigation still continuing today. Brown's death sparked numerous protests to follow. Thousands of people have participated in the ongoing protests and marches in Brown's name. Among the protesters, not to anyone's surprise, congregations of the media and press are swarming the streets of Ferguson.

The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights, see Chapter 10 in our textbook or any government website, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (Cornell University Law School). People of the United States essentially receive the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. Although a countless number of things can be considered unconstitutional in the Michael Brown case, limiting the media is a definite violation of our First Amendment. 

Police officials have asked several citizens and the media not to record events with cameras and phones. Is this not a direct violation to our freedom of press? A tear-gas canister was fired at an Al Jazeera America TV crew and the camera recorded officers tilting it towards the ground. Another violation is the case of Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post. Lowery, using a nearby McDonald's to charge equipment and work, was detained by police. His account reads:

"...the police [emerged], telling us that we had to leave. I pulled my phone out and began recording video. An officer with a large weapon came up to me and said, 'Stop recording.' I said, 'Officer, do I not have the right to record you?' He backed off but told me to hurry up...As I made my way toward the door, the officers gave me conflicting information. One instructed me to exit to my left. As I turned left, another officer emerged, blocking my path. 'Go another way,' he said... I said, 'Officers, let me just gather my bag.' As I did, one of them said, “Okay, let’s take him.” Multiple officers grabbed me" (Lowery, Washington Post).

The following day, Lowery was released with no explanation as to why he was arrested. Why is this a violation? Citizens have the right to document events. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison to justify what our inalienable rights are. It is crucial that we understand the full extent of our rights to prevent any limitation of our rights in the future. Knowing these valuable amendments helps check the power of our government. 

Sources: Washington Post, Cornell University Law School, USA Today, First Amendment Center

Another Constitutional Convention?

     The last time a constitutional convention was held was in 1787 when the original Constitution was drafted, for all amendments made to the Constitution since then have been adopted by congress. It took place in Philadelphia, and the Constitution it produced was ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Recently, a proposal to host another constitutional convention concerning a possible amendment about the budget has been brought up in Washington D.C. Article V of the Constitution, which concerns how changes to the Constitution ought to be made, states that amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by a national convention made up of at least two-thirds of the states.
     The request for another constitutional convention stems from the desire of several states to curb federal power in regards to the control it yields over the states when it comes to dealing with the deficit. Some conservatives have expressed concern over the constitutional convention because they fear it will be similar to the 1787 convention where the delegates scrapped the old governing document, the Articles of Confederation, and came up with something entirely new. Liberals are more motivated to pursue a constitutional convention, for they are looking to make changes to the Constitution.
     The question now becomes, is the constitutional convention a bad idea? On the one hand, unnecessary amendments are unlikely to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, the amount required by Article V for an amendment to be officially added to the Constitution once decided upon by a national convention or Congress. The government also wishes to maintain constitutional controversy for it keeps the public engaged, and decisions can often be influenced without formal amendments being passed. America now has to decide whether or not they are willing to risk having dramatic changes made to the Constitution in order to appease this issue about the budget.

Week 3 Day 1

The Revolution was successful. The minority won. America is independent. But now what? "Forming a Government" was today's main topic, which did its best to answer the question that faced America after 1776: now what? The Articles of Confederation were failing, as flaunted by Shays's Rebellion. First of all, competing ideology prevented a coherent verdict. Many players formed factions, two of the most populist and pertinent being the Federalists (headed by Alexander Hamilton) and the Anti-Federalists (because Americans name things creatively) (led by Thomas Jefferson). The founding fathers got together in 1787 for the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, and decided to scrap the AOC. After much squabbling and a number of compromises, the Constitution was finally ratified in 1788. These terms for a new government included the Great Compromise (a bicameral legislature, a combination of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans), the 3/5 Compromise (slaves counted as 3/5 of a person) and created three branches of government with a system of checks and balances.

Ok, a Constitution. Now what? People still had questions, which had to be answered, of course. They wondered where the sovereignty lay within a nation. The answer to that was with the people. And because all sovereignty flowed from the people, they gave their power to the states, which gave its power to the federal government, but both of these institutions only had power because the people had given it to them. Additionally, after the Constitution, a Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists, which was basically the first ten amendments outlining the certain rights of the people. Although people had a fear over a centralized government, and the government was unsure of how to rule a land so vast, the government held, as federalization was a necessary evil and the sheer size of America made tyranny less likely.

In the years after the Constitution was established, true political parties began to form. It started with the Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, but later derived into the Federalists vs. Democrat-Republicans. In short, the Federalists were in support of the Constitution, wanted a strong central government, liked an urban and commercial economy, and wanted to be strongly involved in foreign affairs. The Democratic-Republicans wanted a weaker central government and more state sovereignty, like a rural and agrarian nation, and wanted less of a hand in foreign affairs.

Sorry this is so long,
Addie Feldman 9/2/14

Why Does the American Government Work?

In Federalist essay number 10, James Madison is essentially arguing how the American Government can combat the destructiveness of factions in government. In the essay he talks about how a large republic is better than a 'pure democracy' in combating factions.

"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."

Madison is arguing that the larger the republic, the less likely factions will become corrupt and take over the government. For example let's say there was a government with 1000 people living in its country, and a government with 10 million people. The government with 1000 people is more likely to become unstable due to factions because of its smaller population. With a smaller population, there will be less parties/interests within its people, with less parties, the majority population could be found in the same party. The American Government is very efficient when it comes to controlling its factions, because of its large population, and diverse parties in government. If a radical faction were to spread its views on government, there is a low chance that everyone would join that party because of our diverse parties and population that can overrule those radical factions. 

In Federalist essay number 51, Madison is defending the system of checks and balances: where one branch of government can "check" the other branch so that no individual branch gains significant power and becomes corrupt. 

“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

Madison is discussing two different things here: the system of checks and balances and the social contract. He argues that the primary purpose of government is to represent the people. Through the social contract he says that the government is to control the governed, but also control themselves so that it doesn't become corrupt. In order to control itself, the system of checks and balances is implemented. The American Government has been able to 1. not become corrupt and 2. represent its people because of this system of checks and balances and the social contract. 

"Why does the American form of government work?"

Federalist Paper #10 discusses the threat of factions in a republic.  Factions are dangerous to the government because they can dominate it or come to a stale mate and have nothing get done.  Despite these fears, James Madison claims that large factions will not pose a threat if "you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."  So basically, it is virtually impossible for one faction to dominate the government because it needs to be both really big, and have each member share a unified agenda.  The bigger the faction, the more difficult it is to have everyone share the  exact same differences.  If there are varied opinions in a faction, there is no way for it force its ideas onto the minority simply because there are so many different ideas and at some point, they must contradict each other.  It is because of this idea that the majority rule in the United States has worked effectively while at the same time respecting the rights of the minority.

Madison describes the revolutionary incorporation of the system of checks and balances.  Simply put, checks and balances are powers that enable the branches of government to make sure that one of them doesn't become too powerful.  This paper also discusses a little on the topic of consent of the governed.  Madison states that “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?... In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”  Essentially, Madison tries to make known that checks and balances are used to make sure that individual branches of the government don't get too powerful.  However, if the government itself becomes to powerful, the people have the right to check the government, that is what we know as consent of the governed.  The government rules over the people, but only because the people allow it to.  In return, the government must adhere to the laws that the people put in place to keep the government honest.  These concepts of rule of law, consent of the governed and checks and balances are why the American form of government works so well.

Why the US Government works, from Federalist Papers 10 and 51

#10

In the U.S., there have always been political factions. A major concern throughout United States history is that the factions will not be able to represent and benefit the people properly. Madison says, "It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures." What Madison is saying here is that to have a proper representation of the people, the number of representatives must be properly balanced, so that they fight for their local voter's ideals, but are not too focused on it to hinder progress. He says that the Constitution has found that proper balance.

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State." Another reason Madison gives for the effectiveness of the Constitution is the fact that the United States are divided up and each State is different and has different interests. This helps to keep diversity in they country and makes it so there is no one majority that has massive power.


#51


The U.S. government is divided up into many different branches, each of which have a set set job and responsibility. What makes this government so secure is that each of these branches balance each other out. One cannot gain power over the others and control the whole government. 

"In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." Madison writes that because of these divisions of power, the people have multiple places where their rights are protected. The government's job is to protect the rights of the people, and that includes from themselves