History Final
Were the abolitionists responsible reformers or irresponsible agitators?
Abolitionists were responsible reformers, but a few were irresponsible agitators. The abolitionists were trying to eradicate slavery, because no one should be the servant of another; even though, it did upset the southern way of life. John Brown is considered an irresponsible agitator because he tried to use unnecessary violence to erase slavery completely. The abolitionists were responsible as in they approached the issue of slavery very cautiously instead of diving head first. They gave logical reasons why slavery should be abolished, but a few did murder without explaining their position first. So stereotyping all abolitionist as irresponsible agitators would not be fair to the ones who approached the issue respectfully.
Does Abraham Lincoln deserve to be called the "Great Emancipator"?
Abraham Lincoln was a good leader, nobody can deny that, but to give him the great title of Emancipator I don't think he deserves recognition of that level. Yes, Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation, which on the outside seemed like an acceptable law, because it freed slaves, but it was very limited, it only freed slaves in seceded southern states and the slaves freedom was solely based on the victory of the union. Abraham Lincoln believed that in passing the 13th amendment he was the best president, because he broke the chain of bondage for the slaves, but like Deja said, he did not see the slaves and the white men as equal. He believed that the African Americans were not made to be servants, but he did not see both black and white man equal of the same opportunities, Because their skin color was not the same. So he may have shattered the physical bondage of slaver, but the mental bondage is still within the African-American society.
Did Great Britain lose more than it gained from its victory in the French and Indian War?
Great Britain lost more over than what they gained from the French and Indian war because whatever land they received from France after the Treaty of Paris (1763) they lost almost all of it. Also, Britain suffered war debt from both the revolutionary war and the French and Indian war. Plus when Britain taxed the colonists after the french and indian war, Britain had to deal with their revolting colonists and the problems they stirred such as the loss of tea from the Boston tea party. And Finally, after the Treaty of Paris (1783) Britain lost North America and only had Canada left to claim. So in the end, the British lost more in the long run. The only thing gained from the French & Indian War was pride. The British put so much money into the war and the colonist were not prepared to pay back the money the British used in the F&I war. The British then inflicted the colonist with taxes on common goods. This caused more tension between the two and in the end the British ended up having to pay for two wars, the French & Indian War and the American Revolution.
Can legislative compromises solve moral issues?
I believe that legislative compromises are an attempt by the government to solve moral issues, but they end up failing miserably in the long run and they eventually contradict each other. As we saw with the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, these two compromises ended up contradicting each other by permitting slavery in a new territory (Kansas), but the Missouri Compromise stated 30 years before that slavery was prohibited in territories north of the southern border of Missouri. Legislative Compromises would also infuriate and create more problems to moral issues on society. We saw this when studying the multiple Fugitive Slave Acts that were passed to compromise with the South and to quiet their threats of secession. The enraged the Northerners and made the issue of slavery and run away slaves more prominent in American society because the Northerners felt that they were being forced into supporting slavery because the had to report fugitives. One good thing about legislative compromise though is that the issue is prominent enough in society, that the government is willing to spend time working out a resolution that they think will fit and fix the problem. Unfortunately, this only patched the problem and resulted into other issues.
Was the Civil War inevitable?
I believe that the Civil War was inevitable because every nation has its ups and downs. At some point in time, the issue of slavery would have raised and then the conflict would have been debated all over again. I think that if the war was postponed, it would have been harder for them to start it. The North and the South would have grown away from each other ad they both would have become more self-sufficient over time, and I think Lincoln knew that. I believe thats why he wanted to try and re-untie the South so badly because he knew it would have been harder and harder to re-unite them. I also think that if the war was postponed, the South would have been close to winning the war; They had the leadership and mentality, they just needed the ability and industries to produce the supplies. However, in the end, the United States would have faced a civil war at some time.
Would you have been a revolutionary in 1776?
I would have been a a revolutionary. Our views are shifted depending on what the views around us are. Four out of five people were patriots during 1776. Majority of the press was in favor of the colonist. Newspapers favoring the loyalist were shutdown in this period of time. For example, Paul Revere's cartoon of the Boston Massacre is showing the tinted view of the patriots. Not knowing any better I would believe this is true. Therefore, I would have been a revolutionary. I believe that if I had been born during that time, in America. Mainly because of the large divide between the two countries: I would not have been able to see the British view of things and I would have been living in a society that constantly pumped out pro-Patriot propaganda. I likely would have gotten swept up in the emotions of it all, because as a woman I wouldn't hear much of what was actually going on, I would only hear the views of those close around me, and in America those views would likely have been those of Patriots. Britain giving the colonists no representation in British Parliament also encouraged divisions that were irreversible.
Could the Constitution be written without compromise?
No, the ability to compromise is a huge part of the Constitution. The act of congress working together to build a life for the people would not be possible without compromise. The form of government was The Great Compromise between two completely different states. They took the best of each and made an even better plan than Virginia and New Jersey would have done alone. The Bill of the Rights was added later as a compromise to have states vote to ratify the Constitution. The states compromised that if 9 states approved the Constitution then it would be ratified. Therefore, the Constitution would not have been ratified or written if there was no compromise.There were many things addressed when writing the Constitution that would have different benefits for different states. the only way to reach an agreement was to compromise. The Great Compromise was combining aspects of the New Jersey plan with aspects of the Virginia plan. Togethor, with compromise, they created the bulk of our Constituion. Another example is the Bill of Rights. In order to make the anti-federalists happy, the federalists added a Bill of Rights to the Constituion, insuring that a strong central government would not threaten their rights and to get them on the federalists' side.
Is the suppression of public opinion during times of crisis ever justified?
Public Suppression is justified to an extant such as when the public is being insensitive to others.Whiskey Rebellion, when things are turning violent and people's lives are at stake than steps must be taken to ensure safety to innocent civilians. On to a more present example, the people who go to soldiers funerals and shout that God is punishing them for the gays, which is cruel on every level. Mothers and Fathers are mourning their son/daughter and they hear people shouting that they are glad they are dead. That is insensitive to the core, because no one should have to go through that especially on a family members funeral day. In this example, public suppression is justified, but society doesn't see it
Was the American Revolution a "radical" revolution?
The American Revolution was by far radical revolution that changed the lives of many. It affected more then just the British and the colonist. The colonist fought the strongest army in the world, Britain. Britain also had control in most of the world during this time. For example, Britain manipulated the East Indian company to take over the taxing tea. The colonist had tolerated this manipulation by England for over ten years now and were fed up with them. They acted out in multiple ways, both violent and nonviolent. With these actions the Americans went from having no say in the government to having complete control. Therefore, the American Revolution was a radical revolution.
Did the Articles of Confederation provide the US with an effective government?
The Articles of Confederation did not provide America with an effective form of government. They had too many flaws, and the basic concept of the Articles could not keep a country togethor and strong. A loose alliance of states would make the country weak as a whole. Also, major issues included no regulations for taxes and foreign trade. Congress could only control external issues and had to raise the money they made from states. This made it almost impossible to have a military. Protection came from the local state governments. Further, the lack of power Congress had. Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of size. Congress had not have the power to tax or regulate foreign and interstate commerce.There was no executive branch to enforce any acts passed by Congress. There was no national court system. Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote.
Did the Articles of Confederation provide the US with an effective government?
The Articles of Confederation did not provide the United States with an effective government because the alliance of states was too loose providing no structure for the states: the states could do almost anything they wanted to do (they had their own currencies and armies), acting more as independent countries than one nation. The structure of the government was that delegates would be chosen by state legislatures and, while congress had limited powers, it was supposed to declare and conduct war, regulate foreign affairs and administer relations with Indian nations. The lack of structure the states had derived from Congress's limited resources. Congress could not levy taxes, regulate congress and had to approve everything with many states's approval. Due to that, the government could not pay off the war debt and the nation was becoming bankrupt, much less being able to preform all its duties or make states cooperate as though they were a single nation (the states were fighting against one another and the government, through battles and not providing the government with begged for money, respectively).
Was it possible to have a peace of reconciliation after the Civil War?
The Civil War was not fought between the states of one country, or even two different countries, but between to entirely different civilizations. The North and the South were different politically, socially, economically, and geographically. Even today, the cultural differences are obvious. The War was fought to forcibly install Northern values into Southern life; there was no way there could be immediate reconciliation. Neither side was entirely satisfied with the outcome of the war--the South's whole culture had been flipped up-side down and the North was not content with the rights then given to African AMericans, and confused about what they really wanted now that the war was over. The assassination of Lincoln led to much confusion and mayhem in government and in America following the end of the Civil War and made it much more difficult for reconciliation when the new President, Johnson, wanted to humiliate wealthy land owners and return things to Antebellum times, and the radical republicans in control of Congress wanted full and equal rights for African Americans, included the right to vote.
Was the Civil War worth its costs?
The Civil War was well worth it's cost. African American slaves were emancipated, the social, political, and economic patterns of the South were restructured, public education became available, the road for the industrial revolution was paved, and the history of America was rewritten . The only failed part of the Civil War was reconstruction, which failed because of the lack of cooperation and immense corruption in the government and the power struggle between the president, congress, and the Court giving rights back to the states with the slaughterhouse cases and United States v. Cruikshank. The Civil War was well worth the cost of so many lives and wealth lost because of the advances that it led to. At that time, though, I don't think it was necessary. If I were to have been living the either the North or the South I think I would've been against the war, because I wouldn't really care about the South as long as they weren't affecting the North and things didn't get too violent. I would want the issue of slavery to be resolved by something other than a war.
Can the Supreme Court settle moral issues?
The Supreme Court cannot settle moral issues, because they have their own opinion about what is morally correct and everyone else in the world is allowed to have their own opinion about what is moral and immoral. The Dred Scott case was more of a moral case than a regular jury case with innocent and guilty. The judge, Roger B. Taney, ruled against the freedom of Dred Scott, but that is all based on his opinion and not fact. Even if the Supreme Court settles moral issues that is not going to hinder people worldwide from having opinions about what is morally correct. The Supreme Court is allowed to make decisions about moral issues, but they cannot force people to agree with the verdict.
Should the United States fight to preserve the right of its citizens to travel and trade overseas?
The answer to this question could depend on if you are a big bussiness person in the North or if you are a merchant in the South. People who gained money from better sales within America would not encourage trade overseas. However, if you are a farmer and you want to buy a plow that is cheaper from overseas, then you will encourage foreign trade. There reaches a point where plows from America exceed the amount of the money you make from the food you cultivate with it.
Were the colonists justified in resisting British policies after the French and Indian War?
The colonists were justified in revolting against the british. If the colonists wanted to revolt that was their choice. The british were unlawfully taxing the colonists. The stamp act, tea act and other acts was only the top of the dung heap. The colonists didn't even have representation in the english government which means not one colonists has a say in the government. NO TAXATION WITH OUT REPRESENTATION. Also the brits had no right making the colonists pay for taxes of the French Indian War. The colonists were actually the first people to fight in the war and had just as many losses as the actual country of Britain. So whats with taxes. This Boston massacre was also a problem. The british redcoats killed innocent colonists, that is no way to treat the people your protecting. Also why weren't the redcoats paying taxes, because their colonists to. Also the Proclamation of 1763 was a bunch of crap. Why give the colonists all of the land gained from the war then say they can't travel west past the Apps. Its not right. And finally the colonists had to pay 50% more in taxes more than they should have. The colonists were fed up with Britain and had every right to revolt against Britain. No one should have had to deal with the problems Britain was giving the colonist.
Should the South have been treated as a defeated nation or as rebellious states?
The confederates should have been seen as rebellious states, because they were still a part of the union, it's just that their mindset was set on being separated and they acted upon that. The confederates could not have survived on their own, because they did not have an efficient government, constitution etc., which is what every successful nation needs. Suppose two parents of a teenage girl are disciplining her and she gets annoyed and decides to run away from home. While she was away all sort of horrible events happened to her and the parents find her and bring her back, not necessarily with open arms. The parents would not say she was a defeated girl, they would say she was a rebellious teenager who received her punishment for running away. This is similar to the way the south acted, they did not agree with the northern views, so like teenagers they broke off and ran. After all of the horrible events happened during the civil war, the north tried to welcome the south back in. The point is the confederates were not separate from the union regardless of how hard they tried
Were big business leaders "captains of industry" or "robber barons"?
This question is hard to generalize because a lot of big bussinesses were corrupt or infected with greedy people. It is important to have big bussinesses and "captains of industry" to run things and keep the economy strong. These companies, however, cam very easily turn into "robber barons" and ruin the way of life for famers.
Was the American War for Independence inevitable?
Ultimately, perhaps by the mid-19th-century, British North America would have become independent in the same way Canada, Jamaica, and Australia became independent and self-governing under the British Commonwealth. Franklin thought this would happen naturally. The nature of the American Revolution though, was not inevitable.I believe American independence was inevitable, not necessarily in 1776 but within decades. The continental colonies were growing too fast and as Paine pointed out there was something ridiculous about an island ruling a continent.
Was George Washington's leadership indispensable in successfully launching the new federal government?
Yes, he established a cabinet and with his leadership they improved foreign affairs, the economy, and the army. When we were over $52 million in debt he supported Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's federalist financial plans, including a national bank, government bonds, and transferring the wealth to the north. They wanted to Promote the accumulation of capital need for commerce and industrial growth. Washington sent troops to get involved in the Whiskey Rebellion and the Battle of Fallen Timbers. In the Whiskey Rebellion he sent 15,000 troops who stopped the rebellion and nobody was killed. The convicted were treated the way stated in the constitution, they would have a fair trial. In the Battle of Fallen Timbers we won the battle and out came the Treaty of Greenville. The Treaty of Greenville was one of the many treaties created by Washington. Washington sent a member to negotiate with various Indian tribes. We gained majority of Ohio. In 1994, Washington sent John Jay to England to peacefully negotiate. British trade was crucial to the United States economy. It consisted of 90% of trade, majority of federal revenue. The treaty stated that the British give up the forts on American soil, keep restrictions on American trade ships. But, America had to repay prewar pre-war debts. Lastly, Pickney's treaty helped the relationship with Spain. It established free shipping rights on Mississippi and access to New Orleans. Northern boundary of Spanish Florida. All three treaties allowed the country to expand westward. In conclusion, Washington's leadership was indispensable because he was able to lead a group of people in specialized areas to strengthen our foreign affairs, the economy, and the army.
Are political parties good for our nation?
Yes, with multiple parties comes controversy and with controversy comes questions. Asking one another questions and discussing multiple options ensures a better system with multiple opinions. Voting upon something creates a democracy. There would be no difference between votes if their was not political parties. Therefore, to ensure a government in favor for the people there is a need for differing views which creates political parties. If everyone is allowed and encouraged to give their opinion in a matter, such as in a democracy, there will be disagreements because it is our basic human nature. If a magical world existed where everyone believed in the same things, a democracy with no political parties could exist, but there would be no need for the aspect of democracy because these magical people would not have to vote about anything. Political parties are good for this country because they keep a balance and make sure that not act is too far to one side of the political parties.
