American History
Were the abolitionists responsible reformers or irresponsible agitators?
Abolitionists who practiced civil disobedience,protests,and anti-slavery publications like Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Kansas Free State Newspaper were responsible reformers,while people like John Brown and his contemporaries were radical enough to be considered agitators.
Was the Civil War inevitable?
Due to the fiery tempers found in Congress and continuous tabling of the slavery issue it was inevitable. All of the evasion and whispered arguing had to come to a head someday. No one expected the head to be so large and bloody though.
Was the Civil War worth its costs?
For the day the war was worth all the money and manpower expended but if the war had occurred in the modern day it would have been five times easier to fight in a cost effective manner using less money and probably less manpower,when you factor in modern day technological advancements especially in regards to military grade weaponry.
Would you have been a revolutionary in 1776?
I would have taken issue with little to no say especially considering gender roles in 1776. Even if women had a say it would've been overruled by the final decision of Britain and Parliament. This would've quickly driven me to fighting for independence,because everyone controls their own life and the way it is lived. Yes you have parents to guide you but they cannot begin to impose rules and caveats to those once you're smart and old enough to handle yourself in the world and you are conscious of that.
Is the suppression of public opinion during times of crisis ever justified?
If the government,who is normally in charge of public crisises listened to public opinion they might find a solution to said crisis in the melee they've created by suppressing the opinions of the public.
Were the colonists justified in resisting British policies after the French and Indian War?
In some cases yes. They were unjust in resisting the Proclamation of 1763. The colonists had already encroached on a great deal of Native American territory and the natives were being mildly understanding,comprehending the need for expansion in order to achieve prosperity,something they believed in. The colonists were being foolish to believe that the natives would always remain so understanding. They asked for Pontiac's Rebellion,bringing it onto the British themselves. Their resistance to the sugar act is understandable. Why should someone pay extra taxes just because import prices on one item are lowered? That's unrealistic.
Was it possible to have a peace of reconciliation after the Civil War?
It was possible but not probable because reconciliation would have necessitated that all parties involved be far more open minded than they were for the day. The Northerners would have had to accept that the South ran on pure manpower in conjunction with agriculture and the South would have had to concede to the indisputable facts that a)most northern residents disapproved of their lifestyles and b)the north ran almost exclusively on industrialization. If both sides could have accepted these things reconciliation was definitively more probable.
Were big business leaders "captains of industry" or "robber barons"?
John Rockefeller,Cornelius Vanderbilt,and Andrew Carnegie were undoubtedly Captains of Industry. All three men worked their way up in their respective industries in order to build their corporations using fair business practices and providing people with paying jobs within their corporations. They were all great philanthropists and proponents for education building and endowing universities and libraries. They all took great pleasure in giving back twice what they had spent to benefit the American public.
Can legislative compromises solve moral issues?
Legislative compromises cannot solve moral issues. For example,not allowing Homer Plessy who was one/eighth black to sit in a white train car can be classified as a moral issue because it is spurred on by racism and the Supreme Court saying that "if separate but equal facilities are kept equal the Fourteenth Amendment hasn't been violated" does not mean the courts are in the black. They are still barring a person from sitting in a seat because his great-great grandparent was African American and African Americans as a whole were denied certain rights. In short the ruling on Plessy vs Ferguson solved all of nothing.
Does Abraham Lincoln deserve to be called the "Great Emancipator"?
Lincoln deserves the title he was awarded because of the 13th Amendment. The actual proclamation didn't do much of anything and if we're being overly critical you could honestly say the 13th Amendment didn't have as big of an impact as originally thought because Mississippi didn't officially ratify the amendment until February 7,2013.
Can the Supreme Court settle moral issues?
No a ruling by the Supreme Court cannot settle moral issues. Justices are supposed to be impartial and unbiased but in certain cases such as Brown vs Board their emotions are bound to impact their judgement on a case. Beyond that their personal beliefs will still be prevalent in their ruling. For instance if a justice who sat on the bench during Brown vs Board was for segregation it's likely that they would have voted for not integrating public schools. Conversely another Justice might say that they thought that integration essential to further the development of society. In short due to personal beliefs and emotions the Supreme Court cannot settle moral issues at least not without being ready for a backlash from a portion of the American public.
Could the Constitution be written without compromise? Why or why not?
No because if the US Constitution had been written without input from all political factions and states there would be an inequality within the nation. We would still have slaves and states that disagreed with the Constitution probably would have succeeded from the Union,especially if the government had accepted either the New Jersey Plan or the Virginia Plan without first combining the two.
Should the United States fight to preserve the right of its citizens to travel and trade overseas?
Rather than go about travel and trade rights in a confrontational manner,the government should negotiate peacefully with other countries on the matter. War and fighting should be an absolute last resort.
Should the South have been treated as a defeated nation or as rebellious states?
The Southern states should be considered rebellious states. In every state that seceded there were still people who appreciated a united country even if they were pro-slavery. They were just attempting to strike an appropriate balance between owning human beings and being a part of a larger entity of states and territories. They couldn't manage it so they chose to rebel,in an attempt to tip the scales in the favor of owning human beings.
Did the Articles of Confederation provide the US with an effective government? Why or why not?
The original document was not effective in running a government because the balance of power was unequal. It was not an actual balance between the states and the federal government couldn't successfully maintain authority over the nation. When the Articles were amended carefully they were able to effectively run a country.
Were the progressives successful in making the government more responsive to the will of the people?
The progressives captured and showcased public opinions and real life happenings. People like Jacob Riis and his contemporaries showed the terrible conditions Americans were forced to endure such as those that caused the deaths in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in 1911. The progressives took the fire as an opportunity to spur the government into finally passing laws to make tolerable fair conditions for factory workers. They also succeeded in passing child labor laws and laws that made grade school compulsory until a certain age though the Supreme Court overturned the educational law deeming it unconstitutional in later years. Still for the most part the progressives were successful in getting a response to human needs from the government over time.
Are political parties good for our nation? Why or why not?
Yes because having differences in beliefs is normal. Having different political factions to air ones views is healthy although those views can and have come to a head. It is better than having none at all because if that were the case there could easily be a second Civil War. The sequel wouldn't be civil in the slightest either judging by the people in power today.
Was George Washington's leadership indispensable in successfully launching the new federal government? Why or why not?
Yes because he was innovative and diplomatic. Under Washington the country flourished. He made peace with the Native Americans,got reauthorized access to New Orleans from the Spanish,and came to fair terms with the British after such a long period of discord. He also laid the groundwork of our modern government by having a Cabinet and setting a number of precedents including the two term limit.
Was the American Revolution a "radical" revolution?
Yes because never in that era had a country gone against an ally like Britain that had built them from the ground up just to get them off their feet. It was considered by many scandalous,foolish,and harebrained. And of course rebellious and insane to boot.
Does the system of checks and balances provide us with an effective and efficient government? Do separation of powers and checks and balances make our government work too slowly?
Yes checks and balances make for a fair and efficient government ensuring no branch oversteps the bounds of their authority. Even if checks and balances did make the government slower which they do not,it would be better to be slow and thorough than fast and careless with a country on the line.
Was the American War for Independence inevitable?
Yes,as it stands it was. The colonists were growing angry and fed up with the ever increasing taxes imposed on them by a country an ocean away in which they had no representation within the government. They had people from Britain sent expressly to collect said taxes and keep the angry rebels like Sam Adams,in check. That wasn't appreciated,especially with the caveat of housing the soldiers and providing them with meals when you didn't have enough for your own family. The abuse and taxes escalated,climaxing before the full on war broke out. In short it was all in due time.
Did Great Britain lose more than it gained from its victory in the French and Indian War?
Yes. They gained territory,though they lost a lot more. They lost the respect of the colonies,by the imposition of taxes,as well as men due to the number of casualties in battle. They lost their allegiance with the Native Americans,and control of many other nations and groups which they'd controlled previously. They lost their hold from cruel treatment and little show of human decency such as the Amritsar Massacre.
