American History Homework Five Answers - Student 32

American History Homework Four – Joe B

1. The Revolution of 1800 was a bloodless revolution, and is significant as such. It is referred to as a revolution because of the dramatic power shift from the Federalist Party (John Adams administration) to the Democrat-Republican Party (Thomas Jefferson administration) and was achieved by a vote and not by way of war. This is an immensely important aspect of American History as it highlights one of the ideas upon which it was founded, liberty without violence. Despite their differences, both of the major factions understood the importance of elections in a free society and because of this they both respected the results of the elections, regardless of the outcome.

Superb answer.

2. The Louisiana Purchase is one of those occurrences in history in which a difficult decision had to be made, and yet a perfect solution seemed impossible to attain. It’s actually fascinating that Jefferson, traditionally thought of as a thinker and a philosopher, would make a decision that seems to have been so impulsive (indeed, had a president like Jackson or Truman made the Louisiana Purchase it would not have been the least bit surprising). Of course the choice did make sense, both at the time and historically, as the move was relatively cheap, opened up room for American expansion, and involved the obtainment of a valuable port city (New Orleans – the initial object of American interest). However, the apparent disregard for a strict constructionist mode of interpreting the Constitution is disturbing. Perhaps in a perfect world the Constitution could have been amended to specify that Federal treaties including acquisition of land had to achieve ratification from the states in addition to that from the Senate. This way the Constitution itself could have maintained its status as a document strictly interpreted as a set limitation upon the power of the Federal Government.

Excellent analysis, and a good insight about amending the Constitution to make it happen.

3. In reality there were a number of various causes of the War of 1812, but possibly one of the most noteworthy is that which began in Jefferson’s administration: the British seizing of American ships. The British were disgusted with the fact that French trade was being carried in American ships, and so they took it upon themselves to intervene. Some of these interventions included impressing American sailors into the British navy and the attack upon the American ship Chesapeake. Jefferson, similarly to his predecessors, did everything in his power to avoid a war with Great Britain because he realized that such a conflict could be detrimental to the preservation of the nation. His handpicked successor, James Madison, was even elected after him, but he would not prove as capable as Jefferson in avoiding war. With increased British encroachments upon the country, the American Congress was turned upside down. In 1810 the message from the people was clear: out with the compromisers and in with those who meant to protect the dignity of the nation. So it was that the new (and arguably hotheaded) congressional majority, after the revelation of a British plot to stir up unrest in New England, issued a declaration of war on England in June 1812.

Excellent analysis!

4. The Monroe Administration was comprised of a collection of rather curious acts and events. The Missouri Compromise was achieved under Monroe’s presidency, and his veto of the Cumberland Road Bill (and the general tendency of the Federal Government underneath him away from increased spending) was equally commendable. The Transcontinental Treaty continued the expansionist trend in America as the United States obtained, among other things, Florida. It should be noted however, that though there were several definite achievements under Monroe, there were also several disturbing occurrences. The Monroe Doctrine (named for the president, though John Quincy Adams was equally involved) was the continuation of a trend in favor of the ‘liberation’ of Latin America. The doctrine was perpetuated by an extremely misinformed world view, mostly liberal and pro-rebellion, which somehow equated the various conflicts in Latin America with that of the American War for Independence a number of years earlier. The Monroe Doctrine undermined Spanish (and indeed Christian) efforts in the New World, instead supporting blatantly immoral Creole rebellions. The idea behind the doctrine was to insinuate a Hands-Off Policy thereby limiting European involvement in America (though it is still unclear how Monroe imagined he would enforce such a policy), and yet it was merely issued to diminish competition with Europe for dominance over the American continents.

Superb, detailed explanation! Your view of the Monroe Doctrine is fascinating.

5. Jacksonian Democracy refers to the type of democracy that became popular as a result of Andrew Jackson’s presidency, mostly dictated by the policies Jackson held. Aspects of Jacksonian Democracy include the spoils system, manifest destiny, expanded suffrage (now all white males could vote), and laissez-fair economics (summed up perhaps by his opposition to the national bank).

Superb.

6. The Marshall Court is known for expanding its own power, that of the Supreme Court. It did so through its decisions. Marbury v. Madison declared the principle of judicial review permitting the Supreme Court to declare a congressional act as unconstitutional. Fletcher v. Peck enabled the Supreme Court to declare a state law as unconstitutional.

Excellent.

7. The political cartoon at first glance seems to be a reference to the Treaty of Ghent with Bruin (the bear), representing the Russian Czar, mediating between the United States and Great Britain (as indicated in the subtext). However, there are several aspects of this cartoon which appear to be curious, particularly the conversation of having a peace conference and the lack of conversation referencing the existence of one, and so it was probably drawn before the actual treaty took place (est. 1813). However, what it probably did reference was the anticipation of such a treaty, most likely precipitated by the commencement, or talk, of negotiations. As far as the actual cartoon goes, John Bull is an obvious reference to Britain, as is Bruin to the Russian Czar and Columbia to America. The “Wasps and Hornets” John Bull speaks of are probably the privateers licensed by the United States Government to commit piracy against the British. Despite the increase in competence displayed by the American forces in the latter stages of the fighting, it was the privateers who had truly brought the war to Britain. Because of the piracy British trade was crippled. The resulting shortage of goods infuriated the British people (they had not counted on feeling the effects of an actual war) and they quickly called for an end to the conflict, wishing they “had never disturbed (the) Nests.” The political cartoon is almost certainly from the perspective of an American based on the kind portrayal of America (as the lady Columbia) in contrast to unkind take on Britain (the brutish, submissive, and blatantly ugly John Bull).

Again, terrific analysis that explains how Britain was hurt during the war. Will use your explanation of the "Wasps and Hornets" in the model answers.

H1. I wouldn’t say that Jefferson receives better treatment by historians than he deserves at all. If anything he receives less credit than he should. Many historians seem to like citing how he borrowed on ideas from a range of other philosophical figures, including John Locke, as though it diminishes the significance of Jefferson’s efforts on the Declaration of Independence (despite the fact that Jefferson never passed it off as his own idea, but merely said he put into one document what a number of people already felt). Also, a number of people seem eternally hung up on his moral credibility, which is almost as offensive as stating that the Declaration was plagiarized as he wasn’t a traditional Christian and hence did not feel constrained by traditional Christian morality. Here are some things one should not overlook in reference to Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson was a thinker, his attraction to pursuing his own education is admirable, and he was a brilliant scholar. He made a number of contributions to American political philosophy. His draft of the Declaration of the Independence forcefully echoed the idea of liberty and vaulted our nation into existence. In his time as a state legislator in Virginia he drafted 126 bills (this was in only three years mind you) the likes of which pushed academic reform, freedom of religion, and capital punishment reform. As Governor of Virginia he continued to push reform. Together with Madison he wisely opposed the Alien and Sedition attacks, which were among other things a blatant violation of freedom of speech. He was elected the third President of the United States, where he again played a huge role in the (at that time) present and future success of the nation by winning the First Barbary War and completing the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson also managed to keep the United States out of a war with Britain during his presidency. Though Jefferson was far from perfect, he should not be pushed aside as merely a popular figure as his long-term popularity was certainly merited.

Good analysis, but I think it misses how liberals today play up Jefferson because they like to cite his occasional hostility to Christianity, such as his "wall of separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists. See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Do something liberals like, they will make you look better than you are; do something they don't like, and they will make you look worse than you are. It's the same temptation Jesus faced, and rejected.

H2. Due to their opposition of the War of 1812 the Federalists convened in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814 with plans to potentially secede from the Union in favor of Great Britain. However, in late 1814 the United States came to an agreement with Great Britain, and one of the effects was that the Federalists seemed like traitors for ever supporting the British. Naturally being labeled as traitorous was not helpful to the political success of the Federalists, and the party largely dissolved (therefore becoming irrelevant) in the aftermath.

Excellent.

H3. Debate: Can a State nullify an act of Congress? Can a State secede (withdraw) from the United States? There is no reason why a state cannot nullify an act of Congress. Historically speaking (though you could not tell by looking at American politics today) the country is supposed to be the United States not the United State. Naturally certain things the Federal Government must attempt to impose, such as freedom from slavery, but there is no reason why a state should not be allowed to declare an act as being unconstitutional. In addition, the states came into an agreement to be united with the other states not part of the other states. If the founding fathers thought they were uniting together only to forfeit the sovereignty of their states, then they would have never bothered fighting the War for Independence.

Excellent way of expressing your argument: we're the "United States," not the "United State." Good argumentation in support of your position.

Fantastic homework answers - the best in the class. Score: 100/100.--Aschlafly 21:13, 11 October 2008 (EDT)