American History Homework Seven Answers - Student One

Addison DM (all done!)

1.The Gilded Age was the period of American history during the mid to late 1880’s. It received the title “Gilded Age” from the author Mark Twain, who considered it a time which appeared “golden,” yet underneath was corrupt and selfish, and therefore at least in a moral sense not “golden.”

Correct!

2.All around Thomas Edison must have been a good person, but what I find most amazing about him is his work ethic. Very few people can even bear to do as much work as he did, let alone recognize the necessity of work and maybe even enjoy it. “Do you think homeschooling him created enormous wealth?” Well, I’m sure being homeschooled helped to form his character, focus on his interests, and live up to his full potential. He probably wouldn’t have invented so much or had so great a work ethic if he hadn’t had to basically educate himself. However, because he had such a great ethic and so much skill, I think he still would have been an inventor, or done something else beneficial for the world if he was publicly educated.

Superb, will use as model answer!

3.It probably gave them a great sense of hope and aspiration. The image of the unsettled West and wild frontier, full of tough American sharpshooters and Indian savages, was unique to America, and the thought of taming this wilderness was an aspiration only Americans could have. The gold and silver rushes also gave Americans hope of wealth in the frontier lands.

Excellent, particularly about the "hope and aspiration."

4.Actually, America itself is an invention which the world has followed: the government put in place by our founding fathers was the first major, modern government to focus on the rights of individuals, amidst monarchies and oppression. It was this fact of having been the nation that, in a sense, invented itself, that probably inspired Americans generations later to continue inventing. The necessity of developing a strong work ethic and becoming self-sufficient, going all the way back to Jamestown, also helped fuel Yankee Ingenuity.

Insightful. I learned from your answer.

5.They probably help sway opinions, and may have decided certain issues, though not because they are cartoons but rather because they are persuasive. For example, Thomas Nast’s cartoons mocking Boss Tweed eventually led to Tweed’s imprisonment, but William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of gold” speech led to his being nominated the next day. For another example, the “Join or Die” cartoon helped unite the colonies against England, but pamphlets and rallying cries did too. To sum it up, political cartoons are effective more for their message and persuasiveness and less for their character as cartoons, but are no more influential than any other media. A cartoon, like a speech, can be either effective or ineffective.

Excellent answer.

6.Probably either Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller. Whether you like them or not, they both turned relatively new, fledgling industries into business empires, essentially laying the foundations of the modern corporation. Rockefeller was probably the more influential of these, since oil is arguably a more necessary and useful resource than steel.

Good emphasis on business achievements as being influential. Often it is easy to focus too much on political milestones.

7.A man who appears to be Uncle Sam is riding a horse which is sinking in “quicksand gold.” A cliff labeled “silver” rises to his left. Down the road is “Prosperity.” The cartoonist definitely opposes the Gold Standard. He probably supports bimetallism, since the silver cliff rises above the gold quicksand. Also, it looks like the gold sand is not on the road, but on the side of the road. The road is between the silver cliff and the golden sand. Thus, the gold standard is a dangerous detour, and bimetallism leads to prosperity. Since it is Uncle Sam who is sinking, the cartoonist is demonstrating that the gold standard policy has been harmful to the nation. The cartoonist is most likely a democrat. If the cartoon was drawn during the 1896 election, it supported Bryan.

Superb in every respect, except it misses one basic insight: the sinking in the "quicksand gold" represents deflation. (Minus 1).

Honors

2.While Blaine’s views of religiously affiliated schools may have been bigoted, his Amendments may follow the 1st Amendment in that the government is not to establish a church or religion. Religiously affiliated schools, being usually associated with a specific religion or church, may be included in this Constitutional ban. If this is so, the Amendments themselves were fair. However, if all religious schools were treated the same regardless of their affiliate religion, then the government would not be in any way supporting a single religion or church, or infringing on the rights of everyone to practice their own religion. Thus, a rigid Constructionist view of the Constitution would say that no single religion is being established, and therefore the Amendments are wrong. A loose, maybe anti-religious interpretation would find the Amendments to be good, because anti-religious people would want church and state separated. The legal aspects of the Amendments rest on one’s interpretation of the Constitution. I don’t think the Amendments were bigoted, and I’m really not sure of my opinion. I probably sway towards actually supporting them, though.

Superb analysis that explains the issues very well. For your information, I think Blaine is considered by modern historians to have been religiously bigoted.

3.Debate question: Should government break up monopolies? Sometimes. A monopoly may, by buying up all its competition, end up emulating from the private sector the same sort of practices found in a planned economy; most importantly, inefficiency, since there is no competition to deal with or to potentially lose customers to. A monopoly may lower the standards of an industry in general. If a serious or necessary industry becomes monopolized and subsequently inefficient, then I would probably support breaking it up. Otherwise, there is no problem with monopolies. Basically, there is nothing inherently wrong with monopolies, but there is nothing inherently wrong about breaking them up either. The solution is common sense applied on a case-by-case basis. (I would like to add an idea of mine here. Aren’t the major political parties monopolies? Don’t they lower the quality of our politics because they have no opposition? And talk about a serious or necessary industry; our politics and government are one of our most serious “industries” of all, and no one ever talks about the monopoly the parties hold over it. Just a thought.)

Excellent, will use as a model answer. Note, however, that there are TWO major political parties, so neither one as a complete monopoly.

4.In the days of monopolies and robber barons, unions were definitely a good thing, because workingmen were neglected and expected to work hard for long hours with low pay, for the further monetary enrichment of factory owners and industry leaders. One example of a union action being successful is when railroads cut wages in 1884, and a strike by members of the Knights of Labor persuaded the railroads to reconsider. Today, while unions could still create better conditions and wages for workers, much of what they do is political and unnecessary. In a sense, unions are a monopoly created by workingmen, since they rule the company they are active in. This can be harmful. So, in principle, unions can still be good, but in practice they are often useless or even harmful.

Terrific.

Superb answers, with two qualifying as model answers. Well done! Score: 99/100.--Aschlafly 18:26, 30 October 2008 (EDT)