Homework Five Answers - Student Five

2. During the time period covered by this lecture, a political party became very strong and then disappeared. Identify it, and explain why it disappeared. The Whig Party is the party referred to: it disapeared because it did not have a unified platform in the most important issues. Specifically they did not take a position on slavery, the most important issue of the time, so candidates from the Whig party could therefore have any position on slavery but still be considered a "Whig." The republican party took a strong stance on slavery and because of that it still exists today. Similarly if the republican party does not take a strong position against abortion today it will fail like the Whig party.

Terrific answer, which could become the model answer. Excellent reference to current events. (Note spelling: "disapeared" should be "disappeared")

3. Lincoln v. Douglas: Why do you think Douglas beat Lincoln in 1858 (say which election), but then Lincoln won the rematch in 1860 (identify the election)? In the 1858 Illinois senate election Douglas won because he had a greater reputation in Illinois, and his moderate position on slavery was able to captivate the voters from the relatively moderate state of Illinois. Slavery was a large issue everywhere but supporters of both sides and moderates lived in Illinois. Also since the election was in the hands of the legislature of Illinois, Douglas' political ties probably also helped. In the 1860 Presidential Election the tables were turned, the American people were filling out the ballots and Douglas had some unpopular positions. His relatively moderate stance on slavery annoyed voters from both the north and the south. In the North he was considered to be excessively pro-slavery, and in the south he was considered to be excessively anti-slavery. In a similar manner President Obama has never had Republican support, and some of his positions most notably in the Health care bill negotiations have lost his Democrat support.

Superb analysis with another good analogy to current events. Excellent point about how Douglas's political ties helped him win in Illinois in 1858, but did not help him much nationwide in 1860.

4. Why were there so many one-term presidents in the 1840s and 1850s? Explain. America was undergoing a period of political "Dark Horse" candidates, people who look good only because of a general lack of knowledge about them. The Americans as they learned about the "Dark Horse" president most of the time did not like what they saw and after the first term decided to elect a new president.

Good, but explain why the "dark horse" candidates were chosen in the first place: because they had not spoken out about the most divisive issues of the time.

5. Lincoln thought Harriet Beecher Stowe caused the Civil War. What do you think? I think it is flawed to say Stowe caused the civil war. The divisiveness of the North and South was caused by Northern tariffs and Southern slavery. Stowe's opposition to slavery was shared by many, but her book although it may have encouraged the abolitionist movement did not heighten violent tensions between the north and south.

OK.

7. "Remember the Alamo!" Why? The Alamo is significant because of the tensions it caused. It caused a Texan revolution from Mexico which in turn caused a political battle over Texas' annexation. The annexation of Texas then caused tensions with Mexico, until finally we had another violent war with Mexico, the war with Mexico trained many American officers in the Civil war which had many drastic effects. So the Alamo could be said to be the ignition of a cannon that blew apart American society in the 19th century.

Terrific writing: "the Alamo could be said to be the ignition of a cannon that blew apart American society in the 19th century."

8. The biggest question in all of American History is this: Do you think it was possible to avoid the Civil War? If so, how? No, but the effects could have been dampened. In the Civil War the abolition of slavery was the largest effect, but what was the rationalization of the revolting southerners? They claimed that the Constitution specifically allowed them to break of from the United States. If the Constitution were different many southerners(including General Lee) would not have a just cause to fight for. Their motivation would come from upholding the greatest dehumanizing atrocity of the time. If the Constitution clearly stated that States could not secede from America, the civil war's effects would have been a small fraction of what they turned out to be.

Very insightful argument that I've never heard anyone make before: if the Constitution had clearly prohibited secession, then the South would have had little to fight for. And if the Constitution clearly permitted secession, then the North would have had a harder time raising troops and money. So a drafting ambiguity made the Civil War worse!

-Paul R.

Grade: Terrific answers, and a perfect score: 60/60. Excellent indeed!--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 12 March 2011 (EST)