American History Homework Five Answers - Student Four

KaraH

1. (b) He welcomed immigrants into the United States.

Members of the "Know-Nothing" party would not have welcomed immigrants into the United States since this party was founded to be anti-immigration and anti-Catholic.

Excellent.

2. The Whig Party was originally founded to go against Jackson, so they would believe in everything opposite that he believed in. That would mean that while Jackson was cruel to Indians, they would try to be kind. Jackson didn't want a bank, but of course the Whigs wanted one.

Superb reasoning.

3. The Mexicans at one point owned a large piece of North America, and many American believed that God wanted America to be "from sea to shining sea." The only way to do that, would have been to convince Mexico to hand over the land, or go to war. The only problem was after failing to gain it peacefully, President Polk started to find a reason that a war should be started. So he told the Congress that a group of Mexicans attacked American troops and spilling blood on American land. Congress believed him, and gave permission to declare war. But this is dubiously debated. It could be possible that the blood wasn't spilled on American land, but Mexican land, and only after American troops gathered by the Rio Grande, land that was fully Mexican. The war ended in the September of 1847 when America captured Mexico City after more then a year of war.

Excellent.

4. I think Stephen Douglas ranks in on the top list of most important people of that time era. But for a different reason. He has reverse importance, for he was the one who passed an Act which historians believe could be one of the greatest faults for starting the Civil War. Without the Civil War, there would have been much less bloodshed, but it is one of the key factors in setting slaves free.

There's also a wild card of importance that I think should be played. Harriet Beecher Stowe was an author who wrote the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, a book that portrays the life of a slave to such an extent that the south criticized and banned the book altogether. Today it is criticized for its stereotyping, but it still somehow made a huge impact in the English speaking world.

Terrific answer, will include in the model answers.

5. Bleeding Kansas was a dispute in Kansas over the Kansas-Nebraska Act and slavery itself. Small wars were played between those who believed in freedom for former slaves, and those who believed in slavery.

Good, but the very "played" is awkward there. "Fought" would be more appropriate.

6. That lady represents America, and "Steve" is Stephen Douglas. America would be beating Stephen because he passed the Kansas-Nebraska act, which caused many "mini-wars", and could be one of the main steps in starting the Civil War. The artist was probably Northern since this Act stated that each region could decide if slavery would be prohibited or not, and all Northern states said that slavery was wrong, so they would have had a sore spot concerning Douglas.

Superb!

7. I think it could have been possible for the war to have been on a much smaller scale then it actually was, but I doubt it could have been avoided completely. People have different views, people fight over these views. If the war had not have happened, life as we know it today could be very different. There could still be slavery, or maybe even a division of people so strong it would be as if America were two separate countries.

Good effort.

H1) I think the probability of American blood being spilled on American land by the Mexicans is slim at best. Especially if one believes America did nothing to provoke the attack. We had been asking for land almost to the point of badgering, so that would be strike one for Americans. If the rumors are true, then American troops had been entering Mexican property and setting up camp as if we already owned it. That would give Mexicans every right to be the first to attack, simply to defend themselves.

But what if America attacked? What if the rumor was completely reversed from the truth? What if Americans were the ones to go into foreign land and begin the attack on Mexico, the only reason being Mexico wouldn't give over the land that America wanted? It was not our land to take, and if Mexico didn't want to give it up, then we shouldn't have continued pressuring. Or battling, whichever is true. So I suppose the answer would be that no one knows the real and whole truth behind the Mexican War. It's happened so far in the past that we have no survivors to tell us what to believe.

One thing, though. I find it very difficult to believe that Mexico would suddenly attack Americans in their own land if they had no real reason to. Americans are the ones with the reason to attack, as pathetic a reason as it might be. Mexicans had no reason to attack, unless they finally were sick of America enough that they would want to go on a suicide mission.

Fascinating and persuasive analysis! Well done.

H3) The "Freeport Doctrine" was told at a debate in Freeport, Illinois, between Abraham Lincoln, and Stephen Douglas. How it came about was this: Lincoln asked Douglas that if a certain region wanted to outlaw slavery, much as certain regions could say slavery was okay, would the region who wanted to outlaw it be able to do that? Douglas responded by saying that if a certain region created law that would make slavery impossible, then slavery would be outlawed. This caused the South to turn against Douglas because that would mean slaves could be set free if a majority voted for it.

Terrific answer. Will use as a model.

H4) I doubt that anything John Brown did helped the cause of anti-slavery. He and a few others, including four of his sons, murdered five pro-slavery citizens, and later led a raid on Harper's Ferry. People tried to catagorize him as insane, but he remained defiant during his capture, trial, and hanging. If everyone used him as an example of the anti-slavery side, then those who believed the same as him would be judged before they even spoke.

Good. Note spelling: categorize, not catagorize.

Fantastic answers! Perfect score: 100/100.--Aschlafly 20:03, 16 October 2008 (EDT)