Homework Four Answers - Student Seven

1\. Explain why the North supported higher tariffs, but the South opposed them.

North - They supported higher tariffs so they could raise the price of the manufactured goods they sent through the seas. They were able to make a good profit off of the tariffs. The tariffs also protected the North's manufacturing companies against competition.

South - They opposed higher tariffs because it caused the price of manufactured goods to rise and it endangered them from foreign trade. The South, being a big exporter of cotton and other cash crops, was primarily concerned with exporting their goods. In order to produce and export cotton, equipment was needed and the South did not like paying the surplus for their equipment (which they bought from the North).

You seem to explain this correctly but your first sentence is not quite right: "They supported higher tariffs so they could raise the price of the manufactured goods they sent through the seas." Higher tariffs raised the prices of manufactured goods sent by England and other foreign nations to the United States.

2\. Do you think States have the right to secede from (leave) the United States? Discuss, including a mention of "nullification doctrine."

Yes, I believe States have the right to secede from the United States.

Although the States were now apart of one country, the nullification doctrine gave the individual States the right to decide if a federal law was unconstitutional. If a State found a federal law unconstitutional, the State could nullify the law within the bounds of the State. If a State continued to find federal laws contradicting the Constitution and continued to nullify them (like South Carolina had done), it could have eventually lead to the secession of some of the Southern States.

The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. Judge William Rawle states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."

It is also significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

Superb analysis!!!! Could use as a model answer.

3\. Who was the most politically conservative of the early presidents, after George Washington? Explain.

James Monroe: He was fiscally conservative which helped the growth of the United States. His Adams-Onis Treaty aided in the expansion of the United States and, under his leadership, roads and canals were built and the economy flourished. Most importantly, he wrote the "Monroe Doctrine" in 1823 which stated that Europe could not add new colonies in North or South America. Ultimately, Monroe wanted Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere so that Europe would not interfere with the development and growth of the United States.

Terrific answer again.

4\. Many say the War of 1812 was an unnecessary war. Your view, please?

I believe the War was necessary because many lingering disputes and unresolved conflicts from the Revolutionary War spilled over into the War of 1812. Some way or another, these disputes and conflicts had to be resolved and if the War of 1812 had not occurred when it did, another war might have erupted later on down the road. England was still "licking" her wounds from the Revolutionary War and maybe England hoped the War of 1812 would "even the score" with the United States.

Good answer, but it should address the fact that England was far more powerful than the United States in 1812. (Minus 1)

5\. Choose any mystery or discussion question from the lecture, and write about it: Was this "Louisiana Purchase" an improper exercise of power?

Although the President is not given the power to make purchases in the Constitution, I believe, under certain circumstances, this issue could fall under the category of Executive Privilege. Although Jefferson considered himself a strict constructionist, it seems like "loose constructionism" dominated his reasoning when purchasing the Louisiana territory. It seems as if Thomas Jefferson was looking out for the good of the United States when making this purchase. Therefore, I do not believe it was an improper exercise of power.

Does this mean that any action by a president would be constitutional, as long as its goal is for the good of the nation? I think that view would need more justification!

6\. Pick the decision you like most, and the one you like least, by the Marshall Court. Explain.

Most liked-Fletcher v. Peck: This case reiterated that the U.S. Constitution was the supreme law of the land which I think is very important. If the states are able to make laws that go against the rights and freedoms the Constitution gives the American people, then there is no point in having a U.S. Constitution.

Least liked-Cherokee Nation v. Georgia: I dislike how the Marshall Court gave Georgia the power to remove the Cherokee Indians. Also, it appears unconstitutional to deny the Cherokees the right to sue in a federal court-they should have had the same rights as other Americans had. After all, this was their country and they were kind enough to let us move in on their territory. The Cherokee Indians were generally a peaceful tribe and for the most part, they did not fight. We had no right to restrict their freedoms...did the rights guaranteed in the Constitution not apply to them?

Terrific analysis of these important cases. Note that the Fletcher v. Peck case also established the power of the US Supreme Court to invalidate state legislation.

H1. I think we overpaid in buying the Louisiana Purchase, and that it was unconstitutional also. Do you agree?

Yes, I believe the United States overpaid when buying the Louisiana Purchase, but in the long run, it was a great deal. A few pennies per acre seems like such a minuscule amount when thinking in today's terms. However, a few pennies per acre turned into a hefty overall price for the entire purchase ($15 million). I also agree the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. However, as I stated above, I believe the Purchase could fall under Executive Privilege. In which case, the Purchase does not necessarily have to be "constitutional" (meaning it does not have to be a specific right given to the president in the Constitution).

Superb point about how expensive merely "a few pennies per acre" was! Most of the land purchased is unproductive to this day, casting further doubt on whether the price was a fair one for our side.

I don't think the purchase would qualify under "Executive Privilege," which refers to the ability of a president to withhold documents from other branches of government. (Minus 1)

H2. Pick your favorite political party from the lecture, and explain why.

My favorite political party would be the Democratic-Republican Party because of its position on strict constructionism and for its support of a weak national Government. Those in the Democratic-Republican Party seemed to be more fiscally conservative and pro-state's rights-both of which I support.

Excellent.

H4. It is said that Andrew Jackson was the first modern president. Why, and would you have voted for him?

He was considered the first modern president because of his active role in office. He was in complete control of everything going on around him, and if something wasn't to his liking, he did away with it. He didn't sit back and watch things happen, he made things happen.

No, I would not have voted for him. Although he accomplished some good things during his presidency, I do not admire the man or like his character. He was a bitter tyrant who sometimes acted more like a five-year old throwing a tantrum. He was passionate, yet not compassionate. He was more interested in politics than people, and that is something I do not commend.

Excellent, but there are more specific reasons why Jackson was the first modern president. The model answers should have this when completed.

Gabrielle D. <><

Grade: 88/90, with some of the best answers in the entire class!--Andy Schlafly 18:16, 6 March 2011 (EST)