Homework Four Answers - Student Six

Addison D.

1\. Explain why the North supported higher tariffs, but the South opposed them. The North supported higher tariffs because it was a manufacturing center and tariffs helped it to outsell foreign competition. The South, on the other hand, was an agricultural economy, and it needed to buy machinery and manufactured goods in order to produce its cotton and other cash crops. Higher US tariffs meant more expensive machinery, and that the South’s agricultural products might face tariffs in other countries and thus be imported by other countries at lower levels.

Excellent!

2\. Do you think States have the right to secede from (leave) the United States? Discuss, including a mention of "nullification doctrine." I don’t really see why states wouldn’t have the right to secede. There was never any kind of agreement that the Union was to be perpetual. The Union is merely an agreement between the States to form a federal government. It is not a collection of independent, sovereign states, not subdivisions of a single national sovereignty. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence suggests that secession would be allowed. It states, “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [the preservation of our rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” Obviously, the states floated the idea of secession when they saw the federal government as infringing on their rights, and basically I think they are within their rights to separate from the Union at that point. As to nullification doctrine, I think that in serious cases that too is valid. If a state really believes that a law is unconstitutional, I think they are within their rights to not implement it.

Superb analysis, which could become a model answer.

3\. Who was the most politically conservative of the early presidents, after George Washington? Explain. The lecture describes Monroe as the most conservative early president, and this is probably true. One major evidence of this is that he is the only early president to have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being debated. The anti-Federalists were extremely wary of a powerful central government, the way conservatives today are. He also tended to oppose federal spending projects, such as the Cumberland Road Bill. Additionally, he issued his famous “Monroe Doctrine,” which was not necessarily conservative; however it did assert the power and sovereignty of the United States, which are important to conservatives today.

Terrific again.

4\. Many say the War of 1812 was an unnecessary war. Your view, please? In a sense all wars are “unnecessary” but the War of 1812 seems particularly so, mainly because England had no real reason to attack us. Because England had no serious grievances, we could probably have dealt with their harassments with diplomacy alone. It seems that Britain needlessly harassed us, perhaps in revenge for the Revolutionary War, and we jumped on that as an excuse to go to war. That the war ended well for us is irrelevant because it was well within Britain’s power to wipe us off the map it they decided to. Thus the War of 1812 was not only unnecessary, but also dangerous.

Another potential model answer. Well done! (Note that harassment is typically singular, not plural - not "harassments" with an "s")

5\. Debate: Is it wrong for a politician to cut a deal with another politician like the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay? This is one of those things that seems improper but not wrong, as in illegal. If the people don’t like that kind of thing they should not vote for politicians who do it! Of course I don’t think politicians should be making deals behind the scenes, I just don’t think there is a legal way to prevent it. I am not even sure it’s wrong from a moral point of view. It does, however, tend to subvert the democratic process.

Excellent.

8\. Describe something that surprises you about the map of the United States in 1840? What is surprising about the map is that considerably less than half the current United States was actually formed into states in 1840. Most of what would eventually become States was territories, and some (such as Texas) did not even belong to the United States. Just off hand I would have thought that more of the country would be formed by then.

Right.

Honors

1\. I think we overpaid in buying the Louisiana Purchase, and that it was unconstitutional also. Do you agree? I have no idea if we overpaid, because prices were so different back then. It is conceivable that since France was in a tough spot we could have negotiated for an even better price, but considering that as a growing nation we needed territory I think the price was reasonable, if not a bargain.

As to the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase, I think it was constitutional. It is true that the power to acquire territory is not expressly in the Constitution, but since the government had the power to govern new territory, it is clear that Framers understood that we would somehow have to gain new territory. Also, Congress has the power of the purse and the power to pass a treaty (this in the Senate) and the Senate approved the Purchase as a Treaty. This proves for me that the Purchase was constitutional.

Terrific analysis.

3\. Discuss any debate topic or mystery related to 1800-1840. What is the real source of the name "Whig" in the "Whig Party"?

Apparently, the name “Whigs” (or American Whigs) was actually used to refer to the British colonists in America who revolted against Britain. It was in allusion to the American revolutionaries the Whig Party chose that name. The name Whig also generally suggested fighting against tyranny, and since the Whigs were formed in opposition to Jackson, they probably intended this to imply that Jackson was tyrannical.

Excellent.

4\. It is said that Andrew Jackson was the first modern president. Why, and would you have voted for him? Andrew Jackson was the first president who was not connected with the early America; unlike almost all of the others, he was not involved in the debate over the Constitution, for example. He used vetoes and executive orders for political purposes, as do modern presidents.

I am not sure if I would vote for him, but I probably would. Despite his tendency to push his own politics, he still adhered strictly to the Constitution, and unlike so many modern politicians he seems to have been more interested in the nation than in his career. The only problem I would have with him was his inordinately harsh treatment of the Indians.

Superb.

Grade: 90/90. Perfect score!--Andy Schlafly 17:51, 6 March 2011 (EST)