Homework Five Answers - Student Six

AddisonDM 10:50, 10 March 2011 (EST)

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 became very powerful, even electing two presidents, and then after only a couple of decades of prominence all but disappeared. There are two reasons for the collapse of the Whig Party, the greatest and most immediate being its internal dispute over slavery. The pro-slavery Whigs became Democrats, and the anti-slavery Whigs became Republicans. The other, broader reason for the Whig Party’s collapse was the fact that it was founded on opposition to Jackson, who was president all the way back in the 1820s and 30s. As the Jacksonian Democracy period faded, so probably did the Whig Party’s sense of unity and purpose.

Superb answer, which could become a model answer.

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)? The greatest factor in Lincoln’s 1860 presidential victory was probably nothing he did, but the fact that Douglas discredited himself with his failed notion of popular sovereignty. The South opposed this because it put their status as slave-owners in the hands of popular vote, and the North opposed it because it was not truly against slavery. By trying to be a moderate, Douglas failed to gain solid support from anyone, as both sides were increasingly doubling down rather than trying to compromise.

Lincoln lost the 1858 Senate election because Douglas was simply a better politician, and his popular sovereignty idea had not yet become opposed by everyone. Another possible reason that Douglas won this election but not the presidential election is this: he seems to have hopped from office to office, rarely filling out a term before running for a new one. Perhaps the American people, even subconsciously, opposed the idea of Douglas now leaving the Senate after only two years to become president. (Maybe after one or two years as president, Douglas would then nominate himself to the Supreme Court!)

Terrific analysis, except that Douglas won reelection in 1858. That should be obvious because he pushed through the Kansas-Nebraska Act four years earlier. So Douglas was not changing offices again! (Minus 1).

5\. Lincoln thought Harriet Beecher Stowe caused the Civil War. What do you think? Harriet Beecher Stowe certainly helped cause the Civil War, but did not single-handedly cause it. The Dred Scott decision and the Kansas/popular sovereignty debacle probably contributed more. In fact, from the very beginning of the nation, even the colonies, the difference between North and South all but predetermined some ultimate conflict, which turned out to be the Civil War. Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was only fuel on a fire that was already raging.

Superb.

6\. Explain the cartoon. Columbia (the cartoon portrayal of America) is spanking Steven Douglas for his support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The cartoonist is probably a Northern abolitionist, and opposed that law primarily because of the violence that it instigated.

Good analysis.

7\. "Remember the Alamo!" Why? I’m not sure why. It has always struck me as rather silly to remember our defeats, e.g. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the Alamo. Why not remember our victories? I guess the idea is that our defeat at the Alamo would be a rallying cry to regroup and then defeat Mexico in return (which happened). Perhaps if we forget our defeats, we won’t be able to amend them in the future. This may have been particular true for America in the 1840s, when accepting a defeat might have broken our resolve because we were still not a superpower nation.

Excellent point, but the Alamo was not simply a defeat. It was a massacre. People were killed rather than captured.

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? Theoretically, the Civil War could have been avoided if everyone became either pro- or anti-slavery. But obviously that was not going to happen. The real question is, was a compromise possible? Because without a compromise the Civil War was unavoidable.

Considering that the Missouri Compromise was working, it might have continued to work had it not been replaced by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In another few decades, industrialization would probably have reached the point that slavery was no longer needed, and the issue may simply have become obsolete.

However, the South might actually have rejected industrialization in order to keep slavery, since it viewed slavery as a rights issue and not merely as a convenience. My guess is that the Civil War was conceivably avoidable, but that it almost certainly would have happened in some manner; maybe less violent, maybe further down the road, but there was probably going to be some ultimate showdown between the North and South.

Not sure I agree that the resolution had to be violent. The Berlin Wall fell without violence, and perhaps with better leadership slavery could have been abolished without resorting to so much violence. But your view may be right.

Honors

1\. Discuss any of the issues or mysteries relating to this lecture (1840-1860). James Buchanan did in fact pressure two associate justices on the Supreme Court to vote in favor of slavery in the Dred Scott decision. The second justice he pressured was a Northerner, and Buchanan wanted his vote so that it did not appear that the vote was sectional/partisan. This communication would almost certainly be disallowed today.

Right. It wasn't proper then either, if it happened as you describe (and many historians believe).

3\. The South thought it could win the Civil War. Why did it think that? Do you agree it was possible for the South to win? The South thought it had better generals and men, with its more outdoor-focused society, and thought foreign nations dependent on its imports would join it against the North. It also had control of the Mississippi river and only had to defend its territory, not attack. I think it was certainly possible for the South to win. Both sides made mistakes, and the South had a particular misfortune in the death of Stonewall Jackson, perhaps its best general. If Jackson had lived and the South had had slightly better strategy it could probably have won, or at least caused a stalemate. The South certainly miscalculated in terms of expecting foreign intervention, but even so a Southern victory was a distinct possibility.

You state your position and support it well. Most other students disagree, however. The North was much bigger, more industrialized, and wealthier. When the border states did not join the Confederacy as expected, the numbers no longer added up to victory for the South. But full credit is given for your well-reasoned opinion.

5\. Compare or contrast the Dred Scott decision with Roe v. Wade. Dred Scott was different from Roe v. Wade because it said that slaves were non-citizens and property, and government can’t deprive citizens of their rightful property. Dred Scott did not create any particular right to slavery. Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, specifically decided there was a right to abortion, under the “right to privacy.” The two cases relied on completely different constitutional provisions: Roe v. Wade relied on the 14th Amendment, which did not exist at the time of the Dred Scott decision.

The effect of the two cases was similar, however, in that they both denied basic rights to whole classes of human beings: African Americans in one case, unborn babies in the other case. While they were legally different, they had a very similar social effect.

Terrific analysis, which could become a model answer.

Grade: 89/90, with some of the best answers in the class. Very well done!--Andy Schlafly 13:41, 13 March 2011 (EDT)