The Continuous Recession: Indian Removal & The West

"We took away their country and their means of support, broke up their mode of living, their habits of life, introduced disease and decay among them, and it was for this and against this they made war.  Could anyone expect less?"  - General Philip Sheridan, United States Army (1878)


The fate of Native Americans as the United States continued to grow across the continent can be seen as one of a "continuous recession" through direct and indirect policies not only of the Federal government but also of white settlers and business interests themselves.  In reading over Chapter 26 (especially pp. 594-604, click HERE for the powerpoint), identify the major themes, individuals, and incidents that support the claim that the Native Americans were systematically, whether through actual policies or accidental consequences or both, forced further and further from their traditional ways, thereby experiencing a "continuous recession" of their cultures and their importance relative to the Federal government and the white settlers around them.  Begin with a complex-split introductory paragraph, and then provide at least one, well-developed body paragraph in which you identify and discuss the themes, individuals, and incidents that support the claim.

I have provided three additional links to more information to help you broaden your response and your understanding of this issue in American History.

DUE DATE:  Monday, January 28, 2013 by midnight

WORD COUNT:  500 words minimum

The Indian War:
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring10/war.cfm

The Thirty Years War:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3499

Reporting the Indian Wars:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536601590.html

Radicals or Revolutionaries?

Reread the Varying Viewpoints Essay on p.529 in your American Pageant and then compose an argument that compares and contrasts the views of at least two of the historians discussed in that essay - you will need to do some research on the internet to find more specific information about each historian and work that is cited in the essay.  If you try to base your argument solely on the limited information in the essay itself, then you will end up with a VERY weak essay that may only score as high as a 2 or 3 on the 9 point scale.  Evaluate the extent to which each historian's view is potentially historically valid, and then the extent to which there are problems with that view that do not seem to fully address the significance of the Populists and the Populist Movement during the Gilded Age.  As before, identify and label at least one rhetorical device that you use in your argument (if you want to track more than one, please do so since the more practice you have at identifying and labeling your own, you will be that much better prepared for the AP Exam in May).

Historians in the Essay:
Charles and Mary Beard - The Rise of American Civilization (1927-42)
Vernon Louis Parrington - Main Currents of American Thought (1927-30)
John D. Hicks - The Populist Revolt (1931)
Richard Hofstadter - The Age of Reform (1955)
Lawrence Goodwyn - Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America (1976)
Edward L. Ayers - Promise of the New South (1992)
Robert C. McMath - American Populism (1993)

DUE DATE:  Monday, January 21st by midnight

Word Count: Minimum 500 words

The Gilded Age: Was It Only A Time of Corruption?

The timespan from 1872 - 1900 is characterized by a series of "Forgettable Presidents" whose administrations contended with rampant political and economic corruption by members of their cabinets, members of Congress, railroad barrons, and stock speculators to name the most prominent.  Explain the metaphor that Mark Twain coined to describe this time period, that this was the "gilded age" - what was the thin layer of value covering what depth of corruption?  In your response, explain the extent to which this time period was corrupt and in what ways it had redeemable qualities.  Use specific examples from Chapter 23 to develop your response.

Remember, too, that I am will be assessing you on your use of at least one correctly used and correctly identified rhetorical device in your response.  In order to ensure that I grade you correctly, you need to identify the device that you use by bolding it.  If you do not do this, I will not be able to give you full credit for your response.

DUEDATE: Monday, January 14, 2013

Word Count: 500 words minimum

Series of Videos on Youtube Covering Major Aspects of The Gilded Age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0bwcppAGFc&playnext=1&list=PL67928E6ED0A35DA0&feature=results_main
 

Would Lincoln Have Mattered?

The Reconstruction of the South following the Civil War, and perhaps most influenced by the assassination of Lincoln, which infuriated the Radical Republicans and has largely been seen by most historians as the greatest misfortune to befall the South because now there was vengeance in the eyes of many Northerners, is the topic of this blog.  In looking back over Chapter 22, explain the key factors that defined both the successes and failures of Reconstruction.  As you determine the specific social, political, and economic factors that one could use to frame an argument about the good and the bad aspects of Reconstruction, consider the question posed in the title of this blog, "Would Lincoln Have Mattered?"  That is, would Reconstruction have happened in a fundamentally different way, perhaps better, if Lincoln had not been killed?  That, in and of itself, begs a further consideration:  what ifluence would Lincoln have had if he had merely been wounded and not died?  What if he was mentally crippled from the headshot and survived?  What if John Wilkes Booth had been stopped before he even entered the Presidential Balcony at Ford's Theater, and so Lincoln would never have been shot?  So, consider the history of Reconstruction as it happened as well as how it might have happened if Lincoln had survived and in what condition.

DUE DATE:  Friday, December 7 by midnight.

WORD COUNT:  500 words

Popular Sovereignty or Freedom?

The growing tensions between the North and the South, especially with the South's insistence on being provided security for the institution and perpetuity of slavery, had created a situation in which compromise was becoming harder and harder to make.  The 3/5ths compromise back in 1789 with the Constitution had led to the closing of the African Slave Trade by 1808 by giving the South the voting power to offset that of the North in the House of Representatives.  The Missouri Compromise had maintained this balance of voting power by giving a large chunk of northern territory to the slavery interests with the understanding that there would be no more slavery north of the Missouri Compromise Line from that time forward.  However, as it became clear that the newly acquired American Southwest was inhospitable to big plantations and therefore slavery, there was renewed efforts by those in the South to get ahold of more northern territory using the persistent threat of secession to force the North to agree since most in the North believed in the Union more than they believed in either States' Rights or the abolition of slavery.  Thus, the Compromise of 1850 and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act in which the notion of "popular sovereignty" or "let the people choose" became the means by which Congress could avoid having to make the decision itself.  Indeed, many had called into question whether or not Congress had the power at all to legislate on slavery (either for it or against it or anything inbetween)!  Finally, in a speech given in Peoria, Illinois in 1854, Abraham Lincoln (who would eventually become President in 1860) made the following point in his debates with Stephen Douglas, the "cheerleader" as it were of "popular sovereignty":

The doctrine of self-government is right - absolute and eternally right - but it has no just application, as here attempted.  Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man.  If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him.  But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself?  When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government - that is despotism.  If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teachers me that "all men are created equal," and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.

Evaluate Lincoln's argument here and contextualize it with regard to the history of compromises made for the benefit of the South at the expense of the Union and its founding ideas of "We the People" and "All Men Are Created Equal."  Show the evolution of Lincoln's point that slavery  actually promotes anti-self-government by showing how these several compromises over history up to 1854 lead to the crisis that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was intended to solve.

DUE DATE:  Friday, November 30 by midnight.

Word Count:  500 words minimum

Andrew Jackson's Legacy

We have talked in class at great length about the importance of Andrew Jackson not only in his own time but after as well.  In so many ways he shaped and defined the America we now have, from the idea that the average person has a place in government to the distrust of centralized banking.  He was a man torn by personal loss and driven by personal rage, but also a man who simply did not ever give up on anything.  From arming free-blacks in New Orleans in 1815 to forcing the relocation of thousands of Native Americans in 1839, Andrew Jackson is also a man of contradictions that make it nearly impossible to come to a final and perfectly clear portrait of him either in or out of the White House.

Revisit Chapter 13 and the essay on pp.285-86 entitled What Was Jacksonian Democracy? and explain why it is that Jackson is so important to American History.  Compose this response as a summation of everything you believe is crucial to know and understand (knowing a fact is different than understanding its importance) about Andrew Jackson and his impact on American History.

DUE DATE:  Sunday Night, November 11 by midnight.

Minimum Word Count:  500 words

Andrew Jackson (White House):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson

Andrew Jackson (The Hermitage):
http://www.thehermitage.com/jackson-family/andrew-jackson

Andrew Jackson (PBS):
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/andrewjackson/

American Pageant, Ch. 13:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B06Mqo8bYnzgX3hrc0lLVGlqX28/edit

How I Would Vote And Why - Reflection on Electoral College Assignment

You have been tracking the polls and running scenarios for the upcoming Presidential Election next week and have seen how such an election is fundamentally a "numbers game" rather than a straightforward "whoever gets the most votes" thing.  The Electoral College was put in place to protect the new Executive Branch from the whims of the People who were not trusted to really know what was actually in their best interests.  Thus, there is the Popular Vote and then the Electoral College Vote.

If you were able to actually vote next week, for whom would you vote and why?  Make use of what you have so far learned about the first 18 Presidents and the challenges and obstacles that they each faced from 1789 through 1877 as indicated on your Presidents List.  Considering the present state of affairs as you understand them, how can the past help you come to a decision about who would make the "best" President for the next four years?

DUE DATE:  November 2, 2012 by midnight

Word Count:  300 words minimum

George Washington Music Video with Presidents 2-43:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZL-19wGnkA