Introduction
Thomas Jefferson served as the third president of the United States of America. Throughout his regime, he championed democracy of representation, something that made him the greatest champion of the course. During his service in various capacities, Jefferson always sought to establish a government that had very limited powers based on the federal formation recognized by the constitution. Jefferson was in support of the religion and the state being the same or having a state religion. His efforts saw the separation of state from religion. Jefferson believed that the US citizens had a responsibility to help the country in rising up against matters of corruption. He also felt that the state should be on the front line in defending the rights of the citizens and should never violate them. He felt that the citizens should enjoy the freedom of speech. To him, this was a good way to prevent tyranny on the citizens by the government (Fitzgerald, 1986, p.25).
Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. He came up with the modern-day Jacksonian democracy, which was his political philosophy. When Jackson took over the presidency, he sought to strengthen the executive and presidency unlike President Jefferson. Jackson remained present during the slave trade, and the American civil war, which played a great role in reshaping the politics in the US and saw the emergence of third-party systems.
President Andrew supported slavery-like any other ordinary northerner but only used his men to put strict measures on the issue. He furthered the current popular American democracy by using his military influence on his government. As a leader in the American political and economic front, his priority efforts aimed at developing the Democratic Party. Jackson played important role in reforming the social position of Americans in the face of the British. With only an army of 5000 standing men, he managed to conquer more than seven thousand British soldiers in New Orleans. Compared to his predecessors Jackson helped unite Americans using their own interests to motivate his agenda as the president of the country.
One thing, which stands out between these two men, is their popularity among the US citizens during their time. At some time during his presidency president Jackson would adopt the policies and the political views of Thomas Jefferson. However, most of the time though, these two leaders’ views were incomparable.
Nullified tariff crisis
Following a sectional crisis created by tariff nullifications in 1892, South Carolina’s tariff system faced a temporary crisis as it sought to exercise its authority over the state Ordinances. The ordinance sought to declare the power of South Carolina. According to the ordinance, the 1828 and 18323 tariffs were unconstitutional and therefore rendering their effects invalid. This however was not the first tariff in the United States. There had also the tariff of 1816which is said to have some protective features. Another yet protective tariff was that of 1824. Henry Clay had proposed this 1824 tariff and it provided and provided 35% protection. The tariff also saw duties for some commodities such as iron, hemp, cotton et cetera increased. There were still some earlier nullifications dating back to as far as 1789. The tariff act of 1789 mainly focused on generating government revenue and maintaining trade balances.
The tariff introduced rates of between 5-15% to finance the government payment of national debts. Alexander Hamilton is the one who proposed the introduction of protective tariffs to increase industrialization. Ultimately, civil group pressures from leaders like Clay and John Calhoun led to the adoption of the tariff proposals in 1812.
A 10% import duty on all imports on American ships increased the importation levy. Industrialization was on course and this lead to demand for more tariffs. The need to protect the citizens from Europe’s low wages was apparent. This therefore called for the 1824 tariff (Fitzgerald, 1986, p.25). Later on other tariffs followed the south Carolina tariff which included; the 1832 tariffs act, 1842 tariff , the 1846 tariff which was passed by the democrats after winning the 1844 election, the 1857 tariff and many others. Up to date tariffs are still being proposed and adopted in the United States. The United States started slavery as early as 1619. Before the civil war, some sectional conflicts resulted from the issue of slavery and slave trade. These issues dominated most talks and debates in 1930s as many northern-based Americans defended slavery. They employed tactics such as ensuring they maintain a huge control in the federal government. They also had a lot of support because most of the presidents were from the south.
Causes of brother’s war
At first, I thought that as the name suggests, there were two influential brothers in American politics whose interests conflicted, and this lead to the war. My thinking before this was that they wanted power, say, to rule America and in the course, they mobilized their followers and this lead to the war.
The civil war in America marks the bloodiest in the history of United States. In this war, more than 600,000 American soldiers died in four years. Several reasons caused the civil war, also referred to as the brothers’ war. I will discuss some of the most acknowledged causes in this section. Abraham Lincoln, addressing the American parliament on the war issue said that a house divided among it could not withhold. Lincoln said that there was no way that the government could allow half slavery and half freedom. He advised the opponents of slavery to join the anti-slavery crusaders or the vice-versa. It was mainly a war between the south and the north. As the United States continued to grow bigger every day, s new states joined the union, compromises had to be made, to maintain a balance between the slave states and and the free states. As this continued, the worst happened and the civil conflicts came to be. In the west, slavery has significant bearing on civil war as the American supremacy is to international terrorism. In the early 19th century, the abolition of slave trade created new conflict in the subjects of slavery. In particular, the issue found new strength to the southern Americans who already believed slavery was evil and immoral.
As a primary anti-slave activist, John supported abolition, together with his sons fought with the forces, which campaigned for anti-slavery. John and his close allies faced charges for their alleged roles in the Pottawatomie massacre. In this particular incident, many enthusiastic persons with passion for slavery were brutally murdered. In another charge, pro-slavery activists believed that John used his resources to defend slave abolitionists and 1859 attempts to raid the armory of the government. At this time, the slaves were ready to demand their rights according to John (Fitzgerald, 1986, p.2). As the raid to his location hit dead end, John Brown’s arrest and fast trial saw him pledge guilty of murder. Soon after, he faced treason, his hanging and death provoked conflict throughout the south that eventually led to war.
This is another cause of the war. Having seen opportunity in the cotton business, Eli Whitney proceeded to invent the cotton gin in 1793. This called for increased labor since there was efficiency and because most plantations shifted from other crops to cotton. This meant increased slavery. Cotton farming dominated the southern region while the northern region was mainly industrial. This caused a huge social-economic difference. Other reasons believed to have caused the war included the following:
- After revolution, there emerged groups of people, some arguing for more rights while others proposed federal control over various matters of interest (Keene, 2009, p.37).
- After his election some people especially those from the south, associated him with anti-slavery claiming that he favored the northern side more than the south. The degenerating situation of accusations traded between pro-slavery and anti-slavery, people brought inevitable conflict between Americans in the south and those in the north.
Changing America 1850’s
The period spanning 1850 to 1861 marks tremendous changes in America’s cultural and industrial spheres. Changes in the country’s economy paved way for cultural changes as people witnessed the development of sports and entertainment. The economic transformation of the earlier in the years promoted industrialization that caused the changes in the American values mainly affecting the younger population. Following the unprecedented pace of social interaction, Americans got a glimpse of social integration that would keep them as united America for several years to come. In this period, immigrants found significance in the cultural development of the Americans in that they got assimilated into the wider American culture. On the other hand, white Americans saw slaves as ordinary people who could not take positions with their high culture. As the socio-cultural activities heated the land, people ensemble classical art and literature materials while industrialization paved the way for urbanization that came as a culture shock to many people.
Unfortunately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act intended to end slavery failed to bring peace to America and socio-political stability as predicted by Stephen Douglas. Instead, it allowed for a middle ground position between slavery in Kansas and Nebraska that resulted in war as controversy arose over tariffs. Besides, the constitutional making process of Kansas after the federal government agreed on neutral stand on slavery created new conflict as those who wanted a free state of Kansas met in Topeka to generate a constitution while those who loved slavery met in Lecompton. Finally, the unstable position of Stephen Douglas led to civil war in Kansas as they claimed their sovereignty while Nebraska also wanted to remain a state territory. This controversy marked with the “Bleeding Kansas” to end slavery explains the difficulty in implementing the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854).
Westward Expansion 1840’s
During the 1840s, the east of America had significant settlement as opposed to the west, which remained as a wasteland, having almost no settlement. To many, an expansion towards the west seemed to be the destiny of America. It started when Narcissa and Marcus Whitman made a journey to the west making them the first people of white origin who first visited the west. The great migration started in 1843 in Missouri (Fitzgerald, 1986, p.25). People together with their livestock migrated towards the west. They were traveling to the west hoping to find free and for agriculture as many of the migrants were farmers. The term manifest destiny came from the journalists, as the people believed they had a divine intervention on the opportunities in the west and a right from god to settle there. The problem that they were likely to encounter was that of adequate land. Due to the large number of migrants heading to the west, the problem of whether the land would be enough for all the migrants was inevitable (Keene, 2009, p36). Problems especially those emanating from changes in weather and atmospheric conditions were highly predictable. The large numbers of people and livestock trailing could also mean accidents along the way, which could complicate the problems.
Among the well-known expansionist was James Polk. Polk made his stand on the issue of expansion well known before his election as a president. When he won for the first time, president, he publicly announced during the inauguration ceremony, his intentions to acquire California and settle the boundary dispute of Oregon. He satisfied his election pledges when he assumed office. At some, point Polk seemed to precipitate war with Britain, but later managed to convince the congress on the issue. He succeeded in solving the boundary dispute at Oregon, making the British less interested in it (Fitzgerald, 1986, p.25). In 1845, Polk sent some spies to lone to fetch information about Texas and to encourage the Texas residents to push for annexation. His activities to conquer and expand America made him a strong expansionist.
Now, there was an urgent need to provide more land for agriculture and create employment for the slaves. There was need to expand the sources of funds to run the government. This factor drives to the conclusion that Henry Clay’s advisers misled him into believing that the expansion module adopted could yield desirable results.
Journals
Jackson and Cherokee removal
The Cherokee are Native Americans who reside in the southeast region of the US. When Andrew Jackson became the president, Georgia seemed preferred in the capital of the US. The following year, an Indian act of parliament authorized the removal of Americans with an Indian origin to another new territory. According to President Jackson, the removal implied that Cherokee would not suffer any losses from the justice systems. The Cherokee however decided to file their discontent to the US legal officers. They had the support of the Republican Party and that of the party leader, Henry Clay. The judicial system ruled that the Cherokee were distinct and that they deserved their natural rights. Jackson however ignored the court’s ruling. When he won for the next term in a landslide victory, he increased the pressure and the call for the Cherokee removal. The Cherokee could not imagine vacations from their land. They fled to Red Clay in the northern region of Georgia. Further negotiations saw the Cherokee get a promise for $5 million, land in the Indian Territory and a further $300000 for improving the pieces of land. Years later, president Buren, executed the removal of the Cherokee, when he ordered over 7000 troops to evict them (Fitzgerald, 1986, p.15). From the article, it was clear that the American presidents were just interested in the prime agricultural land that the Cherokee had, without considering their human rights.
Abolitionism
This referred to movement against slave trade that called for the end of it in Europe and America. From the article, what is clear is that the issue of slave trade could have divided Europe as well as America. Some of the influential leaders of the time were against abolitionism, which means they were for slavery and slave trade while still others were for the same. This is evident because the movement aroused considerable protests up to the end of the 18th century. Those who appeared as rational thinkers condemned it for what they called a violation of human rights. Somehow, it looks as if the states, which were the major players, were just practicing slavery for the sake of it. When the country decided on gradual removal of slave trade, all the other nations followed suit to demand the same.
Why Confederate Soldiers fought
From the article, it is clear that the manifest destiny related to some divine nature, was so huge to an extent that some people could have died as the people and their animals trailed to the west to search for greener pastures (Fitzgerald, 1986, p.29). The migrants believed that the destiny was apparent and inexorable. Though journalists from the nature of the expansion only coined the term manifest destiny, it really deserved the term since it was clearly manifest. It was however a general notion that had no basis whatsoever on any grounds. It combined belief in expansionism with a natural superiority. In my opinion, the manifest destiny was just another strategy for the Americans to continue with their “mission in the world”. It was a well-executed policy by the government though very few people looked at it in this sense.
The article gives an insight into the reasons for the war; clearly isolates the southern state’s wish to have their own independent state, since they held their values on slavery as a probable cause, their rejection of President Lincoln’s ideas attests to this. Territorial conflict also amounted to the conflict; a population driven by the desire to expand their territories, and maintain status quo was observable from the two opponents, confederate army and the Union. America’s development and liberalization from civil war is notable as one of the products of that war. This period of civil war, is therefore, according to the article, the most critical moment that defined America’s destiny, and prompted recognition of a single federal government to run the states. It also acted as a period when racial differences were put aside to fight for a common goal, although this would still present more challenges in the future. The article, therefore, presents a defining moment in American history.
Women American civil war
The American civil war saw less participation of women as compared to men. The women mainly remained behind to look after the family and provide morals of a good society. Some women wanted to serve as nurses but still, they were rejected (Keene, 2009, p.136). However, they found their way of getting involved in the war. Most of them volunteered as nurses and unionists as well as confederates in hospitals and military bases. One of the few women was Mary Edwards who got even more involved and later became a surgeon in the military. The reason behind the rejection of participation for women by the government was their weakness in matters such as war. The government felt that the women might as well become sympathetic and end up aiding the enemies.
The legacy of Columbus
From America to Europe, the number of natural figures, monuments and even places named after Christopher Columbus increases day after day. In the American continent, in particular, there are quite several countries where rivers, cities and other monuments are named after the explorer. As indicated by Mersiske Hans, in his article ‘the legacy of Columbus’ the European countries have joined the tradition of the explorer. By naming events and places after the great explorer the countries ensure that the legacy that the explorer left behind is preserved. Columbus receives much more honor now than during his lifetime. This honor also comes with recognition. This is the reason why more countries in America and Europe will continue naming events and objects after the great explorer. This may be perhaps because of the view during his lifetime, in which many viewed him as a failure. Years after his death, many realized his works and their importance to humanity. This called for the recognition and honor that Columbus has today.
As Mersiske puts it, every historian has a duty not to be precise in facts about humanity. He should not be in favor of the good at the expense of evil or vice-versa. According to Mersiske Hans (2010, para 4), Columbus will remain a good product of his era. Though he made mistakes along the way, the world will remember him now and for years to come.
The Radicalism of the American Revolution
The question that still lingers in the minds of many is of radicalism of the American Revolution. In this article Gordon Wood tends to challenge the historians who took the American Revolution as a rebellion to conserve the status quo that existed at that time. According to Wood (1993, p.8), America and Americans, in general, transformed in terms of their social lives and status. He does this very critically by evaluating American history from the era of revolution to around 1760 and the 19th century. The revolution completely changed how people related socially (Woods, 1993, p.5). The article explains and analysis the transition of America from a monarchy to a democratic republic. According to Wood, the revolution shifted the whole issue from a rise against the kingship and the monarchy and bloodshed to a change to a republic that is founded on new ways to free the people by defining lifestyles suitable for them.
Reference List
- Fitzgerald, C. (1986). American history, vol 2. New York: Meckler Pub.
- Keene, J. (2009). Visions of America, Volume 2: A History of the United States, Since 1865. New York: Pearson Education.
- Mersiske, H.A. (2010). The Legacy of Columbus 2010. MIT Press Journals 43(2), 176-177.
- Wood, S.G. (1993). The radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books