Homework Four Answers - Student Three

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

The North supported higher tariffs because they protected their manufacturing companies against competition by foreign manufacturers. This gave the Northern manufacturers control of the market. The South opposed tariffs, because it caused them to pay more for imported equipment and goods. The foreign nations retaliated by imposing similar tariffs on the cotton exported by the South, making competition in foreign markets harder, and thus reducing the southern farmers’ revenue. Raising the price of foreign goods reduced the amount of goods to be transported back to the United States on the ships returning from transporting the cotton over to Europe. These half-empty returning ships further increased the price of getting the cotton to market and therefore further reduced their profit margin. These tariffs became a leading cause of the Civil War.

Superb answer! Will probably make this a model answer.

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

James Monroe was the most politically conservative of the early presidents (after George Washington). He was against the national government’s power becoming too strong and earlier he had opposed the ratification of the Constitution as an “Anti-Federalist”. America was immensely prosperous under Monroe’s conservative leadership, and the “Era of Good Feelings” overtook our country.

Many good things happened under Monroe’s presidency. In 1817, the United States and Britain agreed to limit armaments on the Great Lakes and waterways, which led to complete demilitarization of our border with Canada, which remains today. (This is known as the Rush-Bagot Treaty.) In 1819, Monroe completed the Adams-Onis Treaty to annex Florida to the United States, and added property north of the southern border of Oregon. In 1820, the successful Missouri Compromise resolved for several decades disputes about whether slavery would be permitted in new territories, and how to admit new states. Probably Monroe’s most lasting contribution was his Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which stated that Europe should not add new colonies in North or South America because Europe’s political and economic systems are vastly different from those in America. To this day, presidents continue to cite the Monroe Doctrine whenever a European country tries to do something in our hemisphere.

Furthermore, under Monroe’s leadership, roads and canals were built, and the economy blossomed. Additionally, under his leadership the House rejected most of the spending bills on internal projects. James Monroe became one of the best presidents in the history of America.

Terrific answer. Absolutely superb!

5. Choose any mystery or discussion question from the lecture, and write about it.

What is the real source of the name "Whig" in the "Whig Party"?

The Whig Party was an anti-Jacksonian party, founded by the powerful Senator Henry Clay from Kentucky in 1834. The name “Whig” was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence. "Whig" was then a widely recognized label for people who saw themselves as opposing tyranny. The American Whigs, who had also been called American Patriots, called themselves “Whigs” after 1768, identifying with members of the British Whig Party, who favored similar colonial policies. The British Whig Party contested power with the rival Tories from the 1680s to the 1850s. The Whigs' origin lay in constitutional monarchism and opposition to absolute rule. The Whig Party counted among its members such as national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their preeminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also nominated war heroes generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. Abraham Lincoln was the chief Whig leader in frontier Illinois.

Tremendous answer again, although I think there is some continuing debate on the origin of the name "Whig" for this political party.

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

I like the decision of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) best. It established the new power of the judicial review to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional. This is important because if Congress tries to pass a bill that some states feel is unwarranted by the Constitution, the Supreme Court can review it to make sure it is within the rights provided by the Constitution.

I do not like the decision of Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (1831). It held that the Cherokees are not a nation and cannot sue in federal court, and thus Georgia could remove them. I feel this was wrong because the Cherokee Indians were there before Europeans settled in Georgia, and they had no right to throw the Native Americans out of their homeland. It seems to me they should have been considered American citizens and should have had the same rights as other Americans. Their rights were not protected by the Constitution and they were not accorded the right to sue in federal court. In fact, Georgia was allowed to remove them from their native land and they were not allowed their voice of dissent to be heard. When they were ultimately removed in 1838, it was known as the Trail of Tears.

Superb answer.

7. Identify the figures in the cartoon, provide an approximate date, and describe the likely viewpoint of the cartoonist.

The figures in the cartoon (from left to right) represent Britain, Russia (specifically the czar of Russia), and America. It was drawn by the American cartoonist William Charles, around 1813, before the Treaty of Ghent, which was actually signed on December 24, 1814. I think that Charles is implying that Britain (represented by the kneeling character of John Bull) should never have entered the war with America, because it had cost them too much. This cartoon also depicts Russia (symbolized by the bear) trying to be the mediator for peace between Britain and America. Columbia (the lady who represents America) is saying that she cannot consider negotiating peace with England until they have proved they can be trusted by Americans. Up until this time, they were destroying our cities, arming and inciting the Native Americans to attack forts and settlements, harassing our ships and impressing our sailors, etc.

Terrific analysis.

8. Describe something that surprises you about the map of the United States in 1840.

I find it surprising that the top of the Northeast (part of Maine today) and the Oregon Country were claimed by both England and America. Only a few years before, these two countries had been fighting against each other, but in 1840, they still shared the same territory. In addition, it is interesting to see that Mexico still owned a big portion of our land in the west, from the Pacific Ocean to the middle of modern-day Texas.

Right.

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

I agree that purchasing the Louisiana Territory was unconstitutional, however I disagree that we paid too much for it. Originally, the price for the territory was $11.25 million. Even though we may have been stuck paying an extra $4 million in debts owed by France to American citizens, we almost doubled the size of our country for only a few pennies an acre. Jefferson may have jumped the gun and purchased the land without the Congress’s approval, however timing is everything. In the early 1800s, communication and travel was much slower than it is today. If he had waited for all the Congressmen to convene in Washington DC, and then vote on the decision, it would have taken a long time. The congressmen cannot travel quickly back then as they can today. Besides that, the Senate later ratified the “Louisiana Purchase” by more than two-thirds of the Congress. If they had not approved of it, then we would have had a problem. Jefferson may have used the wrong methods, but I feel these were extenuating circumstances and the end justified the means. This does not mean this should set a precedent for the future presidents. I do not think they should have the power to circumvent the proper constitutional provisions.

Arguing that "the end justified the means" is not likely to win many supporters. Usually that phrase is used to criticize the concept.

Your answer is good but it seems to contradict itself by saying it was unconstitutional, but OK, but it should not set a precedent, etc. Also, is the land really worth that much in inflation-adjusted dollars today? It probably is, but why couldn't Americans settle it for free rather than paying money for it? Why did France have a better claim to the land than Americans in the first place? (Minus 1)

H3. Discuss any debate topic or mystery related to 1800-1840.

Did Alexander Hamilton cut a deal with Thomas Jefferson to make him president?

I am not sure whether Alexander Hamilton cut a deal with Thomas Jefferson, but the circumstances suggest that this is true. Hamilton, a staunch Federalist and a Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, had fought Jefferson in politics for over a decade, and they disliked each other intensely. However, the new Democratic-Republican Party ran both Jefferson and Aaron Burr when they tied for the presidency, and the decision had to be resolved in Congress. It makes sense that Hamilton would have used any persuasive powers he had with congressmen to convince them to choose Jefferson as President, because he felt that Jefferson’s opponent, Aaron Burr, was "the most unfit man in the United States for the office of president." I think Hamilton probably felt Jefferson was the “best of a bad lot” and decided to campaign for him rather than Burr. (This was probably part of the animosity felt by Burr, which ultimately ended in by Burr challenging him to a duel, which killed Hamilton.)

Excellent!

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

Andrew Jackson is considered the first modern president because (as one historian put it) “…he was the first one who asserted that the president was not merely a member of the government’s symphony, but it’s conductor,” metaphorically speaking. Jackson truly acted as the leader of America, just like a conductor leads a symphony. The president make the different parts of the country work together, as a musical conductor conducts the parts of the orchestra so they will play different parts of the musical score and it will all come together as a complete whole. A good conductor does not only “keep time” and indicate when a section comes in – he uses a deft hand to manage the message – interpreting the music by indicating the sound quality and volume he requires, but adhering to the score for the symphony just as the president must follow the laws set forth in the Constitution. To carry the metaphor further, a president needs to lead the nation and set a good tone with the people and policies he surrounds himself with. He conducts the country’s business by listening and leading the nation by uniting the states and the parties in common goals for the common good. He has to interpret what the important problems in the nation are and take a leadership role in finding solutions to the domestic as well as foreign issues. There are the other two branches of government and two houses of Congress that he must lead and work with, as well as many committees and cabinet members he must listen to (of course these have greatly increased in number since Jackson’s time!)

Jackson established the powerful tools of the modern presidency. These included vetoing bills of Congress to prevent them from becoming law, removing people from office when the President disagreed with them, and using executive orders as President to give his views the power of law.

I think I probably would have voted for Andrew Jackson for several reasons. He was a brave war hero in the War of 1812. He appeals to me as a “common man” and he did not try to act like he was from a higher class or “put on airs”. Jackson campaigned against government corruption and “back-room deals”. He did away with the national bank and vetoed national road projects because he was a strict constitutionalist. He felt if the power is not stated expressly in the Constitution, then it did not exist.

Excellent answer! Could quote from it as a model answer.

Katy T.

Grade: Terrific homework! 89/90, the best in the class this week so far!--Andy Schlafly 16:59, 6 March 2011 (EST)