| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | | | |
| | :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: It disappeared for a number of reasons, including the election of 1852 and the death of Henry Clay, The compromise of 1850 split the party into pro- slavery and anti- slavery groups, causing the Whig candidates to lose votes depending on where they fell on the issue, causing it to weaken even more. To make the matter worse, many northern Whigs, including Lincoln, joined the Republican party, leading to the death of the Whig party. (Joseph) | | :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: It disappeared for a number of reasons, including the election of 1852 and the death of Henry Clay, The compromise of 1850 split the party into pro- slavery and anti- slavery groups, causing the Whig candidates to lose votes depending on where they fell on the issue, causing it to weaken even more. To make the matter worse, many northern Whigs, including Lincoln, joined the Republican party, leading to the death of the Whig party. (Joseph) |
| | + | |
| | + | :The Whig party, it disappeared because the Republican party absorbed it like how it absorbed pro life and tea party. (Sophia) |
| | + | |
| | + | :The political party that became very strong and then disappeared in this time period, were the Whigs, which were formed against Jacksonian politics. The reason that they disappeared was that they collapsed through disagreement on the slavery issue. (Johnny) |
| | | | |
| | 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)? | | 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)? |
| Line 22: |
Line 26: |
| | | | |
| | :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. (Addison) | | :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. (Addison) |
| | + | |
| | + | :Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book certainly opened the eyes of many people to the suffering inherent in the American social and legal system for the slaves. To the extent that it infuriated abolitionists and egged them on to oppose slavery, the book did contribute to the war; but the northern states would have been adamant in the opposition to slavery even without Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and the war was also fueled by a number of political and economic issues. (Nathan) |
| | | | |
| | 6. Explain the cartoon, and what you think the cartoonist's view was. The woman's quote begins, "You have been a bad boy, Steve, ever since you had anything to do with that Nebraska Bill ...." | | 6. Explain the cartoon, and what you think the cartoonist's view was. The woman's quote begins, "You have been a bad boy, Steve, ever since you had anything to do with that Nebraska Bill ...." |
| − |
| |
| − | :It might have been possible if the Nebraska-Kansas act supporting popular sovereignty had not been passed, I highly doubt we could have avoided it though. Even if the law had not been passed, the conflict over slavery would still be strong between the north and south, but would not have affected every state so much. (Daniel)
| |
| | | | |
| | 7. "Remember the Alamo!" Why? | | 7. "Remember the Alamo!" Why? |
| Line 34: |
Line 38: |
| | | | |
| | :While there can be an infinite set of ideas to avoid the war, I believe the chances of any of those theories coming through and being successful to be improbable. From these 18 years I have been alive I have learned that in the case of right and wrong it is rare for evil to be removed without some kind of struggle. I have seen this and experienced it in the smallest of quarrels to the greatest of international crisis’s. It is foolish to believe that something as dividing and costly as 3.5 million slaves could be reconciled in a peaceful manner. Eventually there would have to be a conflict, the question shouldn’t be whether it could have been avoided but how those involved could have reduced the damage of the fallout. (James) | | :While there can be an infinite set of ideas to avoid the war, I believe the chances of any of those theories coming through and being successful to be improbable. From these 18 years I have been alive I have learned that in the case of right and wrong it is rare for evil to be removed without some kind of struggle. I have seen this and experienced it in the smallest of quarrels to the greatest of international crisis’s. It is foolish to believe that something as dividing and costly as 3.5 million slaves could be reconciled in a peaceful manner. Eventually there would have to be a conflict, the question shouldn’t be whether it could have been avoided but how those involved could have reduced the damage of the fallout. (James) |
| | + | |
| | + | :It might have been possible if the Nebraska-Kansas act supporting popular sovereignty had not been passed, I highly doubt we could have avoided it though. Even if the law had not been passed, the conflict over slavery would still be strong between the north and south, but would not have affected every state so much. (Daniel) |
| | + | |
| | + | :I don't think it could have been avoided. After all, the entire war began because the South wanted slaves, even though it was morally wrong. They didn't want other states telling them what to believe in, and it became a huge ordeal. This problem had to be faced sooner or later. (Elise) |
| | | | |
| | == Honors Questions == | | == Honors Questions == |
| Line 47: |
Line 55: |
| | H2. Hamilton v. Burr, Lincoln v. Douglas, Jefferson v. Adams - great rivalries in American history. What do they have in common? Discuss. | | H2. Hamilton v. Burr, Lincoln v. Douglas, Jefferson v. Adams - great rivalries in American history. What do they have in common? Discuss. |
| | | | |
| − | | + | :Each of the rivalries had different origins and outcomes. However what each individual had in common was a steadfast character. They took responsibility for themselves and were not afraid to stand up for what they believed would be best for the American people. (Except Burr) (Kyle) |
| | | | |
| | H3. 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? | | H3. 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? |
| | | | |
| | + | :Until Grant became the general of the Union it looked like the South was going to win. Earlier in the war the South had won almost all of the conflicts. But since the North had a better economy they could sustain the war longer. The North beat the South the same way we won the Cold War: we had a better economy and more money. Except in a few situations, money always wins the war, because it gets you more allies, better weapons and more supplies. The reason the South’s economy failed is because they relied on the north and other countries for finished supplies, with the North blockading the oceans there was no way the south could trade. (Sean) |
| | | | |
| − | | + | :The South could not of won the Civil War for three reasons: lack of manufacturing, poor leadership, and no international help. With no manufacturing capability the Confederacy couldn’t build a navy nor equip their forts with proper artillery. It also meant that they struggled to improve and repair the rail lines decreasing their ability to supply their armies. Having only two good generals (of which one died in 1863) and few good officers cost them the entire west and many battles in the east. The Confederacy had counted on the British or French joining the war. In order to make that happen the Confederacy stopped exporting cotton. However Egypt also supplied cotton making the Confederacies choice ineffective and British and French were more reliant on the Unions corn then the Confederacies cotton. Without any help, under blockade, and losing battles left and right the Confederacy didn’t have the manpower needed to fight let alone win a war. (Sean) |
| − | H4. Discuss the role of campaign slogans and gimmicks: what worked, and what didn't.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| | | | |
| | H5. Compare or contrast the ''Dred Scott'' decision with ''Roe v. Wade''. | | H5. Compare or contrast the ''Dred Scott'' decision with ''Roe v. Wade''. |