creative+outside+readings

x

Based on the NBC Archives video: The Whiskey Rebellion

KBM The Whiskey Rebellion is beyond being known solely as a revolt due to a disliked tax of the new American country. When President Washington personally decided to set and lead troops to the riot, he was putting his foot down and laying down the law that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated by their new government. It was a display of strength that the president and the new government held. This government maintained more power than the British monarchy had had over the colonists because it was revered and also held more power to take action, unlike the British who were severely out-numbered in the colonies. America had finally received its independence so there was no direct call for rebellion and built up tension against the higher governmental powers. Citizens needed to learn that they were no longer in a period of salutary neglect by a small island ruler that overlooked most of their outcries. The American federal government was taking control and Washington’s actions set the new standard that rebellion and chaos would not be acceptable or tolerable in the new country. The farmers were appalled by the new tax because they viewed it from a personal and egotistical perspective: they were getting less money. They failed to look at the big picture and realize that this was helping pay off Revolutionary war debts. These taxes were necessary for the country and they were deserved, unlike previous British taxes that had no benefit towards the colonies. British imposed taxes, like the Stamp Act, were put in place for the sole benefit of Britain. They needed to pay of war debts that the colonies had no affiliation too, and for this, the rebellion against the Stamp Act was understandable. The Whiskey Rebellion set Americans in their place and was a major demonstration of the supremacy held by the new government as well as a revelation to the citizens that new authority would be enforced.

JGF From the NBCLearn Videos ”Alexander Hamilton Becomes Secretary of the Treasury,” “Alexander Hamilton Funds the National Debt,” and “Assuming State Debts.”

Though George Washington was a very good choice for the presidency, after taking office he realized he needed help. The presidential cabinet was established, and Alexander Hamilton became the first Secretary of the Treasury and the most influential part of the cabinet in America's formative years. Hamilton was a visionary figure, and he led one of the most important roles in propelling the Unites States to the forefront of the global community.

Hamilton’s appointment to the cabinet signified the beginning of a series of calculated reforms that allowed America to be affluent without having actual wealth. For example, his notion to “Fund the Debt” incurred by the states during the revolution brought the government the ability to raise taxes and assume more federal power over the states. His idea, that every year 15% of all revenues must be spent paying back the debt, allowed the government to report that they were paying their debts while still maintaining 85% of revenues for other projects. As a result, countries who the Unites States already owed money to were foolishly willing to lend more. Now what to do with the extra revenue being poured into American coffers? Subsidize industrialization in the form of factory building. Without this law, industrialization would have taken much longer because Americans during this time were hesitant to risk their personal fortunes.

So Hamilton had given America a means to get money, and a means to technologically surpass England. The only thing left, apparently, was the gain the loyalty of the citizens of America. Specifically, he wanted the loyalty of the wealthiest citizens of America. And the easiest way to make someone loyal to you, he reasoned, was to make them your creditors. So he borrowed money from America’s “biggest players,” the affluent people of the nation, and thus gained their support in all governmental ventures.

JGF

From the NBCLearn Video “Thomas Jefferson and the Embargo Act” and the primary source, “President Thomas Jefferson Defends the Embargo Act”

Though Thomas Jefferson had the best intentions for his country, he let fear of war cloud his judgment and ended up doing more harm for America than good with his Embargo act of 1807. He defended himself by saying, “a state of non-intercourse [is] so favorable to their [merchants and manufacturer’s] rapid growth and prosperity.” Today, however, it is clear that war time can be a period of explosive economic development.

Before Jefferson retarded the international trade, 1807 was a record breaking year economically. England and France were both buying from American manufacturers in such volume that exports increased by over 400% percent. England, feeling threatened by this rapid expansion, implemented a series of policies known as the Orders of Council, which effectively forbade American ships to enter French ports. Napoleon then prohibited every nation in the world from carrying on trade with the British. Naturally, both of these reforms were ignored and American merchants learned how to “run the blockades.”

As this created more and more conflict at sea, Jefferson feared a war was mounting with one or both great countries. He urged congress to pass the Embargo Act, and so foreign trade was forbidden for America. Trade declined, and the citizens protested. Under threats of secession, Jefferson gave in and three days before his retirement from office, the Embargo Act was repealed.

NDH- “James Madison and the War of 1812” In “James Madison and the War of 1812, it is claimed that the most important battle of the war was the battle of New Orleans. The battle of New Orleans didn’t help America win the War because it happened after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. The actual most important battle of the War of 1812 was the battle of Baltimore, which was the final battle of the war before the Treaty was signed.

The battle at Baltimore wasn’t the first battle America won, but it was a very important victory as it proved that America’s defense could hold up against Britain’s strongest offense. The cannons used against Fort McHenry were twice as powerful as those used against Washington months earlier, so the fact that McHenry held up proved America’s defensive superiority. This battle ultimately won the war, and caused the creation of our national anthem, which was written about the great sight of America still winning by morning.

While the Treaty was being signed, the Battle at New Orleans was just unfolding. Jean Lafitte was siding himself with both sides of the battle for his own benefit, while neither the Americans nor the British knew it. Lafitte gave information about the Fort to the British, and yet he fought for the American’s and told them the British’s plans. Lafitte setting up the battle made it almost a joke of a fight, since both sides were being controlled by one party. This fact paired with the timing made the Battle New Orleans a very insignificant battle for the war, despite the fact that the Americans were completely successful.

Based of NBC News Archives Video "The War of 1812"

EMB- Prior to the War of 1812, Britain and France were locked in a seemingly endless war. The American Revolution had occurred a few decades prior and Britain had turned her main focus toward France. The United States was busy organizing herself and trying to make a place for herself among the powers of the world. France was utilizing Napoleon against Britain and trying to hold her own. Neither France nor Britain wanted America to be in league with the other, two against one just wouldn’t be fair.

America wasn’t looking to join sides, per se. She was working on establishing herself in the world. In this respect, trade with foreign powers was essentially important to even her mere survival. America was still incredibly young as a country and trade was clearly a great source of wealth. Though America did not desire any part in the war between France and England, she didn’t have much of a choice when Britain’s paranoia negatively impacted her trade.

Britain had a notably strong navy; given that she’s an island, it only makes sense. As Britain became more cautious of American interaction with her enemy France, she utilized her navy to capture American trade ships, the sailors on them, and the goods. With good reason, this enraged Americans and was highly influential in the outbreak of the War of 1812.

It should be noted that Britain’s offensive move against a neutral America shows that Britain was at total fault for the war. Had France made the same maneuvers against American trade ships on their way to Britain, they may have ended up in the same position Britain in which had placed herself right before the War of 1812 broke out. A prevention of Britain’s unreasonable endeavor against the United States could have prevented such tensions from arising between the two nations that resulted in a war on two fronts for the former mother country.

checked

SW - In NBC Archives “George Washington Becomes the First President” Carol Berkin explains that George Washington was a weak political figure. Berkin states that Washington only played a minor role and that the real power lied in the congress. She said that George Washington knew his place and he did not put his nose in the politics of America. Even when asked his opinion on a political matter he did not provide advice because he felt that he did not have an important say in politics. But, in fact, Washington was a very active political figure. Douglas Kiker states this opinion in “Contemporary Reporting of Washington Taking Office: A Re-enactment”. He states that Washington was very active in politics and served as a guide in government, because it did not only rely on congress, it relied on the president too. George Washington even took two terms of office because America supported him and his politics. He had the last say on matters and he used his vote. He started the government and led it so that it did not collapse. When the government was first challenged in the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington put his foot down and did not let the government fall. He kept a firm decision and did not back down when the rebellion grew. He even used the army as an example of how far he would go to keep everything under control. He knew how to deal with problems and passed the new governments first challenge. America needed someone strong to guide the new nation when it was born, and Washington was obviously the one that fit that qualification. Although Washington could be seen as a figurehead in the American government, he was truly and influential political figure. more a summary of the two clips
 * week** 2 v

JCT Referring to NBC Archive's " Proclamation by Andrew Jackson Attacking the Nullification Ordinance of the South Carolina Convention " Andrew Jackson’s reaction to South Carolina’s Nullification Ordinance is an example of how history repeats itself. When George Washington was quashing the Whiskey Rebellion, he threatened to personally lead the army against the protestors. Jackson uses this same strategy when he tells South Carolina that if they follow through on their ordinance, he will lead the army against them. Jackson was able to use Washington’s famous lines and his untouched prestige to make himself look better. He commonly did this in his time as President if he did not know how to respond to something, as he was a horrible debater. When his Vice President, John C. Calhoun, made a toast with the intention of making Jackson look bad at a celebration for the anniversary of Jefferson, Jackson responded by quoting the Constitution, instead of thinking of his own lines. Of course, when it came to making decisions, Jackson tended to take no one’s thoughts into consideration but his own, or at least was perceived as so, which landed him the nickname “King Andrew.” For example, when Congress decided that the Bank of America was both useful and constitutional, they decided that Jackson would not be allowed to dissolve it. Jackson, inconsiderate of the opinion of even the all-powerful Congress, dissolved it anyway. Jackson was a man of great mood swings, varying from his inability to speak for his self, and his readiness to act on his own accord. Based on NBC News Archives Clip “The War Against the Bank” KEO- “The War Against the Bank” describes President Andrew Jackson’s fight to destroy the Bank of the United States which he deemed unconstitutional. This clip reveals that Jackson’s battle against the Bank was one of the most significant political and economic events of the time. In terms of politics, Jackson’s dispute with the National Bank led to the development of the political ideology that exists today. When the time came to renew the charter for the Second Bank of the United States, Jackson failed to renew it because he felt that the Bank was unconstitutional and it took away from the rights of the states and the liberties of the people. To make his position clear, Jackson removed the federal government’s deposits from the Bank and distributed them to smaller state owned banks under the condition that they were required to hand out loans. In doing this, Jackson enforced an important theme in politics: the fight of the common people against the wealthy elite, or populism. Resentment of the wealthy by the poor had been common in American society before Jackson’s presidency, but Jackson’s ending of the national bank was a huge blow to the power of the moneyed elite. Jackson’s Bank War also stands out in that it caused the only censure of a president by the Congress in history. According to the NBC clip “Censuring a President,” the Senate was so angered by Jackson’s removal of the government’s deposits that they censured him in 1834. Although the censure was expunged after 3 years, it was the only time in history that the Congress accused a president of overstepping his bounds in terms of political power. Jackson’s war against the bank also had significant economic effects. His actions brought about an end to the era of centralized control over the country’s monetary system. This was a huge change because prior to Jackson’s presidency, the government played a major role in developing the country’s economic policies. The American System, proposed by Henry Clay, revolved around the ideas of Alexander Hamilton and they called for a high tariff to finance internal improvements and a National Bank to encourage enterprise and create a national currency. When Jackson put an end to the existence of the Bank of the United States, he put an end to this system. Following Jackson’s war with the Bank, an independent treasury was established in the United States in which public revenues would be retained completely independent of the nation’s banking and financial system. This system created controversy among different political parties, but it ended up lasting from 1846-1921. Central control of the power to tax and regulate commerce was the basis of Hamilton’s economic policy, so by destroying the national bank, Jackson ended this system and paved the way to the laissez-faire system of economics that was characteristic of modern American society. It has been said that the Jackson presidency was like a bridge linking colonial and modern America and the effects of the war against the bank prove that this is true. Jackson was clearly responsible for triggering huge changes that lay the groundwork for American society today. JGF - NBCLearn Video: The Nullification Crisis

When Congress passed a tariff against foreign goods in 1828, the South was devastated. The tariff, designed to promote intra-national trade by making foreign goods more expensive than American ones, was really only beneficial to Northern states, because the North was where the textile mills were. But unlike the North, the South exported raw products and imported manufactured goods. They couldn't rely on themselves to produce the things they had been buying from England. John C. Calhoun declared that the tariff was unconstitutional on the grounds that it helped the North at the expense of the South. But when South Carolina tried to nullify the tariff, Jackson enforced it anyway. When Jackson enforced it anyway, South Carolina said they would secede. And when South Carolina threatened to secede, Jackson said he would lead the army against them personally. Though many historians cite this as being Jackson at his Presidential best, when all of the facts are examined, John C. Calhoun emerges as being more morally and politically correct than Jackson. Jackson was an unskilled President. His oration was mediocre, his policies questionable, and his handling of Native American issues grotesque. So when historians look back at the Jacksonian era, they have little to praise. It is for this reason only that his handling of the Nullification Crisis is looked on so favorably. John C Calhoun, however, was an extremely good debater. He anonymously published the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest," which laid out very clearly why the tariff was unconstitutional and explained how South Carolina could legally and constitutionally decline to enforce it, as well as describing the rights of a state to legally and constitutionally secede. If the best response Jackson could come up with was ‘my army is bigger than your army,’ then obviously Calhoun had the logical upper hand. center on this and explore both sides --if done well you'll have a really good analysis

KBM The result of Jackson's Indian Removal Act, the death of thousands of Native Americans through the Trail of Tears, was tragic and frowned upon in today's society. However, back in the day, it was a reflection of American attitudes towards the natives. Andrew Jackson stubbornly ignored the Supreme Court when they ruled in favor of the Cherokee vs. Georgia dilemma stating "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.", implying that Jackson would not support, enforce, or acknowledge the ruling. He truly believed that he was doing what was best for the nation, not focusing solely on his beliefs. He viewed the American agriculture as more important than the lives of natives, however this issue could have been solved much less dramatically had the nation just enforced proper farming techniques for the land. Jackson was known as the 'common man', and whether it was true or simply a charade, Jackson's views on Native Americans were similar to that of the common man, or at least the common southern farmers. The farmers in need of fertile land (due to not performing proper crop rotations, fertilization, etc..) immediately turned to the Native Americans which they believed they could take advantage of. Regardless of how the Native Americans attempted to conform through education and even the 'proper' purchasing of the land, they were treated like dirt and were viewed as a waste of space. The common man needed land to run his farm and sustain his livelihood, other issues were irrelevant and, to them, the Indians were dispensable and of little importance. Since Congress passes the act as well, they must have also seen the benefits over the Indian losses and unfairness, so Jackson is not solely the one to blame as he is portrayed to be. It wasn’t only Jackson who held cruel beliefs that the only good Indian was a dead one. Much of the farming ‘common man’ nation held the same or similar beliefs, and because of this, Jackson’s policy of the Indian Removal Act was a reflection of many Southern American attitudes on the same problem not just a reflection of Jackson’s cruelty.

MDS Based on NBC Archives video “Andrew Jackson: American Lion” and JSTOR article “Andrew Jackson as Administrator” by Albert Somit. In his interview on NBC, Jon Meacham, author of __Andrew Jackson: American Lion__, draws interesting parallels between the recent election and viewpoints of Barack Obama and Jackson’s election in 1828. While it is true that both presidents came into office as champions of change and democracy, speakers for the people of the nation in times of economic and social uncertainty, the issue lies in their implementation of such lofty visions. Many historians depict Jackson as appealing to the people, but failing to manage the government effectively. They describe his decisions as rash and arrogant – which, as Albert Somit explains in his article “Andrew Jackson as an Administrator”, is a common misconception. Although often he was unsuccessful, Jackson made every effort with the intention to reform the governmental administration and improve life for Americans. Jackson as president embodied the contradictory nature of American policy – he was capable of both kindness and cruelty, making good decisions as well as terrible mistakes. Historians such as Meacham and Somit have recently come to excuse Jackson’s blunders with the knowledge that he created democracy as it is today – despite certain questionable choices, such as his cruel Indian removal policies, he was fiercely loyal to the people of America and to the country itself. Obama has acted similarly to Jackson – perhaps disappointing many with a seeming lack of progress that was promised, but nonetheless loyal to the betterment of America and a higher standard of living for its people. Why, then, is he so criticized? What his critics fail to understand is that Obama follows the same standards of democracy that Jackson established in the 1820’s and 30’s. The issue is these standards themselves, not those who implement them – democracy is inherently limited, and over time will produce competing interests and sometimes questionable compromises – sacrifices made for the sake of the greater future, a decidedly Jacksonian idea. A common argument is that Obama is less successful because he is less aggressive about his policy of change than was Jackson – when Jackson’s aggressive nature was actually one of his less attractive qualities, a trait that caused some of his cruelest and most criticized actions – such as commissioning the Trail of Tears. In truth, Meacham’s assessment of the striking similarity between Obama’s presidency and Jackson’s is quite valid in that while Obama's level of success is yet to be determined, he is acting mainly upon a revised version of Jacksonian democratic principle – that progress is made as adjustments to legislation and policy change according to the needs of the people . Based on NBC Archives Video "Alexander Hamilton Funds the National Debt" EMB— After the Revolutionary War, the United States was left with a heavy national debt to foreign powers that helped fund them while they battled against the mother country. Alexander Hamilton was a nationalist who admired British economic policy and believed in a strong centralized government. He was also appointed the United States’ first Secretary of Treasury and was therefore charged with figuring out how to diminish the debt. Hamilton decided the best course of action would be to increase revenue and take a percentage of it specifically for the reimbursement of foreign powers from which America had borrowed so much money. Hamilton determined that the government would only need to take fifteen percent of the revenue to gradually pay off the debts, but he also wanted to increase the revenue. Therefore that fifteen percent could remain fifteen percent and yet still become an increasingly larger amount of money. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton disagreed on several ideas for the American government, the most relevant being the establishment of a national bank. Hamilton believed its establishment would help to pay off the national debt more quickly when all the individual state debts were combined into one entity. By combining the debts, it would ensure that no state slacked on its payments and it would all be collectively paid off. Jefferson’s opposition to this lies in state rights and strict interpretation of the Constitution. Strict interpretation says that if the Constitution doesn’t say it’s cannot happen, then one is to assume it’s not allowed; Hamilton’s loose interpretations states that if the Constitution doesn’t say something cannot be done, one can it assume it can be done. The clash between the views of the two men is in that the Constitution never says anything about the establishment of a national bank. Hamilton’s good intentions in creating a national bank conflict with Jefferson’s steady belief in state rights. Jefferson’s strict interpretation ensures that everything the government is allowed to do is stated in the Constitution and everything else is up to the states to decide for themselves individually. Alexander Hamilton eventually prevailed with his ideas and a national bank was formed. The fifteen percent of revenue went to paying off national debt to foreign powers and thus allowed the United States to take out even more loans. So long as America was paying off her debts, it was perfectly fine for her to be taking out even more loans at the same time.

MJM. NBC News Archives “The Lowell Girls” Francis Lowell built a factory that could take raw cotton and complete the process of turning it into cloth all under one roof. This was not the only revolutionary idea about his factory in Massachusetts. Little did he know but Francis Lowell forever changed industry, the industrial workforce and the status of women. It is important to first examine the meaning behind the time period in which these young workers lived. The Eerie canal had already been built so trade in the North of the country grew almost exponentially and also induced farmers to move west. Mostly young men did this as they could make a living on new arable land west of the Appalachians. Women of the same generation also yearned to get away from the family farm. For these women the opportunity became apparent with the Industrial Revolution. Eli Whitney’s cotton gin and the textile mills from England led to a huge demand for labor in factories. When the capital of supply increases then the labor input must also increase in order to produce more. This labor ended up being young woman, starting at the age of 16, could supplement their family income but it was also attractive for different reasons. Lowell, Massachusetts became a factory town had dormitories, churches, entertainment and educational opportunities all centered around the factories. This is comparable to the American dream. These girls could leave their homes to find a better and freer life as long as they were willing to work hard. This gave women a place in society outside of the domestic sphere raising children and being a wife. Before this time working women in towns tended to be prostitutes or taverns. Being able to work in a factory greatly improved the social status of urban women. The schooling past elementary level offered in the dormitories also began the process of higher education and even colleges for women. But as all things driven by capitalism, factory owners saw that if they decreased the cost of input (like wages) then their profit margins would be higher. Thus wages were cut and since unions had not been invented get to stand up for these workers a new source for labor had to be found. Immigrants became the new labor force and that seems to continue today. Over history it has been polish, Irish, Chinese and a whole array of immigrants and for today’s day in age we are dependent on Mexican immigrants. It is imperative to understand these connections when studying history and how even in today’s market economy its roots can be found in the 19th century inventions and advancement of women. center on red statement for a potentially good analysis NDH- “The Erie Canal and the Growth of New York” “Invention of the Steamboat” “Early American Turnpikes”-NBC Archives Andrew Jackson was the first president to have experienced a faster moving America. The invention of new ways of travel increased the speed of which people and things moved, which in turn increased the size and wealth of America. The increased rate of trade gave more jobs and money to Americans, so they liked Jackson, but it was much harder on the president to run things.

Creation of canals and turnpikes gave work to men who didn’t own land, but these men had to put a lot of work into them. Though it took a long time, these canals made routes that didn’t exist before, which moved goods faster. The Erie Canal was the longest of these projects taking 8 years to complete, but upon its completion, it doubled the speed of shipping and cut the cost to 10% of the original cost. The turnpikes worked similarly in speeding up and cutting the cost of the process of shipping.

Another major improvement to shipping was the creation of steam engines. Steam engines allowed people to travel upstream //and// downstream and at a faster rate than usual. This also sped up American economy by a great amount.

All these improvements to America’s economy called for great changes in government since less people owned land, more people existed, and there was much more money circulating. Andrew Jackson dealt with all these issues during his presidency. Though he was the first president of the Industrial Revolution he was successful, since he wanted as much change as was necessary at the time. SW - In NBC Archives “The War of 1812” Eric Foner explains that America went to war against England in the War of 1812 because of the problem with trade. England and France were at war with each other at that time. England did not want America to trade with France; and France did not want America to trade with Britain. Both England and France wanted to restrict American trade. Britain was the leader of the seas and prevented America from trading by terrorizing American ships. English sailors held up American ships and took Americans as hostages to work for the British. America just wanted rights to trade with anybody on the sea. But as Albert Hibbs states in “James Madison and the War of 1812” the want for right of neutrality on the seas was not the only reason for the War of 1812 between England and America. It is true that it was one of the reasons but it was not the only one. Americans needed the war psychologically to show Britain that it is independent once and for all. British were still holding up ships and acting as if they were still the mother country of America. But America was a country of its own and had its rights. Britain wanted anything for America to fall and come crawling back to its mother country. America in the end won the War of 1812 and fulfilled the psychological cause of the war, which was to show what America truly was an independent nation. Although the want to trade with anyone was an important cause of the War of 1812 the psychosocial need to prove that America is an independent nation was another reason for the war. checked


 * wweek** 3 v

=
Power throughout the United States was divided between National and state governments. The decision made by the Constitutional Convention in the constitution had a plethora of positive and negative influences on the development of America. A lot of the conflict within American history can be traced back to disagreements over the division of power. ======

=
The establishment of Federalism allowed the United States to be founded. The states were careful not to give in to a centralized government, which would be similar to the country they have been fighting to separate from. With federalism, there isn’t one part of the government with absolute rule, but multiple parts to ensure fairness for everyone. Important to a well balanced government, the cooperation of the states and the national governments must be followed, such as state legislation. ======

=
If states just passed whatever types of codes and amendments they so desired there could be a lot of friction between the state and the nation. So they must work together to uphold the constitution and to function as one. Also, the modern day interstate system would not be possible without cooperation among states and between states and the national government. These roads have to be maintained, however they are too much responsibility for one party to oversee so they are kept up by both. ======

=
The entire reason for different states was because of differing opinions among a populous of people. There are many differences in opinion from state to state. One such example would be the separation of the Carolinas. If everyone felt the same way about the policies of one singular state there would not be a North and South Carolina, but merely a Carolina. ======

*** JT Antebellum Reformers: Transcendentalism Transcendentalists believed that everyone had a soul with the same desires for learning and freedom. This belief made them strong opponents to slavery. The idea of abolition was far from welcome in America, as the country was considered too fragile to handle any such movement, provoking fears of secession. The South’s economy was centered on plantations and slavery. Both cotton and slave trading were extremely profitable markets that not only paid off monetarily, but created a culture of white elites. Transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were appalled at the thought of any human being owned by another, because it stunted their ability to explore and obviously limited their freedom which every soul naturally deserved. This is a classic example of ideals that separated the North from the South. While both regions worked together to keep America thriving through trade, the North found itself developing much faster than the South, as it had canals, steamboats, railroads in between cities, and multiple reform movements arising. Reforms in education and women’s rights accompanied by the institution of asylums and temperance were all keys to the North’s superiority in development over the South. Massachusetts saw a large number of individuals rise to promote educational reforms, such as Horace Mann, the “Father of American Education,” and even women such as Emma Willard who taught math and science that people thought only men could comprehend. Improving the quality of American education was extremely important to Transcendentalists, who believed in a continual quest for knowledge and peace with themselves and nature. The South did not see such reforms. Generally, the only children educated were the sons of plantation owners who paid to have a private tutor come to their home for a period of time. There were major differences in the development of the North and the South, and the Transcendentalists were a big part of that with their beliefs in freedom for all individuals. center on on what is in red and explore in depth for a great analysis -- by including everything after you have turned this into a summary

*** SW -

It is surprising that there was a Temperance Movement during the Antebellum Era. Families regularly went to pubs and bars to socialize with other families. Although there was alcohol consumption whole families were in the pubs and it was not just the man going off and drinking by himself. It was a social place not only a place for drinking. It is unexpected that people wanted this to stop this. Without going out to pubs there would not be very much socializing. Almost every man consumed alcohol so it is interesting that some people saw it as wrong. It would have been expected to be normal. There was no proof that alcohol was bad for your body; therefore there was no concrete reason to stop drinking. Although being drunk causes someone not to be in the right state of mind most men drank and this kind of behavior would be have been standard. Also alcohol could cost a lot of money but because men drank so often and almost every family had a man drinking, it would have been an expense that had to always be paid in the family. It was not new expense, although hard to pay, it would just be a common expense because most men drank all of the time. Although it was not a necessity, when the whiskey tax was in place it was very much opposed because consuming alcohol was so common that it almost seemed like it was a necessity. One would think that alcohol consumption would have been accepted as a norm. Drinking was so commonly accepted during the Antebellum Era that it is surprising that there was a Temperance Movement. if you had centered on just the social aspect (pubs as a gathering place) this could have made a great analysis -- lack of cultural traditions of immigrants, ets

*** KBM As the industrial revolution progressed, the new innovations not only brought technological accomplishments but strengthened and expanded the United States physically and economically as it brought new quick and easy ideas and innovations. One of the major contributions to the industrial revolution was the creation of the Erie Canal. Not only did it help with westward expansion to fill in the relatively newly gained land, but it also allowed Americans to reach the natural resources that were located further west. West of the Appalachians, it was a terrible chore to have to bring wagons across the mountains just to reach the resources. After the canal was built, American activity instantly increased. American goods were able to travel much faster to the Atlantic, allowing it to reach other parts of the world the world much faster. Since more American goods were purchased, the economy was stirring. Trade with Canada was expedited and as more people used the canal and realized that the easy 6 days were almost pleasant to the hardships of around 3 weeks of travel before the canal, the Americans began searching for more ways to encourage the quick and easy life that many see today. The canal by no means was necessary, it was easier and quicker, which was a main idealistic contribution of the industrial revolution. Some may say that the buzz of the canal was short-lived, because, soon after, the railroad came about. The Erie canal spread ideas of expedited travel and the quicker and easy life-style, which still proves to linger today. It is well known that hard work pays off, but in the Industrial revolution, a rising thought of the working class was "How can I make this job easier?" The Erie Canal success and ease instigated the idea and desire for the railroads which yet again helped American economies, unity, and technology. Another spreading of the 'quick-and-easy' ideals of the industrial revolution was the Cotton Gin. The farmers of the south were clearly not phased by the difficulty of cleaning cotton for the slaves' benefit, what irked them was the amount of time it took. It was quicker and easier for the farmers and this, as predicted, sped up cotton production and yet again proved the success of technology's appeal of faster and easier. <span style="color: #0072ff; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">why did you throw in the cotton gin at the end?? you were doing so well to that point

Antebellum Reformers-- Dorothea Dix Asylum Reform

<span style="color: #004aff; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">*** EMB— In the midst of Antebellum Reform movements going on in the mid-nineteenth century, Dorothea Dix saw a looming issue in the care for the poor and mentally insane. With the lack of scientific understanding in the time period, the mentally ill were treated cruelly in fruitless efforts to straighten them out and force them to behave properly. As Dix made note of such widespread underfunded and unregulated abuse, she made it her life’s work to change the system into providing social welfare for such helpless people.

Travelling from New Hampshire to Louisiana, Dix exerted immense personal effort and time toward drafting legislative bills needed to build asylums where Dorothea Dix documented their necessity for mentally ill paupers. The misunderstanding by the populous of the lunatics of the time resulted in the lack of priority placed on their housing and care. The most notable asylums built signaling Dorothea’s success to a degree are the Harrisburg State Hospital in Pennsylvania and the Dorothea Dix Asylum in North Carolina.

In an attempt to bring about nationwide care for the mentally insane, Dix petitioned the government with a land bill called Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane that would distribute about twelve million acres for the construction of asylums and the proceeds from their sales going to states for the building and maintenance of the asylums. The bill was passed by both houses, but in 1854 President Pierce vetoed it claiming that it was up top late legislation to determine each state’s commitment to social welfare as it was not up to the federal government. Defeated in her goals for reform of the United States care and treatment for the mentally sick, Dix travelled to Scotland to investigate madhouses there. <span style="color: #0072ff; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">this is a nice summary of what Dix accomplished -- you tried to cover too much -- center on the concept of what is in red and you have the makings of a great analysis

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Based on Antebellum Revivalism and Reform PowerPoint <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="color: #004aff; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">*** KEO- On slide three of the power point there is a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville in which he states that religion and freedom in America were intimately united during the Antebellum Period. Upon examination of the ideas that were emerging during this time period, it is clear that Tocqueville’s quote is very accurate. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The philosophy of Transcendentalism became the central idea of American thought throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. It was very religious in that it involved the transcendence of the spirit over physical matter. The Second Great Awakening brought about a revival of religious sentiments and church membership soared. Although these movements were religious, they were made distinctly American by the incorporation of the ideas of freedom. America was founded on the principles of democracy and liberty and this is reflected through Transcendentalism. It emphasized the equality of everyone, but also the possibilities of everyone individually. This concept is most visible in the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. His essay, “Self Reliance” stressed that people in America could be anything they wanted to be as long as they worked hard and had faith in themselves. It can also be seen in the works of Henry David Thoreau in which he argued in favor of individual resistance to the civil government. The connection between religion and freedom is also visible in the women’s rights movements that occurred. If all souls had equal access to divine inspiration, then all people, including women and slaves, had just as much potential as everyone else, meaning they should be treated as equals. Since religion was connected to freedom and the idea of democracy was central to American politics, Tocqueville was right when he said that religion became a political institution in the United States. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Tocqueville makes an important point when he compares French ideology to the ideology of the United States. He notes how different American Transcendentalism was from the religious and political ideas of France. That was exactly what the United States was trying to do: make their country different from Europe. Emerson said, “Our day of dependence, our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands draws to a close” (The Enduring Vision 335). America had just broken free of British rule and established itself as a new independent country. They had already taken steps to rid themselves of all British influences and this motive was embedded in the American Transcendentalist movement as well. The Enlightenment, an era in Western European philosophy, introduced ideas that centered on science and rational thought. By creating a philosophy that accepted the spiritual and rejected the empirical, America was establishing itself as a country independent of European influences.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"><span style="color: #004aff; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">*** MDS <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Based on NBC Archives video “Then and N.O.W.: The Women’s Rights Movement”. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">The Seneca Falls Convention in New York in 1848 is commonly known as the first large-scale women’s rights gathering in the United States. One of the most important achievements that came of it was the signing of the Declaration of Sentiments, the first official demand for women’s suffrage and equal rights and opportunities for both genders. The common misconception that women’s rights were largely established with the gaining of women’s suffrage in 1920 is still quite prevalent in America. In truth, while the issues of the 21st century have changed, the underlying messages of equality for women that began in the 1840’s still hold significance for modern women. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">The Declaration of Sentiments has been accused of plagiarizing the Declaration of Independence, but in truth it was modeled after those words with a purpose. The women’s rights movement began with the realization that women, too, should be included in Jefferson’s declaration of the rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It emerged from the belief that women are on equal standing with men in terms of intelligence and capability, and therefore are unjustly denied equality. The main issue thus initially became the right to voice opinion through voting. However, the struggle for suffrage, contrary to popular belief, would not and could not be the end of the road. For the women of the Seneca Falls Convention, gaining rights under the law was the ultimate goal, but women today realize the further implications of feminism, how the legislation affects the ideas and values. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">The largest struggle for modern feminist leaders is maintaining support for women’s rights, and they do so by bringing attention the fact that Congress is still composed of over 80% men and that women are paid only a fraction of what men earn for the same work. The goals of the 21st century differ from those of the 1840’s in that women are no longer satisfied with just the right to vote or the right to hold office, but struggle on a larger scale for their gender to be viewed as on equal standing with men. The feminists of today could even be described as more agressive than ever, approaching Congress directly with their issues and proposals. While their tactics in approaching the issues have certainly changed, however, feminists still look to their predecessors, legends such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, for the messages and demands that they make. Based on the NBC Archive Video: “The Drunkard’s Progress”

<span style="color: #004aff; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">*** ADB – Nineteenth century America was a time of increasing changes: industrialization was expanding and growing stronger as a definite part of the American economy; immigrants (primarily Britons, Irishmen, and Germans) began arriving in increased numbers; standards of public decorum were beginning to change. During this period, the temperance movement, which sought to encourage limited usage, or in some cases the complete banning, of alcohol, began to gain prominence and numbers. This movement was comprised primarily of religious persons, especially Methodists, and sought to end excess drinking, though abstinence in its early years was not a main goal (only excess drinking was sinful). Though it lost momentum with the start of the Civil War, it regained it afterwards with a more radical fervor, seeking for the complete eradication of alcohol. Their success finally arrived with World War One’s conclusion, when Wilson passed the Volstead Act (1919), legalizing the prohibition of alcohol. The temperance movement’s concerns with the overconsumption of alcohol had basis in feminism, industry, education, and immigration; all of these factors were significant in leading to temperance’s success in 1919. Alcoholism, as it is frequently regarded today, was seen then as leading men to abuse their wives; ergo, a reduction in alcohol use would be a victory for female well-being because they could live freer lives with the comfort that their husbands wouldn’t come home each night with the potential for domestic abuse. In many cases, temperance activists were also feminist activists, and these movements existed side-by-side into the 20th century. As far as industry was concerned, work requirements in 19th century industrial America was incredibly overloaded (when compared to today’s standards); 12 or more hours a day, six days a week was a normal work week, and showing up on time, and with a clear mind and ability to do their jobs superbly, was crucial. Alcoholic wipeouts would cause lateness, and this was a major concern, since providing for one’s family was a chief goal for American fathers. Temperance was a way to ensure the continuation of the American economy: if adults refrained from drinking excessively, they would show up to work on time (thereby retaining their jobs); by doing so, they would stay off the streets (for fired factory workers were expelled from factory housing), and more workers would still be moving America’s economy forward. By World War I, America’s economy was booming from weapons production, with workers widely available. Plus, with the Volstead Act of 1919, the economy continued to thrive for another 10 years. Temperance education was a main focal point of the movement, though it did not appear until after the Civil War, specifically the 1880s, when temperance was more radicalized. Mary Hunt, National Superintendent of the Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction (created by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union [WCTU]), was instrumental in this regard, feeling that voters needed to understand alcohol’s natural wrongness before they would begin to oppose its creation. She proposed legislation that would mandate anti-alcohol education; with the help of other temperance reformists like herself, by 1900, all US states and the capital had such legislation in place. Hunt’s idea was to educate the next generation about the evils of alcohol, so that her generation’s mistakes would not be perpetuated. By 1919, the War had ended, many people were enlightened about alcohol’s inherent wrongness; combined with anti-German (known for their alcoholic preferences) sentiment, Prohibition came into effect. Coupled with this idea was the increase of immigration to America. Regarding primarily the Irish and Germans, alcoholism was a cultural aspect, which is part of the reason they were received so coldly (not to mention that the Irish were Catholic). Bars had become in that era political meeting grounds for immigrants, and so Prohibition, in part because of the anti-German sentiment due to the War, was a way to rob political influence from immigrants and perpetuate the cold reception.