Scott Oliver, Group 7

The reading covers a lot over the people who make up the Jackson presidency and affects on the party; in particular, Martin Van Buren. The reading covers a couple specific events that Buren took total credit but what I’m interested in is what the book doesn't specifically cover. Henretta states, " Martin Van Buren, the architect of the Democratic Party and Jackson's handpicked successor". The Whig party was banded together to oppose Jackson's policies and "kinglike" conduct. Jackson pushed through congress the Indian removal act. Jackson destroyed the national bank and the American system. His compromise with South Carolina's act of nullification, all of those things Jackson accomplished have strongly changed the future that lies in front of America. To consider a thought, how much advice does Buren give to Jackson, or how much influence does he have on the presidency? How much of the accomplishments can Buren take credit for? Is Jackson making the decisions based on his own thoughts, on Buren's thoughts, or a little of both?

Obviously the decisions made by a president completely affect the country or the world. Possible the president may only be a figure, and his advisors are the real politicians and decision makers. Society could be led to follow a man on T.V rather than his successors. Has an advisor or advisors ever put to much influence on the president and possibly impair him from making a decision that’s not his own? Have their been any presidents that have been suspected of being to influenced to where they are being completely run?

Jeff Thomason, Group 7

The reading had to do with the rise of political parties. Despite "Revolution era Americans" argueing that political parties were "dangerous to the commonwealth" and "anti-republican," Martin Van Buren still formed the first nationwide political party: Jacksonian Democrats. Do you think political parties could have been avoided, or do you agree with Van Buren and political parties are "inseperable from free government"?

With the rise of political parties came new political debates and heated presidential races. Basically any middle-class man could now get into politics and hold high office positions. When European visitors came to the United States they were often disgusted with our politicians. One French aristocrat said "the most able men in the United States are very rarely placed at head of affairs." Do you think this is true? Many politicians at this time seemed to have selfish goals and actions, but the whole country was being united and now almost any man could become a politician if he wanted. Was this a good or bad thing?

The presidential elections seemed odd to me at this time. Before each election, the opposition seemed to try and trick the president into doing something that would ruin their hopes for re-election. For example, the Jacksonians took control of Congress in 1826 and wanted higher tariffs on imported raw materials in order to win support of farmers for the presidential race in 1826. It also led to Adams' fall. It wasn't only Jackson's party though. When Jackson was president, his opponents persuaded the Second Bank of the United States' president Nicholas Biddle to seek an early extension of the bank's charter. They hoped that Jackson would veto the the bill which would split the Democrats right before the 1832 election.

In both of these situations it seems as though the opposition is wanting these government tariffs and bills only for their own good. It seems like Congress was just trying to trick the president into screwing up so one of them could be the next president. And as president, Jackson increased the president's authority and created a spoils system where he appointed his close supporters to high office positions. These actions led to the rise of another political party called the Whigs. Their goal was to put men of ability, talent, and wealth in political power. The Democrats and Whigs battled to office positions fiercely the next couple decades. Do you think you would have been a Democrat, Whig, or neither? Although both parties claimed to speak "for the people" did either actually do that at all?

Kirsten Felgate

This reading had a lot to do with the emerging political parties. From Martin Van Buren's idea of a Democratic party to the later found Whig party. The Americans were finally able to have a little more diverse thought process on government. There now were not only able to associate with a specific president that was running, but more for an overall idea of how they wanted the government to be. Do you think this new idea was good for the country? Since everything had been so new to them, would it have been better to keep with one basic form and idea of government until everything was stabilized. Or was it really necessary to them to have various ideas to change things until they were able to be made right?
It seemed as though as each new president that came into power had a whole new set of plans and opinions on how to govern the country. Was it more of who wanted to be right? Or was it more about what they thought would be best for the country? It seemed as though each president was on a power trip to prove their thoughts and ways to the country. Do you think that it was more about them wanting things the way they wanted them, or was it truly or the best of the country? With the tariff changes and the changes with the Second National Bank, there were big differences of opinions of that time span.

Jake Sherman Group 6

Obviously Henretta sees a social issue with this time period. And after reading chapter 10, I see it too. The United States was progressing in many areas of society, and was degrading in others. From the movement of women from the kitchen to the classroom we saw progression. From the Second Great Awakening where sober people flooded the parks to share ideas and discuss religion, one could arguably say "we progressed". The standard of living increased thanks to ingenuity, wonderful geographic positioning, along with an abundance of natural resources. We progressed. A representative democracy in action. We progressed. However the hypocrisy of how people viewed and valued each other tends to lead me to think that we really weren't progressing much at all. Let's take Chapter 9's issue of how and why to be pro-abolitionist. Let's look at how the Second Great Awakening provided momentum for the abolitionist movement and women's rights. Or, at least the same ideology that slavery was wrong and women are to be treated as ladies. White women heard of the atrocities befalling enslaved women and sought to end the horrific treatment of women. The whole country saw the treatment of slave children and how abuse was a common occurrence. People gasped at the idea that families were ripped apart with the stroke of a pen and the exchange of some money. The northerners were sick with the idea of chaining someone down and forcing them to work for no money. And what did the northerners do about it? They spoke out against it. But then turned around and did nearly the same thing to their neighbors as soon as the economic advantage was in their backyard. Children were chained to machines. Women were forced to work long hours in textile mills for little to no money, often trying to repay debts brought on by this same "revolution of technology and industrial gain" And these families were torn apart by the stroke of a pen, and the exchange of so little money. So seeing the reaction of the northerners to the southerners before this economic and technologic boom, we could argue that the northerners were the instigators of progression, they brought about the Second Great Awakening. They fought for women's rights. The despised the idea of slavery. And the southerners were just a bunch of money grubbing farmers....right?But after this industrial revolution started picking up, could we say the northerners were simply trying to cash in on cheap labor the same way the southerners did? Who is really fighting for human rights? The north or the south?

Would you pin this time period as a social progression or a social digression?

With money flowing into the country and development booming, can we say that the reason we are a superpower today is all due to those women and children who worked long hours in the textile mills?

Nathan "I should have ducked" Buss, Group 6

Well as I'm sure you're all aware, Chap. 10 of Henretta is all about the economic revolution. Henretta outlines how America went from being completely reliant on Britain for production, to being not only self-reliant, but feared competition to Britain. What strikes me is how the revolutionary spirit seemed to carry over from the war and into our economic attitude. The American North seemed to grasp the potential of America at a very early time. While the South was clinging to the increasingly archaic ideals of slavery, the North was clawing its way to become the economic power-house of the western world. Northern venture capitalists were doing whatever it took to seize the American dream and take advantage of opportunities, including stealing British technology and improving upon it. Their fervor was so compelling that they were even able to entice British defectors to illegally immigrate to America and contribute to the industrial technology. Not all technology came from Britain, but much of it was invented in America. Instead of being comfortable in their ways, Americans not only jumped on the bandwagon of the industrial revolution, but were pivotal in contributing to that revolution. During the early stages of the textile movement, women (often young girls) were exploited and used for cheap labor in textile factories. This exploitation and cheap labor made it possible for factories to compete with established British manufacturers and gave some women a feeling of independance rarely experience in this time. Was this exploitation justified? Would the industrial revolution been possible without it?

Thanks to these new technologies, a new class of workers was created and nurtured by the Labor Movement. Skilled workers went on strike and demanded higher pay and better conditions. The industrial revolution and technology gained also led to the transportation movement and rapid growth in industrial towns. What cased the South to be largely left out during the Industrial Revolution? Without slavery would the South have balanced its agricultural economy with production? Was the conflict with the North over the slavery issue what caused Southerners to be short sighted and not persue a more production based approach? It seems to me that a circular logic crippled the South's ability to adapt to a changing world and would eventually not only pass them by, but leave them unequipped to deal with the future of their lifestyle.

In the first half of chapter 9, the book focuses on slavery. The ideals of the North and South are growing farther apart. The Northern states are starting to gradually stray away from slavery, while new technologies, such as the cotton gin increased the need for slavery in the South. The American Colonialization Society argued that freed slaves should be sent back to Africa. Interestingly enough, Henry Clay believed that if slaves were emancipated, conflicts between the two races would lead to a civil war. Clay obviously predicted a civil war would break out, but should he have predicted that it would have been between the north and the south, instead of the two races? Many slaves did not support the idea of being sent back to Africa. America was their homeland and African Americans were developing a strong cultural society of their own. Although some slaves were being freed, most of them were still considered second class citizens and were not given the same rights as whites. During the Missouri Crisis, southerners were angered by the fact that the Northern majority of the House blocked Missiouri's admission into the union. Southerners stated that slavery was an internal affair that should be left to the states. Do you agree with this statement? Or should the government have control?
The second half of Henretta deals with the arrival of the Second Great Awakening. During the Second Great Awakening the Methodist and Baptist churches gained many more followers. These two churches became very evangelical and reached out to many different cities. One thing that came out of the awakening was the new roles of women. Female education was becoming greater. Women also started to replace men as public-school teachers, and were becoming more recognizable in public life.

Matt Pickerel, Group 5

This week's Henretta reading (chapter 9) begins by describing how slavery was becoming a much bigger issue in America at this point. While the North largely had hopes that slavery would start to decline and die out as tobacco and slave trading became less profitable, the South had a massive boom of cotton business and the demand for slaves sky-rocketed. The South also integrated slavery into their public image, as southern aristocratic republicans were usually big slave-owners. As some Northerners such as President Monroe and Henry Clay tried to turn the tide and free slaves, the American Colonization Society was formed to emancipate slaves and get them back to Africa. This organization didn't work out, however, because even after arguing about how slavery is immoral, unreligious, and that many aristocrats were rich enough to free their slaves anyway, few people freed any slaves, and the organization could only buy the freedom of so many.

The view of the organization was that slavery would end up making America lack advancement and lack respect for fellow men and races. They also feared that only freeing the slaves would create even more problems because then America would have racial war and discrimination with the freed slaves still around.

Was this idea of freeing the slaves and getting them back to Africa a good idea? Was it realistic? What do you think would've happened if the South had freed their slaves, and this organization tried to get most of them back to Africa? Would it have prevented or changed anything for the future?

Also, what do you think the slaves would have wanted most?