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?

Scott Oliver, Group 4

Henretta chapter 7 discribes how the newly independent America is shaped into a democratic nation run by the three governmental branches; the judicial, executive and legislative. Todays government is very much like the government run by our the founding fathers. Although America stil had many problems to solve.
Land was still to be distributed, which was settled by "national domain" and by land division in the north west. A continental currency was to be stabalied and control. Which Robert Morris developed a financial system that handeled army expenditures, apportioned war expenses among the states, and centralized the growing foreign debt. These and other problems America faced led to our strong government today. But the big political crisis was what would determine the future of the United States; either following Thomas Jefferson, who perferred an agricultural nation, or Alexander Hamilton, who advised it would used the national government to stimulate trade and industry. How did both of these men effect the future of America, and how did this change the government?

Bryan Mostaffa, Group 4

Chapter 7 in Henretta is probably the most interesting chapter we’ve read in my opinion. I find it interesting to see how this group of colonist handles independence after its struggle against British control.

After a revolution fighting to gain power for the people, they question how much power the people should really have, they questioned how democratic America should be. This debate drew on for most of the rest of the 18^th century. In 1787 delegates from everywhere but Rhode Island gathered in Philadelphia, where they debated between the use of the Virginia Plan or the New Jersey Plan in their discussion. After a month of debate, the delegates chose the Virginia Plan by a slim margin. With the differences between the two plans in mind, how would the choice of the New Jersey Plan affect the final shape of the U.S government?

Also I the uprising of women in this post war America caught my attention as well. Women like Abigal Adams that accused men of having tyrant like control much. I found it interesting that America went through an entire revolution based on enlightenment philosophies but yet still gave women so little rights. Its not until the 1790's any of the state governments would even allow girls to attend public schools. America uses John Locke’s philosophies of unalienable rights to shape the constitution, giving Americans the right to choose the their own government, but yet these rights extend only to white males. What would an enlightenment philosopher like John Locke say on the subject? In the early 1800's New Jersey allows property owning women to vote. Why do you think that New Jersey is alone in this change?

Elizabeth Filkins Group 4

It seems like more has happened in the 24 years covered in chapter 7 of Henretta then the rest of the readings wi have had so far. The war has just ended and the country is trying to get things back into order and establish things they didn't have to worry about in the past. Almost every state sat down and wrote their new and individual state's constitution. The biggest problem with this was most likely establishing rules for slavery, how the remaining territories were going to be set up, and if/how school systems were going to be organized.
The Continental Congress made the desicion for dividing up the remaining land. The area South of the Ohio River was organized by Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. They did this because they thought the barrier of the Appilachian Mountains would make it almost impossible for Congress to deal with them. The Northwest Territory (land North of the Ohio River) would be divided into 6 states; Ohio, Indianna, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Why didn't the Northern states get to decide how the NW Territory was divided like the Southern states did? Could this be one of the contributing factors to the Civil War (jealousy)? Each state was then divided into townships of 36 square miles. This made it a whole lot easier to keep track of property boundaries.
Each individual state was able to write their own slavery laws. Yet Congress wrote a law that in 20 years the slave trade would stop. How were slave owners and newly aquired landowners feeling about this? They could keep on buying them for another twenty years but if they needed anymore after that their slaves would have to procreate or they would have to trade "used" slaves with another owner.
There were a few of the existing states that decided to make education mandatory. For example, Pennsylvania introduced an extensive elementary school system. After elementary school, most states didn't have any form of public education unless you went to a private school.
If no one went to school after elementary how was it possible for all the new universities established during or after the Great Awakening, like Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and Brown, have kept in business with not many people going through a complete education and even some that do going off to fight in the Revolution? You would think these universities wouldn't be formally established until about the 1780's.

Mark Whittemore Group 4

Upon reading the Henretta Chapter 7 content, I found Adams Thoughts on Government to be quite intellectual in his idea of how the government should be run. It seems like his idea of having a dispersed system of authority through three functions of government, lawmaking (legislative), administering (executive), and judging (judicial) still continue to be practiced in our government today. Although this publication was well received, it did have some flaws. Many people did not enjoy that governors had the power to veto laws because it reminded them too much of the royal governors. Regardless, without this Adam's publication, would other men have stepped up and proposed the same ideas? Would our system of government be the same without his ideas? Also in this section, there is a discussion on why Congress would not allow free expansion across the Appalachian Mountains. It is stated that Congress feared that western settlers would set up separate republics and then would ally with Spain to gain a strong foothold on economic gain. In response to this fear, there were a number of acts passed dividing the region into territories, requiring surveying of the land, and creating separate territories. My question is, if these acts were not passed, would westerners actually have allied with Spain? Or did these people go through enough and have a general sense of nationalism for what they had just achieved by beating the British that they would have obeyed Congress regardless of the passage of these acts?

Looking at the U.S. Constitution, I found it interesting that in the Bill of Rights, that there was no mention of voting, yet there was included the right to bear arms. True, it was quite helpful that these colonists did bear arms during the period of the Revolution because many British generals did not expect this, allowing guerrilla warfare to reign supreme and provide Minutemen. Yet these men who bore arms for the defense of the nation still could not vote because of land requirements or financial prerequisites. First off, do you think that there should have been an amendment that gave more liberty to voting? Do you think that the right to bear arms was important? Is the right to bear arms important today?

study group

anybody want to get together a couple of times before the test? thought maybe we could write up some outlines. was thinking sat. round noon and/or sunday round 6. Anchutz? just reply to this post i guess.

ben farmer group 4

my first thought is about the present abilities thomas paine speaks of in his writings. one of his calls for independence is that while the colonies are in their youth, this is the perfect time since strong indiviual colonies have not yet developed to diminish the possibility of a union later. my question is, had great britian bowed to the demands of the colonies, would this have postponed the revolution long enough that it would have never happened? my own thought is that it would have eventually happened but under completely different circumstances. i think the union of some might of still have happened but that you would have had numerous small coutries much like europe. in reality his prediction was true seeing as around 80 years later we had the civil war which showed the fragility of the union.


while reading the declaration of independce one part in particular jumped out at me. a few lines spoke of how a people, when under a government that no longer serves them, should and have the right to throw off their current governing body and start a new one. my question is, if everyone becomes frustrated and fed up with our current government today, what would be the new one be?

Jake Sherman Group 3 (Very Late)

Division. The one theme that links the three readings together. In Skemp we see the division between William and Benjamin. In the "Concise History" reading we see the division between the colonies and the British Empire. In Henretta we get a lot of questions asking about this division, forcing us to wonder "why" and "how" it could have played out differently. It is important to note that history does indeed repeat itself in more than one form. If we look at the religious ideas that fueled the division of the colonies from each other, the British Empire, and the Native Americans and then subsequently look at the religious ideas that are fueling the division in our world today, we can see many similarities.

After finishing the Skemp reading I thought back to a book I had to read for my fourth grade or third grade class. My Brother Sam is Dead. Although this story was extremely dramatized and doesn't follow the EXACT scale of division that Benjamin and William had, it does give us a parallel to work off of. Families all over the colonies were being torn apart over this clash in political, economic, social, religious, and philosophical ideas. And we can see the same happening in the same continent, in the same country over two centuries later.

When looking at the "Concise History" reading, we draw a few other conclusions on how division based on the above ideas has formed our country, and learn how to use this information to understand how it is STILL forming our country. When the first two colonies declared independence a chain reaction throughout all the colonies took place. Those who had not been politically active in this dispute before, found themselves being presented with an ultimatum. I am of course also referring to the rest of the world after the French signed a treaty with the patriots after the battle of Saratoga. They must become politically active as a loyalist or a patriot. This is easily paralleled with a State of the Union address in 2001 by president George W. Bush in which an ultimatum was given to the world much in the same way it had happened in 1776 and 1777.


In what other ways can we parallel political divides in the American Revolution to our political divides today?

Emma Ewert Group 3

In chapter 6 of America a Concise History, I think one of the most important parts is The French Alliance. At the time, France was the most powerful European nation, so they had a lot to offer the Americans. As it says on page 178, "The alliance brought the Americans money, troops, and supplies and changed the conflict from a colonial rebellion to an international war." In my opinion, forming an alliance with France was a necessary move for the Americans to win the war. Would we have won the war if it had not been for the French?
Something else that I noticed in the Henretta reading was on page 183. This page is full of questions about events that happened. It is interesting to think about all of these "what if" questions and their answers. There are always going to be questions about what if someone had done this or that. But what if one the answers to these questions were different, such as, "Why had Howe not ruthlessly pursued Washington's army in 1776?" Would one of these minor things have changed the outcome of the war at all?
In the Skemp reading for this week, one sentence can sum up what is happening. On page 126 it says, "King and country, father and son, were about to go their separate ways." In the reading this week that is exactly what happened. Ben and Will started to drift more and more apart. Both were stubborn men who stuck to their beliefs, unwilling to back down. The same is true for the King and country; ultimately they had to part. What would have happened though, if either Will or Ben had given in and done what the other had wanted?

Ryan Sipple Group 3

In this weeks Skemp readings you can start to see how Benjamin and William start to go their serparate ways. Benjamin starts to share his harsh feelings for the empire with William, though these thoughts concern William, he could not see him and Benjamin going their serparate ways. Benjamin became greatly angered after he was removed from his post office position, two days later he wrote a letter to William revealing his pain, and asking William to resign his position as governor. Benjamin reminded William that he had no chance of promotion, and that the position was poorly funded. My question is, is Benjamin simply overreacting, or is this a desperate attempt to convince William to side with the patriots?

In chapter 6 of America a concise history, we read about how the colonies declared independence which lead to the Revolutionary war. In the first two years of the war the British army dominated the Continental army, George Washington and his men retreated time after time. In 1777 the battle of Saratoga proved to be the turing point for the war, following this victory the French signed a treaty with America, and unlitimately helped defeat the British in Yorktown in 1781. My question is, do you believe the Continental army would have eventually defeated the British without help from the French?

Anna Olson Group 2

Throughout the readings in Skemp, we continue to see William and Benjamin develop not only their personal, but business relationship. They were both so optimistic in everything they did, especially after the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1775. There is no way they were going to allow minor setbacks to put a damper on their dream of creating a British colony in the Illinois country. My question here is, would Benjamin have accomplished the things he did and be as famous as he is today were is not for his illegitimate son, William? In the last reading, I was under the impression that Ben was the one doing Will all the favors but now I feel it’s the other way around. In November 1768 when Hillsborough personally attacked Ben, William was right there to back his father up and convince the assembly to conform to the Mutiny Act. This is just one of the examples that show what a strong political bond Ben and Will had. Will tended to his father’s business and political affairs and also cared for his extended family in times of need, which allowed for Ben to remain in London. Ben and Will were each other’s “invaluable allies”.

Ari Pearson Group 2

In chapter 5 of America, a Concise History, the British Victory in The War for Empire gives rise to changes in the British government and its policies both at home and abroad. These changes will create an environment from which the colonists will eventually strike out for independence. During the war it becomes apparent to both colonists and British officials that their philosophies no longer match up as conflicts arise in the decision making processes. After the discovery during the war, that local governments have become powerful and influential in the colonies, the British Government feels the need to strengthen its position of power over the colonies by a more strict enforcement of the Navigation Acts and by deploying troops in the colonies. A national debt caused by the war also causes Britain to tax the colonies, further straining relations between the two.
It is interesting that after fighting so hard for "Empire", every action of the British government seems only to undermine the British supremacy in the colonies. After the proposal of the stamp act, Benjamin Franklin responds with a request for American representation in Parliament. Clearly the American people feel that they are British subjects as they are talking about representation at this point. It seems that they would have been willing to pay the taxes if they had a voice in the creation of legislation. It is the defiance of these wishes intended to hold supremacy over the colonies by the British that actually caused them to break away and rebel. Had Britain given them representation in the Parliament when it was proposed by Ben Franklin, would colonists have decided to start the battle for independence? Do you think the revolution was inevitable and that giving them representation would have only prolonged the process? Perhaps even with representation in the government, the unreasonable taxation, trade regulation and military presence would have caused the rebellion. Was there a specific turning point in the rebellion such as the stamp act or was this an inevitable out come of the growing maturity of a young society?

Caitlin Thornbrugh Group 2

In reading Skemp’s work I think it is important to remember the idea we were talking about in discussion that we are studying history from someone’s perspective. What would the history of colonial America be described at if we were under the direction of a British historian. What descriptions of the people and events would be different? In describing Benjamin Franklin the majority of Americans would choose to look at all he contributed to the founding of our society. I wonder what the English would have to say about him. On page 77 Skemp discusses his “contradictory” messages as he tried to be the middle man. The American government is not quick to admit its wrongdoings. The description of Lord Hillborough plays on the emotions of the readers to build up an aversion to him—he is described as “unbending” and issuing “firmer control over the colonies.” Then set against the hero Ben Franklin in a “showdown” it makes it hard for the American reader to see maybe he was just trying to do what he felt was the right thing for his job and for his country. There is a quote from Franklin saying he should be known for his “Conceit, Wrong headedness, Obstinacy and Passion.” Could some of these adjectives also describe Franklin himself? An example of this would be when he sends the letters between Hutchinson and Oliver to Thomas Cushing. I think Henretta’s description of Hillborough’s activities on page 149 leaves more room for the reader to draw their own conclusions, because it simply states what he did, and uses only direct quotes from him.

Mallory Hayes-Group 1

From reading about Ben and Will in Skemp, it seemed to me that their relationship started off rough. It's sad that Will might have felt ignored by his dad; considering all the achievements he is known for and how much of his time and effort he must of put into them. Even though Will was given many great educational and career opportunities by his father, it seemed like Ben was mapping out how he wanted his son to be, even at a young age. Not being accepted for who you are or who you want to be can affect a person. Maybe Will just wanted to make his dad proud but by doing it on his own standards, like when he joined the forces. Ultimately they seemed to find a common ground, like their interests in electricity and the whole kite experiment. After that, long leisurely trips to England also bonded them closer. How would have Will and all of us turned out if Ben gave up some of the things that we still benefit from today, if he would have concentrated more on his needy son and hovered over him after his run away attempt? What would we be missing out on if Ben dropped out of the spotlight to tend to his family affairs (like after his baby boy died)? Thankfully he was too ambious of a person to do so.
In Henretta, the thing that got me the most was the Great Awakening. I can imagine going to church before this happened and falling to sleep during every sermon. People finally realized how to not be so uptight and structured. They needed to spice things up a bit! Sure, go ahead and get a theater performer to speak the word of god to you, as long as it works and keep you AWAKE that's all that matters. It was also a good thing for the kids back then too. I'm sure they were stoked to go to church now! If this would not of taken place would there be as many people attending church today? Or better yet, would Methodist and Baptist be major parts of religion, after all this new style is what made the two so big?