lincoln map

Civil War Timeline

Pro Slavery North

The North pre-civil war was a happy yet competitive place to live. The North was going through large changes by choosing to follow the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution helped the North to become stronger and more united by forcing the citizens living there to work together. By going through the Industrial Revolution the north became far more competitive seeing as they began believing in a free economy. A free economy aloud them to do things on their own however it made them not only learn how to live on their own but to now compete for jobs. It gave the opportunity for work the those who it wasn't offered to before but it made those who things normally came easy to very difficult.
If the North and South were to disagree on one thing it would defiantly be the way each other chose to organize their government. The North believed in a equal opportunity for all even if it had a competitive disadvantage. The south however did not agree with change and felt that the way the were used like running their government was the best and only way they would. When the South heard about the Norths talk of getting rid of slavery it scared them because that was their main source of income and also the only thing they knew. Change was hard for the South to accept which was what stirred up many of the conflicts.

Pro - slavery arguments

The two lectures given by Professor Blight were not only highly educational but quite interesting as well . Living in the present rather than the past has it's disadvantages, for example not having the ability to see the events that took place that were learning about. One of the interesting things that Professor Blight offered to us was the understanding and thought process of the people that had a main effect on the events that took place. Southern Slave owners were the main focal point of this lecture. Professor Blight really helped the audience to understand what exactly the Southerns thought of the choices they were making. The eight different points used in his lecture were; biblical, historical, natural rights, economic, necessary evil, harder on whites than blacks, and creating a Utopia. By talking through those eight different reasons Professor Blight helped to explain the reasoning behind slavery.

Using religion was a great way for slave owners as well as all Southern states to convince the North and non slave owners that slavery really was a good thing. Stating that slavery was created by god is a very powerful statement to make, however is was used often in the South. By convincing others that slavery was politically and morally correct allowed slave owners to convince themselves that what they were doing was not all bad. Biblical goes hand and hand with the point of historical seeing as both have to do with following in ones footsteps. For most living in that time period whatever their ancestors did was what they were striving for, so if slavery was acceptable back then, then why would it not be in the time period they were living in. In my opinion these were his two best arguments seeing as they are still relatable to people now. Also, they were based upon truth and not opinions that people had.

Another statement that Professor Blight made was the by participating in slavery the South was creating a utopia. A utopia being the perfect life, home, and community is something that I feel does not involve slavery. Southerns living during this time felt that the whites were above blacks, and that by having someone do the dirty work for them aloud the whites do get done everything the needed to. However stating that slavery was harder on the white man than the black man is in my point of view is completely false and not true what so ever. Professor Blight explained that for a slave everything was taken care of; housing, clothing, food, religion, bills, but freedom is clearly something that is far more valuable than anything that the slaves had given to them. Saying that a white man has more worries and far more to stress about than black man is border line a ridiculous statement. Sure all their living expenses were free but waking up every morning to find yourself in hell, working for the sake of your own life, being separated from your family, being put on display and treated like nothing more than a useless item is an awful way to live. It's crazy to think that a person could ever agree with that statement.

Though, yes Professor Blight made some great points, and offered another point of view I still do not agree with slavery. What they were put through, what the saw heard lived is something that never should have been aloud to happen. It's awful to think about all the people that lost there lives working to escape what they were living. Slavery is something that I could never agree with. The two statements that I somewhat agree with were the biblical and historical, seeing as they were based off fact. The two that I did not agree with at all were the creation of a utopia and stating that it was harder on the white man than the black man. Seeing as both those arguments were based on opinion and not true facts.

Justification for Mexican American War !

The Mexican American War was something caused by reactions to the issue of freedom. When Mexico gained it's freedom along with Texas they were both free states however, left on their own without the comfort of a support system from fellow states. However, America took unjust actions against these two newly free states and attempted to take total control of their land. By not only tricking them into singing unfair treaties but using the upper hand they gained to take control over weaker states.

Gregory Hospodor, a American citizen brought the argument of America's unjust actions into play by stating his thoughts and opinions on the situation. Hospodor felt what America did was unjust seeing as they took something that did not belong to them. James Polk, the president of America at the time being felt that America needed to expand their land for the sake of the overpopulation issues that were taking place. Therefor, when Mexico and Texas became free yet vulnerable states America jumped at the opportunity, taking advantage of whatever they could. These actions were clearly unjust if not unfair, which had great repercussions some of which leading to war. With war now in the cards America basically didn't want to deal with the drama that war would have entailed which resulted in treaties, Americas main way of fixing things.

Lee Eysturlid sided with America in this argument claiming that their actions were not only respectful but the farthest thing from unjust. Eysturlid, unlike Hospodor felt that the actions America took were not only helpful to America but helpful to the other countries surrounding them. The main reasoning behind the attempted land claim was due to America's need for extra space. The population was getting larger and larger at a faster speed than America was ready to handle, hence why large amounts of cheap land were needed. This is why Eysturlid felt that Americas actions showed helpful behavior because what they did was not only helping others but solving a huge issue for America at the time.

Personally, I feel that the actions the America took illustrated very disrespectful and unjust behavior. Not only did we use our power to take the upper hand, but we used our former knowledge and our resources to take advantage of Mexico and Texas. Yes, we were trying to solve some of the problems that our country was facing, however we exerted greedy behavior by doing things that were for our benefit only. I agree one hundred percent with Gregory Hospodor's argument, though I feel that Lee Eysturdild proved some good points what we did was rude and but innocent citizens in danger.

Though I've mentioned it before if not several times America's actions were unjust. Yes, that's my personally opinion but you being the reader really have to think about the repercussions from our actions. We kicked innocent people out of their homes for purely our own benefit. Not only leaving many homeless, but some scared and others killed.

Jackson Turner Frontier Thesis Statement

The Jackson Turner thesis was basically Turner's thoughts and feelings on the frontier line that had been created by Americans. By reading his thesis he makes it clear that he doesn't agree with the boundary lines that have been set by America. Turner felt that the frontier line symbolized at boundary that you couldn't pass, rather than a symbol of freedom. Most citizens saw the frontier as freedom, that having their own land allowed them to not only be their own person, but make their own decisions. Instead of accepting what the frontier was doing for America, Turner went on to fight that it was a cap on America's freedom stating: "The frontier has meant that every American generation returned to primitive conditions on a meeting point between savagery and civilization". The points that Turner was making were very pessimistic and negative.

The main arguments against Turner's thesis statement pretty much all state the same thing. That the land earned by gaining a Frontier was very useful for all people living on the Western side. Turner continually talks about the frontier land being "free and useless" land that could be benefited somewhere else. However, people like the Indians who have been kicked out of their homes multiple times looked to the frontier with hope and joy, seeing as it offered them a home. The main argument which is constantly reused is that the land earned through the frontier was useful and used to help unite America.

Personally, I disagree with Jackson Turner and agree with those who fight against him. I feel that the frontier offered people a home who didn't have nothing else and gave America the freedom that they dissevered. The frontier gave America a much needed boarder which allowed them space and separation to become their own nation. I think that the frontier was not only a good thing but a needed thing that gave them the confidence they needed to begin making their own decisions and taking their own direction as a separate nation.

Slavery for a better tomorrow ?

Before the Civil War, during the 1850’s slavery was a big topic of discussion. Everyone had their own opinion, followed by their reasoning for having that opinion. George Fitzhugh, a believer in slavery for a better tomorrow and Fredrick Douglas, a former slave himself hoping slavery will end for a better tomorrow. Two different people, with two different stories each are trying to convince the world that their opinion is the right one.

George Fitzhugh, a white male living in the South, was a strong believer in slavery. He felt that slavery was something not only bettering the economy, but bettering the slaves themselves. Living in the south would be extremely hard for a former slave seeing as: "they wouldn’t be far outstripped or outwitted in the chaos of free competition". Slaves or former slaves are seen as helpless creatures that no longer have a chance of a normal life. It's easy to see that Fitzhugh is fighting for something that he grew up with. Never being a slave, or having any evidence of him owning slaves Fitzhugh is clearly fighting for his opinion and not from his own personal experience. It's hard to believe an argument that hasn't been proven. Fitzhugh and his party have no faith in slaves, and are assuming that they will fail if put out in the real world.

Fredrick Douglas, a former slave himself understands the hardships and punishment that slaves endure while living under the roof of a slave owner. Now being a free and successful man Douglas has learned how to live in the real world, without the "help" of a slave owner. "All I ask is give him a chance to stand on his own two legs". How can you judge something, or state something that has yet to be proven? A former slave was never given a fair chance to change the life that they lived, they were just kicked the curb and treated as though that's where they belonged. Fredrick Douglas unlike George Fitzhugh has a personal experience backing up his argument. He's lived through his own examples, and is trying to give the ones he left behind a fight for freedom.

For the most part George Fitzhugh gave a pretty promising argument, though I don't agree with what he's fighting for he did make some valid points. It's clear that slavery really was helping the economy, however morally wrong it really was. When Fitzhugh states the slave owners doing nothing but help the slaves, and it's really them who have everything to worry about I strongly disagree. Yes, it's a great thing to not have to worry about clothing, food, housing, or abusing your spouse but; when the clothes you own are torn, the food you are given is limited, your housing is a shack, and you have no spouse period things are as great as they seem. He talk about slavery like it's a privilege when really it was an awful thing; family's were torn apart, innocent people were beaten practically to death, and children were killed that couldn’t keep up. I personally feel that Fitzhugh, never being a slave himself has no room to talk what so ever.

The argument that Fredrick Douglas gave was for the most part just common sense. You can't judge what you haven't experienced. I agreed with what he said completely. Slaves white or black were never given a fair chance in society. Douglas being a slave himself understands both sides of the argument seeing as he has lived through it. Something that I appreciated about his argument was that he wasn't fighting to end slavery all together but just to give them a chance. Douglas calls out not only Fitzhugh but basically then entire south when stating: "Do nothing with us! You’re doing with us has already played the mischief with us". He basically is stating that slavery is the problem, and seeing as slavery is growing in the south that they are creating the problem.

Both arguments are strong and come with some very valid points however I agree with Douglas over Fitzhugh. Mainly seeing as I do not agree with slavery, and everything that it caused. However, the fact that Douglas was a slave and endured everything to become a successful person proves Fitzhugh wrong, no argument needed. Though Fitzhugh's words were stronger and very persuasive the fact that Douglas was living proof of his own argument is no competition.

Monroe's Presidency

Going into his new found presidency the expectation's for Monroe were high. Previously being the mayor of Virginia, fighting for America in the Revolutionary War and working under James Madison (the previous president) Monroe had every reason to be respected as well as trusted. Along with his presidency came what some liked to call the "era of good feelings", however these good feelings were not around for much longer. In 1819 America began to fall into a depression, leaving small business and farms falling into slumb. Throughout the years that Monroe had taken presidency there were many issues thrown upon America, however Monroe delt with them the best he could. I feel that the era Monroe had taken the job of president was not best times but it was not Monroe himself who cause the "good feelings" to go away. So no, Monroe's period of presideny was not all good but yes he did the best he could under the situations he was given.

The Cotton Gin

XYZ Affair & Alien and Sedition Affair questions & responses

How did the XYZ affair increase tension between France and America?

- The XYZ affair caused a fair amount of tension between France and America seeing as the French acted as though they were above the Americans refusing to speak to them in person. They only accepted talking to them in document form. Also, the French insisted upon the Americans paying them a 250,000 dollar bribe as well as a provide France with a 12 million dollar loan, all of which they expected before even starting to negotiate. This made the Americans feel as though they were considered below the French which cause the Americans to get angry. With John Adams new in the presidency dealing with an unhappy alliance was nothing something he wanted to get into however prepared his country for the worst. Building a far stronger army and creating a navy, this luckily was not used for that affair.

Were the Federalists justified in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts or were they a violation of the Constitution?

- The federalists who created the acts clearly were not justified. What they did was basically created and then passed an act allowing them to judge people. What gives them the right to go around judging people from their appearance? The federalist when bringing the acts to congress said they were to “promote national security”. However all passing these laws did was make local jails more crowded and towns emptier, seeing as everyone considered an alien or stuck someone as “odd” was either thrown in jail or was deported.

Were Kentucky and Virginia justified in their response to the Alien and Sedition Acts?

- Kentucky and Virginia illustrated proper acts of justice when responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts, seeing as they rejected the acts which were unjustified. After the acts had passed congress many people did not agree with what the acts represented nor did they approve of what they were doing to other innocent people living in their communities. Forcing them to move from the republican side to Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party. In response to these acts being passed, Jefferson and Madison wrote their own acts against the acts, sending their resolutions to all the states. Kentucky and Virginia being two that had very positive responses.

George Washington farewell address analysis

Washingtons farewell address summary