Here are the test questions for the next essay test. You may want to start earlier rather than later.
1. To what extent did the first three administrations establish precedents for the United States?
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the first three administrations.
3. Why did the United States go to war against British North America in 1812?4. What were the short term and long term effects of the War of 1812?
5. One historian commented that the war of 1812 was the wrong war, fought at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
6.What caused the Mexican-American War?
7. To what extent was the United States the aggressor in the Mexican-American War?
8. What were the political, military, and philosophical arguments against the Mexican-American War?
9. Analyze the effects of the Mexican American War (1846-1848) on the region.
Here is a timeline that might be helpful to you in dealing with the war of 1812.
http://www.pbs.org/war-of-1812/timeline.html
This is an interesting article from the Mexican Perspective on the Mexican-American War. It would be particularly helpful on question 7.
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/md_a_mexican_viewpoint.html
92 comments:
Haile,
here is an answer to your previous question on the earlier post. I think you could go with three administrations, but I would always be looking for a more complex approach. One problem with the three admins is that Washington is huge and Adams is relatively small. I would start by making a list of precedents and then trying to group them by idea. For example, (and these probably aren't the best) you could go with foreign policy, the office, and domestic policy. Let's start playing with some and see what we come up with. This would be a good use of the blog.
Why did some people have such a problem with Hamilton's Nation Bank idea?
NanniG-Great question. First of all, it increases the power of the bankers and financial experts. It also puts us further down the road towards becoming an industrial nation rather than one made up of yeoman farmers which is what Jefferson would prefer. Also, it sets the PRECEDENT of a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Under the elastic clause, the Congress now has the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to fulfill their other powers. Jeff and Mad argue that if the founders intended there to be a National Bank, then it would have been listed.
Mr. O
Question 2 says effectiveness, of the first 3 administrations. Effectiveness can be taken many ways, efficiency is not what i think you're asking. Would you prefer we look at how the administrations handled the nation(ability) or where they got us(before and after, effects basically), more. Is talking about the cabinets(more Jefferson and Adams, you WILL want Washington) a good idea? I am guessing you want something in between but I would like a pointer as to the "best answer", not that it exists. On a side note JUST acts carried out by the administrations or should we mention defining moments like Marbury v Madison. Josh
Josh,
On effectiveness, I would be looking at the success of their policy. Did it provide a tangible benefit. For example, W's quelling of the Whiskey rebellion indicates that the new government is powerful enough to stop and manage insurrections against it. His use of pardon for that same event demonstrates that we haven't created a system of tyranny which is what many feared.
Another example, Jefferson ignores his own philosophy in keeping the bank of the U.S. and the tariff. This decision could be seen as effective because it provide means and method for purchasing the Louisiana Purchase.
As for Marbury, I would probably leave it alone depending on how the question is asked. In the way the blog question is asked, it could be ignored. If IB askes, describe the precedents set DURING the first three administration, it would be useful piece of information.
Mr. O, do you have any other helpful sites that would be a good addition to our notes?
mr o,
so, this is under causes of the MA war.
Are problems with england even significant in causing the war? the only thing i can think of is that it would stir up war fever which could be turned toward Mexico.
Also, there's a whole overlying idea of manifest destiny with both california and texas. Could those be big enough to split into two buckets, because if not, then I have a lot of bucket space to fill up.
Last, you mentioned some good websites after class....any chance you could share?
Haha, jokes, Ad dison already asked, so I just second his (?) question.
oh, also, does washington's hope of neutrailty count as a precedent even though it only lasts for a few years?
Emma if you mean Neutrality from Europe then yes. Political party neutrality is a big no. Part of his farewell speech had to do with neutrality, and it was accepted by both federalists and dem-reps as being a good idea.
the part about keeping peaceful politics was ignored
Do you accredit the isolationist policies of Washington with the neutrality position America held before both World Wars?
Furthermore if you do agree, do you believe that the failure to remain isolationist sets the precedent for future failures of the same kind? Or rather is it the politics and the setting of the global arena that dictate the actions of later war politicians solely? Or perhaps a mixture of both?
(I know this is pretty general but I am quite curious.)
Washington's Isolationism wasn't unique; eg Madison and Hamilton wrote the speech. He also was very pragmatic in his politics. Europe was a mess of subservient states and tangled alliances that was at war every 10 years or so. Getting involved would have just made America a protectorate of someone else. So I agree in that he showed it first as first president but it wasn't a unique policy.
I don't think we could have remained isolationist. Take manifest destiny for example. We kept moving around the continent which brought us into conflicts both political and military with Spain, France and England. We also like to spread our system to other countries and advocate how perfect it is. When we became a world power remaining an isolated state was already impossible so my opinion would be that isolationism was just a cover for american imperialism while we consolidated ourselves locally. After we were more unified and less susceptible to foreign influence we exploded. What are your opinions?
Emma-I like your idea of war fever. That our nationalism had been stirred and would easily be turned on someone. During periods of extreme nationalism, sometimes the target is the one who actually attacked us (some would point to Iraq today, debatable, but interesting). I would also point to the fact that the tension with Britain led them to approaching the Texans with an alliance. There are those that would say that forces us to consider annexation which is unacceptable to Mexico. Does that make sense, Emma.
As for manifest destiny, I am assuming you are looking at a causation of the war issue. There are a number of options, one might be to look at socio-economic issues. In other words, what are the big societal trends (nationalism, manifest destiny, economic immigration, Indian removal). There are also a lot of political issues. The election of Polk, the Texas independence movement, Benton with all of his policies, political desire for deep water ports, Southern politicians looking for cotton states. Finally, there are issues within Mexico. We haven't talked about this yet, but we will during the simulation. Basically, Mexico is in chaos and we use this to trap them. They can't negotiate with us, which leaves them only the choice of war. They have also ignored Texas and California.
Another option would be to look at long term, short term, and immediate causes of the war, but this is getting really long. As for websites, check out the pbs link that is on bottom of the post.
Josh, Connell, and Emma,
O.K., here we go on this one. I actually think I disagree with Josh on this one, but I think it is because of a misunderstanding of what GW was saying. He isn't against interaction with the Europeans. What he is trying to avoid is a PERMANENT alliance and getting involved in European affairs. For that reason, I would argue that the precedent actually does hold up until at least the turn of the 20th century and perhaps all of the way up to WWII. Remember, part of the reason we don't join the league of nations is because we don't want to be in a permanent alliance which the league would obligate us to. When we truly break this policy is with the creation of NATO and the U.N.
Josh, I think GW's policy was more complex than you are recognizing. The Democratic Republicans were actively supporting Genet and the French. It was a major reason for Jefferson quitting and the split between TJ and GW. Also, Hamilton was leaking our negotiating position to the British. Interestingly, both Adams and Jefferson go to great lengths to avoid war with France and Britain. Madison starts his term with this view, but succumbs. The question about Madison must be raised though whether his War of 1812 was really about Britain and France.
Also, don't forget digital history which is linked on the left. They have their own online textbook.
Mr.O\Josh
Okay call me a tard but i cant figureout what region question nine is refuring to, is it texas? mexico? or the united states? of all of them?
Ryleigh think all of the above. USA in general. What did Mexico lose? Civil war. Did Canada care at all? etc.
Ryleigh,
Josh is right, but I might specifically add the Indians population.
Okay... not much help there. What about the British who were ocupying forts across the American boarder around 1812, do we have a name for any of them?
Ryleigh,
I think you are confusing the wars. Question 9 is only referring to California, the American Southwest, Texas, and Mexico. Does this make any sense? If not, I need you to clarify what about number 9 is throwing you off.
Oops sorry i went off of that one without specifying. I was talking about an all togeather differant question. but anyways whats throwing me off is the huge ammount of space we seem to have to cover via q 9. it almost seems like we get to make up our own question.
I don't know what you mean by making up your own question. It really is meant to be an "effects" question. Here is another way to look at it, How did the Mexican American War affect Mexico, the United States, and the Indian people?
So I’m wondering…would Washington’s farewell address count as a precedent/bucket in question 1? It includes him an links to both Adams and Jefferson, is it of enough significance, or no?
Hi Amber,
I am not sure it is quite big enough. Really, the only precedent is avoid foreign entanglements. The avoid permanent political parties and a national university don't come to fruition. When I look at precedents under W, I look at tariff, National bank, Whiskey Rebellion, excise tax, 2 terms, neutrality. In there I see a lot of economic, political and foreign policy concepts that might form buckets. What do you think, Amber? Does that make sense?
On question 5…what historian said that?
And yes…that makes a lot of sense, it expands on an idea I had already. thank you.
On question 9, are you just wondering effects region wise? Like who got what and etc?
Amber as he said to Ryleigh, You have Mexico and USA territorial changes. leads 10 49ers, civil war conflicts, eventually the Gadsden purchase. In America the war is the birthing place of the political lives of many american statesmen in the civil war period. Zachary Taylor the next president was a general in the war. Many of the confederate generals were soldiers in the MA war. We also get all that desert area that we like to put Indians on in the southwest. We also have gotten most of the primary manifest destiny territory so we go around pushing Indians into reservations in the west. Mexico is put into a state of political instability for a long time. hope my randomness helps, Josh
Amber,
Josh has a pretty good grasp on it. I would point heavily to the Civil war, experience for those generals, the demise of the Mexicans in those regions like the Californios. Mexico also is never able to fully recover economically from what it could have been.
So, how is "Tariff" a precedent (as pointed out in Mr. O's post on Nov 6, 2:57?)
Natalie. The tariff was used by just about every administration after that. It protected american business and made government profits off of imported goods.
Natalie,
This might be useful to you. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html
I find the 1897 and 1930 tariffs particularly interesting.
Mr O.
Would Adams's "midnight appointments" for the supreme court etc. be considered a precedent? And could they be used as an example of Adams's effectiveness?
Useful for anything to do with texas.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/index.html
Justin,
I don't think it would fit in the precedent category, but it would be a good item for achievement, particularly if you look at Marshall.
Mr O,
I know you've discussed this a little bit, but i'm still feeling like question #2 can be taken in so many different ways. You said the "success of their policy", but in many ways the first three presidents were all successful in their own ways. How would you group these?
So, in terms of question three about the reasons for us going to war in 1812, we're aware of british impressment, the chesapeake incident, and the american want for upper canada, but is there any other big thing besides those?
Mr. O
Several questions:
first, would Indian relations, Misunderstanding of Canada, and American desire for Canadian/Indian lands work as buckets for #3?
also, would it be better to swap Indian relations with British/Canadian relations?
Were the "War Hawks" like Clay and Calhoun Democratic-Republicans, or Federalists, or a mix of both?
Thanks
Addison, were the first three administrations well liked? Did they make any major mistakes? What did they gain territorially? Look at some precedents and mention the GOOD ones. Did some things they do have unnoticed but relevant impacts such as Jefferson shrinking the deficit.
Natalie, We though the British were supplying arms to the Indians. They still occupied forts in our land especially around the great lakes. Along terms with impressment, we may have wanted to get a better treaty out of them then jays. I am not sure if that should be mentioned but a victorious war could have helped there.
Justin, I would do Indians, Canada, and poor British Relations as topics.
Mr. O, Is there anything more on question 8 that hasn't been brought up in class? I do not feel that I have enough to go on for an essay without adding in the Mexican point of view. Thanks Josh
Addison,
I think there are two ways to examine them. One possibility would be to list the accomplishments and then find commonalities. In most cases, you are going to see lots of successes. The two most glaring mistakes that one could look at are the Alien/Sedition Acts and Jefferson's Embargo Act. Those could be dealt with in an Att. Getter. After that, you could look for some commonalities in the areas of success.
Natalie,
You are only addressing the British issues. There are bigger issues out there that we covered in notes. Go West, young lady, go west. Also, take a look at the political climate.
What about my question? I often bury them at the end of everything......
Justin,
I think you are onto something with Clay and Calhoun. They are Democrats. They missed the Revolution. How did Jefferson/Madison feel about Britain vs. France in the Washington Admin. I think you may have a political point here. You may want to consider splitting your third point that was listed back into Indians and Britain/Canada points.
Josh,
The military arguments against include the idea that we could get caught in a quagmire in Mexico. It is also an incredibly long distance to battlefield. Also, Santa Anna had a reputation as a brutal military opponent. Supply line could also be a bit of a problem from that distance. How do you get ships to California and keep those soldiers reinforced.
Lincoln is at the heart of the political argument, but there is more. Philosophically, our national creed is one of moral superiority. Bancroft certainly plays into this. The idea of fighting a war of opportunity rather than one of necessity strikes many Americans as poisonous to the theory of "American Exceptionalism." The Whigs also believe that this is a political hatchet job being perpetrated by the Democrats who are the party of slavery.
Philosophically, Thoreau and Emerson are your best bets. Most of this opposition is coming from intellectuals in the Northeast.
Mr. O
when did the whigs cease to be a political party? did they become another one or did they die out? This has got me curious...
soooo, im either missing a significant part of my notes, or something, but, to what three administrations are you referring to for questions 1 and 2?
Mr. O'Donnell,
Just a quick question. For Question Number 3, would buckets of Foreign Entanglements (or Conflicts), Domestic Turmoil, and Ideology be beneficial. I did not know how to encompass all the four aspects of political through the leaders, economic through Jefferson, domestic through problems with Indians, nad Ideology for the justification of sorts. Any criticism or comments?
Thanks
Justin,
-The Whigs die out after the Mexican American war and the early 1850's. The National Republicans will replace them.
Vale
-Better late than never, I guess. Washington, Adams, Jefferson.
Laura,
I am curious about what you mean by ideology, but I think it sounds good.
about question 7, if i said that the US was not the agressor, what would my bucket-topic areas be? can you give me some general ideas of where to go with this because i have thought about it for a while and have come up with nothing. thanks.
When looking at foreign policy precedents set by Jefferson, what would you recommend?
Addison,
Embargo Act is huge. The ability to purchase land from a foreign power is critical.
Miles,
Issue #1 is to make the argument that Mexico knew that the land around the Rio Grande was ours.
Issue #2 Mexico refuses to negotiate. You will want to expand this.
Issue #3-The Texans, New Mexicans,and even Californios want our support or are ambivilant.
for question 3 do we use land expansion, impressment and Indian control as the reasons for entering the war or do we choose one and do the whole essay on it?
Bailey,
You can do all three, but you might want to combine the land expansion and Indian control to a single point. Go a bit broader on impressment. What else were the British doing to irritate us? Also, I may look at the climate in D.C. as a possible cause.
Mr. O'Donnell
Four question number four, would a good bucket be the effects of the war on Canada? Or is a bit too small. As I missed the notes I am seeing it has significance, but don't know if i can fill it with detail.
Laura.
It does have enough notes that he gave us in class, to justify becoming a bucket. I would at least mention the cementing of anti-US sentiment; Canada got closer to England; we never try to invade again.
Laura,
Depending on your other points, you could also combine it with the effect on the Indians.
Mr. O
Thanks! I was looking at that and did that already!
Mr.O sorry to ask again about the tripolitan war, but was the navy successful in stopping the pirate or was an agreement reached because i feel like i should know that if i include it in my essay
The U.S. reached an agreement, but it was eventually violated as we entered the War of 1812. In 1815, we had to go back to war to stop the piracy
Mr. O'Donnell,
So I was looking at question number five and was wondering about these bucket possiblities: American Arrogance, Wrong Enemy, and Lack of Political Ideology support (talking about how the support for Manifest Destiny, or expansionism and dealing with Indains had not had the time to develop but flows into the Mexican-American war)?
Mr. O,
Would Foreign policy, Domestic policy, and Political policy work as buckets on question 1?
Mr. O
about John Adams... did he do ANYTHING involving the US economy? I cannot think of a single precedent or way in which he was effective in that area.
thanks, Justin
I had a question about #1 if one of my buckets is Government and I wanted to bring up the judiary act could I also bring up Marbury v. Madison? because technically it happened at the end of jefferson's admin. and that was were the conflict originated b/c that is a BIG precedent that can be seen even now
for #2 could I say the first 3 admin. were effective because they established precedents for the united states and perpetuated triditions that have proven valueable to the US? or is that cheating and not awnsering the question?
Is the supreme justice directly appointed by the president or is he elected to the role by all the incumbent justices? Did the answer to my question affect Adams's appointment of Marshall to the Supreme court?
Thanks Josh
Laura-How are you addressing the wrong time issue? I also think the war hawks have the ideology. It just happens to be that of the Democratic-Republican Party. They want the nation to be a rural, farmer dominated, country.
Ben-Yes.
Justin-Maintains the policies and principles of the Hamilton financial plan. Remember, he was a Federalist like GW. He also expands the size of government.
Ashley-You link Marbury through the actions of the Sec of State Madison. If he had allowed Marbury his commission, there is no such case. As for your second question, that isn't cheating at all. That is a fair answer.
Josh-The position of "Chief" (not Supreme) is appointed by the President and then approved by the Senate. It can be a current justice who is elevated or a totally new justice which is what Adams did with Marshall.
Mr O.,
For question #7, how did mexico refuse to negotiate?
Colin-They simply refuse to meet with him. He spends much of him time in Mexico City looking for someone to negotiate with.
Hey Mr.O, I know your on the blog, but could you check your email? its odonnells@sd5.k12.mt.us right? sorry for the random comment... but thanks
Mr. O
A further question on Adams:
could I reason that choosing to keep a policy of a former president is a precedent?
Mr. O
Is that a joke? Or did he actually go around Mexico city?
Colin-No, really. As strange as it sounds, he spent months wandering Mexico City searching for someone who could get him access to the leadership.
Justin,
I don't think it is a precedent, as much as an indication that the previous policy was a precedent.
then are there any economic precedents that he sets? I don't really feel like expanding the size of the goverment qualifies either...
Justin,
I've got nothing significant on this front and I've spent a lot of time studying Adams.
and who was "he" that they sent exactly? was it Slidell?
Mr. O I need some help coming up with some ideas for number 1 with what precedences. I used foreign policy for my last bucket and I'm having trouble coming up with supporting points.
Mr. O.
Would the people chosen by Washington to be diplomats be considered a precedent. Especially considering that they were important government officials sent?
how do you spell lycentric, liecentric, umm... this is a stupid question to have to write if i dont know how to spell it! it means practising misdeeds the kind the west was doing...
licentric?
Colin-Yup
Nick- GW's Avoid Entangling Alliance and TJ's Embargo Act would both work. The other one you could mention is Adams putting aside politics for foreign policy.
Josh-That is a tougher one to prove.
Ashley-Licentious
Back to grading quizzes. See you in a few minutes.
do we need to put historiography into our essays?
Miles
The man himself told 3 period that historiography is out. It would take way too much time to look at different historical perspectives of the administrations, 1812, and MA war. One less thing to worry about.
Addison-Word
Mr. O.
How many questions are we going to choose from between? We covered 3 distinct periods so to say, so will it be between one of each or something? Or same as last time?
Thanks Josh
Josh-two questions, random draw.
Mr. O,
Can you explain to me how the Whiskey Rebellion is a precedent? Also is there anyway I can get you to explain Marbury v. Madison and how it led to judicial review? I really don't understand the whole thing.
aOn question 5 if the war had really been about the british and not the indians then the New Englanders would have supported the war. Why would they have supported it?
Hailey,
The Whiskey Rebellion was one of the precedents, specifically Washington's, because he set the example of how to effectively control and eliminate a rebellion of Americans. The situation could have gotten a lot worse had he not intervened, and if he did not have the leadership qualities that helped him to stifle the conflict.
Hailey-I would also point to other rebellions in American history that the U.S. government intervenes in. From South Carolina opposing Jackson during the nullification crisis to the Civil War succession to the government calling out the guard to stop the youth protests in the sixties, we see government intervention in these situations.
Kelsey-The point is that historians have often claimed that the war was caused by British impressments and trade violations. However, the people who were most affected by those policies are the merchants of New England. Despite this, the New Englanders do not support the war. This raises the question of whether this was really the reason war was declared. Interestingly, Westerners and Southerners are very pro-war. Perhaps that is because they wish to add rural territories and control the Indian threat.
Mr. O - Word
Good night and good luck.
Post a Comment