America’s History and Politics
America’s History and Politics
1.0 Jacksonian Democracy and American Politics
Jacksonian democracy defines the era that began around the time when Andrew Jackson became U.S. president, in 1828 (Doutrich, 2004). However, Jacksonian era has been coined to include a period before, during, and after Jackson’s election. Its basis is the issues and policies advocated by Jackson and the Democrat supporters. It involved a tragic mix of egalitarianism, racial prejudice and masculine privilege (Ushistory.org, 2012).
The era comprised a profound change in progress, in American civilization (DiConsiglio, 2012). Jacksonian Democracy bridged the ideas of enlightenment and the tensions that would cause civil war years later. Jacksonian democracy is defined by a significant social change rapid population increase, burgeoning economy, and a high level expansion westward. Political and civilian figures that were instrumental in guiding the Jacksonian Democracy were Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Martin Van Buren, John Calhoun, and others. Jacksonian Democracy took center stage after the 1824 controversial election, in which Jackson lost. The issues that shaped the campaign during the 1824 election contest are the foundations of the policies during the Jackson era. The common slogan was democracy for the common man and thus the tag the “champion of the common man” referring to President Andrew Jackson.
In relation to modern American politics, Jacksonian democracy was a significant turning point for American politics. According to Jackson, the proper road to success lay in the absolute acceptance of majority rule. Jacksonian Democracy influenced America politics in two ways. The movement facilitated the nurturing of egalitarian thrust in American political society. However, racial prejudice and masculine privilege associated with the movement had negative social impact. The perceived benefit for white men led to the civil war seventy years later.
$12.0 Mexican-American War.
This was a battle between the U.S. and Mexico that occurred in the period 1846 to1848 (Sonneborn, 2005). The principal cause is the United States’ 1845 annexation of Texas and a dispute over the extent of Texas. In relation to the second cause, Mexico claimed that Texas ended at Nueces River while the United States claimed that the lower boundary of Texas was the Rio Grande. The outcome of the war is the acquisition of Mexican territory averaging 500,000 square miles. The annexed region extends from Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean.
On the one hand, the several considerations justified the war. The president of the united states James Polk and his Mexican counterpart Mariano Paredes both declared the war with the support of their constituents. Secondly, the war was a justified cause; American soldiers were attacked by the Mexican army, in Texas. However, the war is not just when viewed on other perspectives. The declaration by the American president for war did not have a basis of genuine intentions. It seemed land grabbing on the part of the United States led by President James Polk. In addition, the war was seen to extend slavery to countries that did not support slavery. The war failed to protect peace in regions affected. Other reasons that do not justify the war are civilian casualties, and the proportionality between the U.S soldiers and Mexican soldiers.
The American-Mexican war had a significant impact on Mexico and the United States. America’s intention was the expansion of territory with disregard to the native communities living in the regions. The communities including Tejanos, Nuevo, Californianos, and Mexicanos lost their native land and were forced to assimilate into other cultures losing their identity.
$13.0 Compromise of 1850
The Compromise of 1850 refers to the laws enacted in September 1850 dealing with the issue of slavery (Holt, 1983). In 1849, the state of California requested permission to be incorporated into the United States Union, as a free state. This had the potential to cause an imbalance between Free States and Slave States. In response, Senator Henry Clay sought to avert the looming crisis by introducing a series of bills in an attempt to seek a compromise between the south and the north (Waugh, 2003). In line with the resolutions, slave trade in Washington, DC and the Fugitive Slave Act was amended. As a result, California entered the union as a free state. In addition, a free state was created in Utah along with a territorial government. In addition, an act was passed that settled the dispute between New Mexico and Texas. This also established a territorial government in New Mexico.
The compromise is a significant event in the history of civil strife against slavery. The bills initiated by Senator Henry Clay were instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade and admission of California. Runaway slaves were returned to their owners signifying the end of the trade. In addition, the American government applied the principle of popular sovereignty to dispute with Mexico and reached an agreement.
$14.0 Kansas-Nebraska Crisis
In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed (Anbinder, 1992). This act contributed to the sectional crisis of the 1850s popularly known as the Kansas-Nebraska Crisis. The crisis pitted supporters of slavery and those who were proponents of restriction of slavery. The Compromise of 1850 left extremists of the Southern and Northern States without a basis for their agitation for post- and antislavery attitudes (Ellis, 1987). Many Americans called for a final solution and an end to the conflict concerning the extension of slavery. Stephen Douglas, a democratic senator, wrote a bill that gave territories in regions power to determine whether to reserve people for free labor. Douglas’ bill, thus, repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and its ban on slavery in the northern sides of the country (Chinn, 2005). This infuriated the northerners who accused Douglas of repealing the ban on slavery. Douglas’ action was in line with the Democrat’s principle of non-intervention and limitation of the central government, but in the opinion of Northern Whigs (Republicans) and Democrats, this act was not democratic in that it increased the power of slavery, and hence provocative and hostile. Worse still, the act failed to specify when citizens could make a decision on slavery in their territories.
Due to the act, voting irregularities in Kansas led to an armed conflict between the pro and anti- supporters of slavery. This was significant in that it shifted the balance of power off the Whig party marking its end and the creation of the Republican Party. The Republican Party came on a platform of restriction and subsequent abolition of the slave trade.
$15.0 Dred Scott Decision
In March 1887, the U.S. Supreme Court with Roger Taney as the Chief Justice, made a declaration that all blacks, free and slaves, were not citizens of the United States and would not be allowed to become citizens (Fehrenbacher, 1981). The Supreme Court also made a declaration that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This permitted slavery in the territories across the United States. The declaration followed Dred Scott’s appeal to the Supreme Court to grant his freedom in the state of Missouri, which was a slave State. Dred Scott was a slave owned by a family that lived in Alabama and Missouri. The Chief Justice, Taney, was a chief supporter of the slave trade, whose mission was to protect southerners from the aggression of the Northern States.
Fredrick Douglas and other abolitionists were astonished by the Supreme Court’s judgment (Herda, 2011). This was a setback to their efforts of advocacy for a free society. It drove the country back to history and provided a basis on which to base injustice against the black people, most of whom were slaves. According to Taney, the American principle of “equality for all men” did not apply to the black populations (Fehrenbacher, 1981). The proponents of equality for all men did not have in mind the black people, according to the Chief Justice. However, for Fredrick Douglas, the decision was a step forward in that it brought slavery to the attention of the nation. According to him, it marked a significant milestone of the strife that would pave the way to greater attention necessary to fight the issue. The Supreme Court decision prolonged the feud between the southern and the northern states. The Southern States viewed the decision to protect slavery as a means to extend slavery to all states. The issue was resolved in 1865 and 1868 through the thirteen and fourteen amendments.
$16.0 The American Civil War
The civil war is the most controversial and momentous period in history (Fradin, 2008). The Southern States and the Northern States developed along different lines. The South developed as predominantly agrarian system of economy. The North developed to become industrialized. Because of this variation, different cultural, political, and social beliefs developed. These differences created conflicts on aspects such as tariffs, internal improvements, and taxes. In addition, there were conflicts concerning the rights of state and federal governments. Slavery is on the top of the list for the social difference between the states. The southern states used slaves to perform farming activities in the extensive plantations and other duties. Millions of Africans worked as slaves in the south at around 1850s. Slaves were owned, sold, or rented to pay debts or as properties of individuals or businesses.
The Northern States instigated social changes and gradually restricted slavery. The immigration of European natives from Germany and Ireland provided insurance to the northern states, in terms of availability of labor. In relation to the rights of governments, the conflict developed on the basis of the rights to restrict or control slavery. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1859 exacerbated tensions. The Southern states feared that Lincoln would abolish the slave trade because Lincoln was not a supporter of expansion of slavery. Secessionist movements began leading to the civil war.
$17.0 Emancipation Proclamation
In January 1983, President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation to prevent the country from further destruction from civil war, which had lasted three years (Guelzo, 2010). The proclamation declared persons serving as slaves “are, and, henceforth shall be free”. The proclamation did not apply through the entire country: it left out the loyal states. However, it captured the feelings of the American people fundamentally. Every step of the advancement of military in recapturing the rebellious states market great strides of freedom.
The proclamation is one of the most progressive developments in American history (Fradin, 2008). Abraham Lincoln was more aimed at crushing the Southern States than ending slavery. If the aim was to end slavery, he could have issued the proclamation in the first year of presidency. Perhaps, he should have drafted it as part of his policies. The rebel states, on the other hand, feared abolition of the slave trade despite Lincoln having not shown an indication of such action. It was a shrewd strategy to defeat the rebel states. In fact, the proclamation excluded loyal states from those ordered to free slaves. However, Lincoln’s proclamation sent a clear message to the American society regarding equality for all.
8.0 References
Anbinder, T. (1992). “Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s”. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chinn, J. (2005). “The Kansas Journey”. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith.
DiConsiglio, J. (2012). “The Mexican-American War”. Mankato, MN: Heinmann-Raintree.
Doutrich, P. (2004). “Shapers of the Great Debate on Jacksonian Democracy: Biographical Dictionary”. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Ellis, R. (1987). “The Union at Risk”. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Fehrenbacher, D-E. (1981). “Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective”. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fradin, D. (2008). ‘The Emancipation Proclamation”. New York, NY: Marshal Cavendish Benchmark.
Guelzo, A. (2010). “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation”. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Herda, D. (2011). “The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship”. New York, NY: Enslow Publishers, Inc.
Holt, M. (1983). The Political Crisis of the 1850s. New York, NY: Norton.
Sonneborn, L. (2005). “The Mexican-American War”. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.
Ushistory.org. (2012). “Jacksonian Democracy and Modern America”. U.S. History Online Textbook. http://www.ushistory.org/us/23f.asp
Waugh, J. (2003). “On the Brink of War: The Compromise of 1850”. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc.
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
