Cherokee Struggle.

In the 1820s the majority of white people wanted the Native Americans moved west of the Mississippi River. Some wanted them removed so they could have their lands, but others where sympathetic to the Native Americans because they feared Natives would be subject to alcoholism, economic struggles, and would eventually lose all their cultural traits. After the war of 1812, Andrew Jackson took massive amounts of land from the Creeks. Although much of the land was being taken from them, the Natives used the political knowledge they possessed from whites and some of them even lived like whites. James Vann for example, was a Cherokee, who owned slaves and trading posts. Sequoya even invented a way to write the Cherokee language and eventually it led to the Cherokee constitution which was very similar to the United States Constitution. Even with all this effort on the mixed bloods' part, the pure blooded Cherokees were resistant to all the efforts of the mixed bloods, however, they seemed to agree that they didn't want to lose their lands. Sadly, in 1830, President Jackson pushed the Indian Removal Act through Congress and granted land and money in Oklahoma and Kansas. The government would grant them the right to ve in this new land without the threat of whites moving in on their new homes. Tis act would lead to much violence between natives and whites. Eventually removal treaties would force the Cherokee to move with the use of the US military. Perhaps one of the most infamous acts of the US government was the Trail of Tears, in which 14,000 Cherokees were force to march 1,200 miles. It seems that the Cherokee removal was permissible ultimately because the US government said so. At the time, with little to no tolerance on the part of the government, do you think there was any other way for this to be handled? Or considering the state of mind of people like Andrew Jackson, was Indian removal and eventual bloodshed inevitable?

In the early to mid 1800s, America expanded immensely. This was due to the improvements in industrialization and transportation. The US had a huge boom in factories in the 1820s and 30s. America started producing its own goods using mass-production methods with machines and workers, including women and children. Most of these factories were in the East, and the West was in an agricultural boom. This was caused by a major improvement in Americas transportation system. The US spent millions of dollars to build interstate highways, canals, and other ways of transit in the early 1800s. Factories in the East would produce algricultural machinery and other goods, and it would be sent West most likely via steamboat in canals and rivers. The farmers in the West would send their crops and livestock East. This helped the economies of both area greatly, and advanced America's economy as a whole. From this point on, towns and cities started popping up everywhere in America and becoming more populous. This is a sign that America was changing and people's lives were becoming more interconnected. Do you think more industrializtion caused better transportation, or the other way around?

Wage Workers and the Labor Movement

The Industrial Revolution changed the nature of work by giving employees minor control over their working conditions. Wageworkers such as carpenters, stonecutters, and cabinentmakers had specialized skills and worried about their increasing length of their workday. Their employers demanded even longer days during the summer and in result 600 carpenters went on strike in Boston. Although this strike failed, carpenters in Philadelphia won a similar strike and founded the Working Men's Party, which wanted the abolition of banks, equal taxation, and universal public education.
Artisans such as shoesmakers, printers, furniture makers, and weavers, were in danger of unemployment due to industrialization in factories. The new industrial system divided the artisan class into self-employed craftsmen and wage-earning workers. Wage earners merged together to form unions to protest for better working conditions and higher pay. Union leaders proposed a labor theory of value which stated that the price of a good should reflect the labor required to make it and most of the money should go to the producer. Women were equally as active in protesting better wages. By the 1850's, machines produced more and more goods, and the need for employees decreased prompting employers to lay off workers.

The Division of Labor and the Factory

In attempting to keep up with British competition, factories became more modernized. There were more machines doing the work that used to be done by several workers. This made the laborers in America worth much less. The first strategy of the Americans was to make improved replicas of British machines to replace workers, and the second was to find less expensive workers. This resulted in men losing their jobs to machines, and many more to women and children. This gave women a new sense of freedom and autonomy and made American products available at lower costs, taking business from the British market. Overall did the good outweigh the bad in this situation? Was the improvement on the American economy worth the growing division of classes, and was it fair to the American people?

Women and The Second Great Awakening

The second great awakening allowed women to become increasingly prominent in the churches. Women began founding new sects, and charitable foundations (Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge, Relief of Poor Widows). Because women were excluded politically, they evolved in the churches. Some churches consisted of over 70 percent women. This new religious activism created a reliance on women in churches, and preached of female virtue which led to greater moral and self discipline among women.

Many men contested to this new authority women were claiming spiritually. Some Baptist churches began to deny women the right to vote on church dealings, and others claimed that women should have no say in the churches and that their place was taking care of the home.

Women reacted by founding associations that encouraged raising Christian children and publishing popularly read newsletters among women. Emma Willard opened the Middlebury Female Seminary, where girls were able to receive an education. This new development led to women teaching in the schools. Although they accepted a much lower pay than men, this was a huge step for American women and exhibited the gradual rise to power for women.

The Missouri Compromise

With the addition of the land that was added to the United States, allowed for the new territories to become part of the Union. But, because of the differences between the North and South, the opinions of the policies of the new states differed. The north was strongly against slavery, while the south was for it.

The Northern part of the United States was against letting a new slave state into the Union. When Missouri applied to become one, they we blocked out by the House of Representatives. The south fought back with an argument that Congress could not dictate a policy that didn’t apply to other states before them. They also believe that slavery was under state law, and not the Federal government. The north and south came to an agreement thanks to Henry Clay in 1820. He proposed the Missouri compromise which allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state. The compromise comes into play with Maine entering to, as a non-slave state and the rest of the Louisiana Purchase, north of a certain line of latitude, prohibited from slavery. With the emancipation of slavery in other states, was it alright to let another slave state into the union at that time?

The Second Great Awakening

The Second Great Awakening had a major impact on America. For some it gave hope. For others it had a negative effect. For most it meant a new revival for religion. It effected all classes of society, all races, and all sexes.
The Second Great awakening affected what churches had the most members. Methodists and Baptist became the most popular of the religions. The American people started to prefer a religion with a more democratic system unlike the Catholic and Episcopal Churches who had hierarchies. Also predestination was greatly rejected and people repudiated the old Calvinist doctrines.
The African American population in the Second Great awakening saw God as a warrior who would free them. The compared themselves to the Jews who were saved from slavery in Egypt. This also led to slaves uprising and disobeying the elite planters.
The new forms of religion was disruptive to males in their household and the planter elites. Woman also began to take a greater part in the church. Evangelical religion offered salvation for. It didn’t matter whether you are black or white, male or female; you could be saved. This greatly effected the patriarchal household. Woman started to demand more equality in their houses. The planter elite was effected by having their slaves revolt and become more disobedient.

Northern and Southern Differences

Besides the geographical differences the northern and southern states had many economical and social differences. The northern states placed a much higher value on education than their southern counterparts. Almost all native born citizens in New England could read and write while nearly one-third of the southerners could not. According to a British visitor, the northern states had "better education, are more intelligent, and better informed".

The biggest difference was the slavery issue. The northern states thought slavery "corrupted society" and led to laziness while in the southern states it was a way of life. As Congress prohibited participation in the Atlantic slave trade and the northern states began to emancipate their slaves the southern states were expanding slave-based agriculture to the lower Mississippi Valley. This expansion caused a need for slave labor which could not legally be filled from outside the country and therefore led to the internal slave trade. This westward expansion led to three more slave states entering the union.

Louisiana Purchase

The Louisiana Purchase was quite possible the most ludicrous American deal in history. It was not only the cheapest land, but it also gave poor farmers a chance to move west and give land to their sons and daughters in dowries. It had an affect on the Native American population as well. Native Americans were forced onto reservations where the land was not good and where game was scarce.
Thomas Jefferson also took over Native American lands by cheating them out of it. He would underprice things and sell too much of that item to the Native American population and then, when the end of the year came, the US would demand that the Native Americans pay off their debt. Since the Native Americans had no currency, the only thing that they could give to pay off their debts was their land. Naturally, they lost everything-even more game for hunting, and the lands that they were using for farming. Some Native Americans were forced by the white settlers to convert to Christianity.

After reading this, could things have been done differently than they were? How would these changes have affected both the past and the present?

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set up the territories that would eventually become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Slavery was prohibited in these territories, and certain funds from land sales were set aside for schools. Both of the latter were due to the Enlightenment ideals of Jefferson and other Patriots.
Congress was to set up a governor and judges for the new territory, but once the territory gained 5000 voters (free adult men, obviously), it could set up and elect their own territorial legislature. When the population reached 60,000, it could apply for statehood in the Confederation contingent upon having written a republican constitution, and if it reached statehood, would be on an even footing with the existing states.
This had major significance due to the fact that it established an orderly method of settling the west that did not have political wrangling at every step. It also set up a precedent for the federal government to manage land directly. When the Confederation became the United States, the law was passed on in a slightly revised form. Ohio was the first state admitted from the territory.

The Philadelphia Convention

The Philadelphia Convention (also know as the Constitutional Convention) took place in May - September of 1787. Fifty-five delegates representing all states except Rhode Island had come to Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. This meeting would "forever decide the fate of Republican Government" as James Madison put it. The delegates were mainly merchants or "monied men" such as Benjamin Franklin (representing Philadelphia) , George Washington, Robert Morris, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. There was only one farmer, but there really was no "common people" like artisans or tenants at the convention. Would having more common people represent the states make any difference?
The delegates chose Washington to preside over the meeting, which was to be held in secret at the Pennsylvania State House. James Madison's Virginia Plan was what the delegates were to consider. It was different from the Articles of Confederation in three ways: It rejected state sovereignty in favor of the "supremacy of national authority", it called for a national government to draw authority from the people and to exercise direct power on them, and it created a three tier national government where the lower house of the legislature would be elected by the people. However it had two major flaws, one of them being that the lower house of the legislature would have more influence from the larger states because membership was based on population. Representatives from smaller states rejected this because they felt that the larger states would not listen to them and "crush" them. So the smaller states favored the New Jersey Plan because it treated the states equally by allowing each state to have one vote in a unicameral legislature. And the larger states opposed this provision. After much debate, the Great Compromise was accepted, allowing each state two representatives in the lower house while the House of Representatives would be based on population.
Slavery was also debated upon, but rarely. They decided that slaves would only count as three-fifths of a free person in determining a state's representation in Congress.
The Convention was over in September of 1787 when Benjamin Franklin urged the 41 delegates still present to sign the Constitution. All but three signed it.

Shay's Rebellion

Shays’ Rebellion was an uprising in Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787 caused by excessive land taxation, high legal costs, and economic depression following the American Revolution. This rebellion was only one of many protests that took place during this period.

The dissatisfied, who were mainly poor farmers threatened with loss of their property and imprisonment for debt, were headed by Daniel Shays, a former captain in the American Revolution army. They demanded protective legislation, the abolition of the court of common pleas, and a radical reduction of taxes. In 1786, armed mobs prevented the sitting of the courts at Northampton, Worcester, Great Barrington, and Concord; and Shays, with his followers, broke up a session of the state supreme court in Springfield. Shays and his men marched into Springfield to seize the federal arsenal, but they were held back by a force of militia under the American general Benjamin Lincoln. The rebels fled toward Petersham, where they were finally defeated. Most of the men were pardoned later in the year; Shays, condemned to death, escaped to Vermont and was pardoned a year later.

Shays' rebellion and the other protests forced the leaders and politicians of the young nation to take note. The existing Articles of Confederation, which provided for the basic laws of the nation, were not an effective means of governing. How influential were these protests to the nation's leaders in their formulation and ratification of the Constitution?

The Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation is the first national constitution created for the soon-to-be independent colonies. The Articles provided a very loose structure for the national government and put most of the power in that of the state governments. The Federal government could not levy taxes directly or control trade. This proved to be problematic after the Revolutionary War was over when the nation was left in a large amount of debt. The states retained their powers over "sovereignty, freedom, and independence" along with any powers not "expressly delegated" to the national government. Most Americans were in favor of this at the time because they did not want to see a strong, centralized national government turn into the same tyrannical authority they had been under with Great Britain.

While the national government was limited in most of its power, it could still declare war, borrow and print money and receive funds from states to benefit the nation. This made it possible for there to be some form of tax, but if states did not want to they did not have to contribute to the national government fund.

Could the United States have succeeded and continued to thrive under the power of the Articles of Confederation, or was revision necessary in order to maintain a stronger balance between the federal and state governments?

The French Alliance

The alliance America created with France proved to be a turning point in the war. The French still very upset with the loss to Brittan were eager to in some way seek revenge. In 1776 Comte De Vergennes, the French foreign minister, persuaded King Louis the XVI to give the colonies a secret loan of supplies which were much needed. On the front line for the Americans Benjamin Franklin began to seek an alliance with the French. Skeptical at first the French did not want to commit to losing cause but when the news hit Paris of the victory of Saratoga, the French agreed to a formal alliance with the colonies. One of the underlined agreements for aide from the French would allow the French access to the great American west after the war.
The British were quick to act by repealing all former taxes in hope to end the lingering war. The colonist were devoted to their cause and rejected the offers. Without the alliance with the French the war would have not been won by the colonies.

The American "Path to Victory"

Our book states many components to "The Path to Victory", that the Patriots took in the Revolutionary War. The book states Patriot Advantages, such as, having 2/3 of the American population supporting the war to some extent, whether it be 1/3 of the population unwavering support of the Patriots, the other 1/6 of the population, who did not "completely" agree or support the Patriots, but still paid taxes, or the 1/6 of the population who joined the Patriot Militia. We are all in college, so you should be able to see how(by adding 2/6 A.K.A. 1/3(population that was unwavering) plus 1/6(population that paid taxes that supported the war effort) plus 1/6(population that joined the Patriot Militia), which in turn equals the fraction 4/6's A.K.A. 2/3's) I came to the fraction 2/3's. Another advantage was the fact that the Continental Army was lead by George Washington, in my opinion one the greatest risk taking Generals ever. Not only did he lead the Continental Army, but Washington was heavily supported by the governing bodies that ran each state, and by Congress, because he "deferred to civil authorities. And the most important advantage was the fact that unlike the British generals, Washington COULD make mistakes, because most of the local governments were ran by "Who else?", but the Patriots. And because of this they could, at anytime especially when it was crucial to the victory, call for and "mobilize the rural militia to assist his(Washington's) Continental Army. The biggest component, the alliance between the U.S. and France. The Treaty of Alliance of February 1778 combined the need for a patriot ally, and one of the most powerful military and trade nations in the world. The treaty stated that there would be an agreement between the states and France, that neither would sign a peace agreement with another country until the "liberty,sovereignty, and independence of the U.S. was garunteed. This alliance somewhat pumped up the morales of the Continental Army and the Patriot militia. The french wanted redemption on Britian, and in turn would help with the giving of soldiers and supplies to the U.S. This help from the French would be seen in many influential and critical victories on the part of the states, especially in the Battle of Yorktown in October 1781. Where Washington strategic final plan would pay off. Washington announced that he would attack New York and when he did so he planned to recapture the city. But it was a mock announcement, he was really leading GeneralRochambeaus army from Rhode Island to Virginia to sneak up on General Cornwallis whos troops were suffering from the war of attrition. At the same time, numerous French naval boats came together off the coast, taking over the Chesapeak Bay. It was to late when Cornwallis figured out what was actually happening, he was already surrounded by19,000 American and French troops. He soon surrendered. I have 2 questions for you. Could the U.S. of won the Revolution without George Washington? What about without France? I personally think they couldn't have done it without the presence of each one.

Saratoga Victory

The British planned to isolate the New England colonies. In order to do this General John Burgoyne was sent from the Lake Champlain to the Hudson river. While this was going on Colonel Barry St. Leger would attack from the west and General Howe would would send troops North from New York City. Howe however decided to attack Philadelphia and end the war with a victory over Washington's army. Leading to the defeat of Burgoyne's army. Making it to the Hudson river they were stalled at Saratoga, and raided Bennington, Vermont. They were then attacked my American militiamen. The troops that were supposed to be sent to New York were sent to Philidelphia leaving Burgoyne's army helples, forced to surrender.

This victory led to the French joining the colonists in their battle for independence eventually helping them to win the war. If General Howe had not made his decision to go to Philadelphia instead of to New York would the war have turned out the same way? Was this war won because of British military mistakes?

Common Sense

Common Sense was a pamphlet wrote by Thomas Paine. He states that: "Monarchy and heredity succession have laid the world in blood and ashes" (170). He also calls the King George III a Pharoh of England. Paine is a huge influence on how people see independence. He takes quotes from the bible and mixes them with insults directed at the king. He also states: "A government of our own is our natural right...'Tis time to part" (171).

Thomas Paine's pamphlet went on to have twenty-five editions. Thousands of people read it andd it opened up their minds on the importance of independence. Do you believe that Thomas Paine inspired Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence? Do you think that it greatly inspired Washington's troops to keep fighting the war? If you lived during this time period would you have favored this pamphlet and set forth for independence?

Qould We Have Avoided The War?

Could we have avoided the war?
I believe that we couldn't of avoided the war because as Americans we like choice and the British were defending their honor. British Ministry did not accept William Pitts suggestion on 1) making the Continental Congress a lawful body and 2) Renouncing British taxing power. Things were then made worse with the Coercive Acts which included 1)Port Bill 2)Government Act 3)Quartering Act and 4)Justice Act. Congress reacted with the Declaration of Rights and Grievances and the Intolerable Acts to be repealed by Sept. 1775. If both the British and Americans would of compromised the war could of been postponed but not avoided. Communication between the British and Americans was seldom and arrogance also played a big role. The Americans believed they were citizens while the British did not believe this which also caused tension.
Do you believe we could of avoided the war or was it too late at this point in history?

Unification in the Colonies

What marked the end of the French and Indian War was just the beginning stages leading to the American Revolution. Due to the expenses of this war, the British were over their heads in debt. They decided what better way to alleviate this deficit than to tax the American colonies left and right.
The extensive taxation started with proposal of the Sugar Act of 1764 by George Grenville, the prime minister at the time. Originally, Grenville wanted 6 pence per gallon, but eventually agreed to make it 3. This act was thoroughly ignored through bribing customs officials. The Stamp Act of 1765 was put into action to help fund the British military stationed in the colonies. It placed a tax on all legal documents, newspapers, playing cards, and other printed items. Later that year, representatives from nine colonial assemblies got together for the Stamp Act Congress in New York City. This is the first time we see a strong, unified force in the colonies. Mobs, calling themselves the Sons of Liberty, caused this act to crumble through force and intimidation. Since William Pitt frequently missed Parliament sessions due to sickness, Charles Townshend, the head of the Treasury, was left in charge. He came up with the Townshend Act of 1767 to feed his financial (and political) desires. This was to impose taxes on pretty much everything the colonies got from Britain (that they didn't have themselves)- tea, paper, red and white lead, glass, etc. The tax the British people paid on these items was lifted and put on to the colonists. Ultimately, these Navigation Acts were what escalated the levels of hostility, leading to the American Revolution. If any of these imperial decisions were made differently, could the revolution have been avoided? Or would it just have postponed the inevitable?

The First Continental Congress

In September 1774, twelve men met in Philadelphia for the first meeting of the Continental Congress. The meeting was set up to discuss issues of parliament control over the colonies. Mainly, the Congress set up plans that would retaliate against Britian's economy. They told Parliament to repeal the Intolerable Acts by September 1775 or they would cut off all colonial exports to Britian, Ireland, and the West Indies. Many British leaders wanted compromise, including William Pitt who suggested that Parliament should give up their power to tax the colonies.

The Congress infuriated British Parliament with these demands and identifed them as an illegal assembly. Lord North set some demands of his own. His terms stated that Americans had to recognize Parliaments power to tax them. He also set up a naval blockade that ceased all colonial exports to other countries besides Britian. This was the beginning of the road to independence and the colonies governing themselves.