Good evening.
This unit was short but action-packed. It's not every unit that we get to cover two significant presidencies, a major war, and the birth of a national hero!
So, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson figure prominently in Unit #4, as well as John Marshall and Andrew Jackson. Some significant economic moves, such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act of 1807 are essential for understanding this era. American and British motivations for the War of 1812 set the tone for American foreign policy for years to come.
One of the things that we didn't get to cover in class, though I hoped you would pay particularly close attention to it in your readings, is the Missouri Compromise. Shall we start our discussion there?
35 comments:
(sorry this isnt related to the test but is our essay due tuesday or wednesday?)
The Missouri Compromise allowed slavery in Missouri but didnt allow other states above latitude 36' 30' to have slaves. I think.
I checked my eboard page, and listed it as Wednesday, so handing in essays on Wednesday is fine without penalty.
Yes, Liz, you are correct. Do you think the Miss. Compromise was a good or poor idea?
Well kind of bad, because it let one state go above the line which didn't really make sense. Plus it like visibly divided the country.
The Missouri Compromise was an attempt by abolitionists to at least limit the spread of slavery throughout the United States. It did, however, allow for new states coming into the Union to choose for themselves whether to be slave states or free states (I think). This allows for later contention over the creation of new states versus the extention of already existing states. There was nothing to say that half of Montana couldn't break off and form a slave state after the treaty was signed, as long as that half agreed amongst its people. From a political standpoint it was more of a gesture towards not only the slaves, but other nations, which said that we were willing to rethink our national economy to a more labour friendly situation.
that just caused a division in the nation
but who instituted the miss. comp. Jeffy boy or Johnny Q.
Good. Once the spread of slavery gets to the point of being an issue of popular sovereignty, we will see how the Missouri Compromise was only a temporary answer to the brewing issue over the fate of slavery in the United States. Once the Kansas and Nebraska territories look to join the union, and free/slave status is up for grabs in a popular vote, blood will be shed for quite a long time.
Missouri was eventually surrounded by free states which served as escape routes for the slaves, and though this caused controversy due to the fact that the inhabitants of Missouri wanted their slaves to stay with them, it was helpful for the overall ending of slavery (even though it had to be done through civil war).
So for our essay tomorrow, should we be talking about slave rights?
Technically, Monroe is still in office when the Miss Compromise comes down the line. It is coalesced by Henry Clay, who brings together the idea that Miss will be a slave state, Maine a free state, and the establishment of the free-slave divide at the 36-30 latitude.
I like this conversation for the basis of an essay tomorrow.
As far as my hint in class today for an essay topic, I think that it is very suitable for us to start setting our sights on issues of sectionalism and nationalism. The Denmark Vescey conspiracy has the part to play in this direction, because it highlights another preoccupation with a certain section of the country. What preoccupation, and what section am I referring to?
Feel free to chime in at any point in time.
wait, i'm way off, i think i am talking about tecumseh...
tyler you just confused me really bad...he was a slave you was accused of conspiracy with fellow house slaves
are you trying to get at the federalists in new england mr. davis? They did not like the direction the US was going in and wanted to leave the nation.
Vesey allegedly started a conspiracy among household slaves in South Carolina. The South Carolinians then decided that no one could say anything against slavery and that no free blacks were allowed in the state.
I don't know about natives, but Denmark Vesey led a rebellion and then he was put on trial which I find weird because he was a black and they could just hang him- not that they should- but then I really doubt he had the right to have a trial by his peers so he was found guilty and hanged.
I see, Derick is still singing that "All the Young Dudes," the funeral dirge of the Federalists.
Actually, Caitlyn is closest to the mark here (with sprinkles of Russ for good measure). Think about how absolutely frightening the Vesey conspiracy must have meant for Southerners. Surely, Northerners had their own prejudices against free blacks and slaves, but the South was sitting on a powder keg of discontent. This wasn't the first time that someone had significantly challenged the social order in the South, right?
If you go way back, there was the uprising against Gov. Berkely of indentured servants against the Indians and the taking of power by Nate Bacon.
was it so much changing social order as just excluding blacks even harsher than before
Hadn't the south's social order always been challenged? If you look at Hamilton, he wanted to make debt a national issue and that meant the south would have to pay extra. Basically the federalists (all the young dudes) were a constant threat right? They didn't agree with the southern way of life. The federalists wanted a nation much like that of England.
While there may be no constitutional support for this fact, Russ, I must say that (according to Kelley at least) it was unfortunately true that blacks were not tried by juries of their peers because they were not allowed to actually participate in the judiciary service. Kelley says explicitly that they couldn't serve on juries or give testimony (and obviously they couldn't hold public offices).
Well, the Federalists didn't like social order changing, but I think that the Southerns cared more about a slave uprising everywhere and them getting killed. Crush every revolt and the slaves are less likely to rebel.
True Nick, but that did not refute their ability to be tried by a jury of their "peers" before an execution sentence was given. It was not until decisions like this that these rights were revoked for "lesser races." I'm not trying to say there wasn't prejudice against them, but constitutionally they had the same rights as the whites did.
Good point, Rachel. And what better way to crush a revolt than through draconian laws and harsh penalties?
well, to comment on Nick's point, Kelley actually says that blacks cannot serve on juries or give testimony only when white men are involved. therefore, technically they do have involvement in the judiciary system, even if it doesn't happen very often.
Rachel delivered us to the promised land! Good points by all. The issue of the slave uprising was something that constantly weighs on the Southern mind. Bacon's class rebellion was really the tip of the iceberg.
Sectional differences really do reveal themselves from the very birth of the republic straight to the present. The Federalists certainly do not want to to fade into the past, and see their country lose its aristocratic flavor. The emerging Southern aristocracy certainly does not want to see their way of life diminished by national authorities, and such fears are only intensified by their anxiety over keeping a slave population under control.
What sort of political details from this era are we going to need to know, Mr. Davis?
Denmark Vesey was like a Thomas Jefferson or George Washington of the blacks was he not? His attempted revolt reminds me of the American revolution.
Political details . . . Jefferson's basic political outlook, Adams' basic goals, reasons that the "War Hawks" sought war with the British, reasons for the acquisition of Louisiana.
Plus one or two zingers to make sure you've been doing your reading.
A good discussion--have a good evening.
Post a Comment