1. The fact that the two-party system appeared to be on the wane during this time is considered an important factor contributing to the Era of Good Feeling. Do you think the two-party system today prevents a national spirit of optimism and cooperation? Why or why not? Cite examples from history and/or current events to support your view. I think the two-party system does prevent a national spirit of optimism and cooperation. This is because if there are two parties, there are likely two opposing views, evident in the two parties we have in America today.
Many times, Republicans won’t vote for a bill the Democratic party proposes solely based on the fact that their opposing party proposed it. Members of the House and Senate will sometimes vote against something, not because of their personal views and opinions on the issue, nor because it will not help the country, but because someone they “didn’t like” proposed it. Republicans and Democrats today refuse to cooperate and vote for something that will actually benefit the country because of the two party system and how it fosters tensions between the two parties, prevention cooperation.
Also, should the other party win, they spend their time in office working on undoing everything they’ve done, making it difficult for actual progress to be made. A two party system also creates polarized parties that are only interested in their own personal agendas. So when a comment is made by someone that is more in between these two polar parties, the party they belong to will most likely criticize that politician that made the comment because it didn’t follow the extreme ideas of that party.
As a result, many politicians are forced to completely follow their party’s strict opinions and beliefs on different issues without permitting any flexibility or independent opinions and thoughts about issues in the country. One example of this was during the 2008 Presidential election, when John McCain was asked what he would do if his daughter wanted an abortion. His response was that he wouldn’t interfere with her decision because it was hers to make about what she wanted to do with her own body.
This comment went against what and how most Republicans feel about abortion. Although he didn’t say something that showed he was completely against abortion, it was completely for abortion either. The Republican party then relentlessly criticized McCain for his comment. This is something that also happens in the Democratic party. Because of the two-party system we have in place, the opposing parties end up having extreme beliefs on different issues in order to oppose the other, and they force people within their parties to share the same extreme sides and opinions.
The term “Era of Good Feeling” masks the fact that not everyone in the United States and nearby territories participated in the prosperity and spirit of American nationalism that prevailed. What groups of people were disadvantaged by the policies and actions of the period? The group of people who were disadvantaged by the policies and actions of the period were slaves. One of the biggest “issues” of this period was the Missouri Compromise, and whether Missouri should be admitted as a slave state or not.
Missouri leaders wanted to be a slave state, but the North opposed that because it would cause an imbalance between slave and free states should it be a slave state. It’s clear that at this time, slaves were disadvantaged by the policy, as they were still considered “property” and their feelings weren’t taken into account. They didn’t have the same rights as whites solely based on the fact that they had darker skin. Monroe, the President at the time, ended up balancing slave states and free states, but he only cared about how the white Northerners and Southerners felt, not how the slaves would feel.
If he did take into account how the slaves felt, he would’ve make Missouri a free state as well, even though the Missouri leaders would have been upset, as doing so would benefit the blacks more than the whites in Missouri. 3. What do you think about Monroe’s efforts to end slavery in the United States by resettling blacks back to Africa? What were the advantages and disadvantages for blacks in America under such a plan? What arguments would those who opposed the plan might have used?
The advantages for blacks under a plan to resettle them in Africa was that they wouldn’t be forced to be slaves for whites. By resettling in Africa, they would be with their people, as slaves were taken from Africa. They also wouldn’t be slaves in their own country. A disadvantage for blacks under this plan is that oftentimes, African chiefs helped other countries capture and ship blacks off to be slaves in other countries. If they were sent back, their chiefs might just sell them to other countries who used slaves at the time, thus putting them ack into the slave system. Those who opposed the plan might argue that slaves don’t know how to “govern” themselves. They need someone in charge of them, telling them what to do and when to do it, which is what whites do. It is “necessary” for white to govern the slaves because they can’t do it for themselves. Another argument those who opposed the plan might have used is that blacks have already gotten used to living the way they live in the United States that they can’t resettle back in a new place, even though that’s where they came from and used to live.
Another argument could be that whites need slaves to keep up their economy and the production of their farmed goods. Slaves were a big part of harvesting crops on the farmlands in the South, and if they were taken away, the economy of the U. S. would likely suffer without their assistance if they were resettled back in Africa. Missouri Compromise Identify: Explain how the Missouri Compromise limited the growth of slavery The Missouri Compromise limited the growth of slavery with the establishment of the 36-30 latitude line.
This line was a breaking point by prohibiting slavery in the area north of the line, except for the area within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. By doing so, slavery could not spread into new areas, and would only stay within the area south of the 36-30 latitude line and the proposed boundaries of Missouri. Analyze: How did the Missouri Compromise reflect regional differences toward slavery? The Missouri Compromise reflected regional differences toward slavery in that the North and South had opposite opinions about the issue. The North was against using slaves while the South was for it.
The 36-30 latitude line essentially divided the country between North and South, as the area above the line prohibited slavery, which they were fine with anyways as the North didn’t use and was against using slaves. The area below the line and Missouri were allowed to use slaves, which made sense as the area below the line was the South, who actually used the slaves and didn’t want to end the use of the slave system. This 36-30 latitude line was a physical reflection of the differing viewpoints on slavery between the North and the South, as it reflected the ideals of the North and South.
Evaluate: To what extent did the Missouri Compromise act as a turning point for the political debates about slavery, which culminated with the Emancipation Proclamation? The Missouri Compromise acted as a turning point for the political debates about slavery because it still allowed slavery in the country, as it established the 36-30 latitude line and permitted the south to have slavery and the north didn’t have slavery. Although it only permitted slavery in the south, the biggest reason why it was a turning point was that it permitted slavery.
Because of this, the north and south would continue to disagree about the issue of slavery and cause distance and tension in their relationship. The Emancipation Proclamation called for the abolition of slavery. By allowing slavery to still occur in the Missouri Compromise, it created the issue that called for the Emancipation Proclamation later in the future to abolish slavery, as tensions between the North and South rose to the point where a Civil War between the two happened. Monroe Doctrine
Identify: How does the Monroe Doctrine establish a difference between American and European powers, as seen in this line: “the political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America? ” The Monroe Doctrine establishes a difference between American and European powers, as seen in this line, by saying from a general viewpoint, the political system of the allied powers is different from the one in America in that the U. S. cherishes liberty and happiness more, and we have no part in European wars.
We only enter wars when our own personal rights are affected and impacted because we are defending our rights through entering the war in this way. This statement originated from the differences in the governments, as the U. S. was achieved through blood and treasure and the whole nation is devoted to our government “style. ” As a result, we should be wary of the allied powers consider that when they attempt to extend their system to our part of the hemisphere it is dangerous to our own personal peace and safety.
Analyze: To what extent was the Monroe Doctrine an extension of the philosophy of Manifest Destiny? Explain The Monroe Doctrine was an extension of the philosophy of Manifest Destiny in that it claimed the entire Western Hemisphere was part of the U. S. ’s “sphere of influence. ” A sphere of influence refers to an area (the Western Hemisphere) that another country has the power to develop and change, but it doesn’t have any actual formal authority to do this.
Manifest Destiny was the belief that Americans had to expand to the West and it was inevitable and they were justified in doing this. Clearly, there are similarities in the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, as they both discussed the U. S. ’s expansion and how we had warrant to do this. While the Monroe Doctrine said we had a much larger area to expand towards, the entire Western Hemisphere, Manifest Destiny said we only could expand within America, however it’s clear they were both similar.
Thus, the Monroe Doctrine was an extension of the philosophy of Manifest Destiny because it came after Manifest Destiny, it was also about what the U. S. had a right to expand in/to, but it said the U. S. had the right to expand to even more land than Manifest Destiny said. Evaluate: To what extent did economic considerations shape the creation of the Monroe Doctrine? Consult your textbook for further evidence. There was a fear of British and French seizures in Cuba and Puerto Rico during this time period.
Should this occur, the British or French would control American commerce from Cuba as a vantage point. Since the commerce from the Mississippi Valley and the Gulf area was equal, in value, to all of America’s foreign trade, this would cause a huge problem for the United States and greatly threatened the economy of the country since the United States developed a profitable trade with Latin America that rivaled Great Britain as the principal trading nation in the area. Many Americans believed the success of anti-Spanish revolutions would also strengthen America’s role in Latin America.
During the war between Spain and the colonies in Latin America, the U. S. said they were neutral, but they sold ships and supplies to the revolutionaries which shows that they weren’t actually neutral and was actually trying to help the rebelling colonies. As a result, President Monroe established diplomatic relations with Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico and became the first country to recognize them. In 1823, Monroe went even further and created the Monroe Doctrine, which emerged directly out of America’s relations with Europe.
In the 1820s, a lot of Americans were afraid that Spain’s European allies, specifically France, would help Spain retake the empire they lost in Latin America. Many Americans also feared that Great Britain had designs on Cuba but John Adams, who helped create the Monroe Doctrine, wanted to keep Cuba in Spanish hands until it fell to the Americans. Clearly, the issue of losing area in Latin America, which played a role in commerce and foreign trade for America was one of the causes behind the creation of the Monroe Doctrine.