Beginning paragraph for Neutrality DBQ

Although neutrality seems to offer the best protection and benefits towards the United States’ standing, it leaves the conflicts of the world upon the shoulders of other nations, you become the prized possession that all rival nations are trying to win over, and by not stepping forward, we let vulnerable countries sink and possibly be “revived” by evil.

Federal Trade Act of 1914

The FTC or Federal Trade Commission of 1914 was passed by Woodrow Wilson as a babysitter to the nation’s businesses to make sure laws aren’t broken within their practices, with special attention on the rulings of the Anti-trust laws, creating a path of precedence on which to convict other businesses for their questionable practices. Some practices that are considered illegal by the FTC are price fixing (obligating resellers to sell at a specificed price), unfair competition (large business use size to eliminate certain costs to run others out of business), merger prohibition (combining two companies—this is just challenged by the FTC, but it must do something “undue and unreasonable” to be considered illegal), and finally, deceptive practices (false advertising—leaving out valuable information about the product). With these laws, the business world becomes more competitive and consumers are able to pick and choose what’s best for them, without having such a problem with a monopolized system for their goods.

Woodrow Wilson’s First Inaugural Address

Woodrow Wilson’s First Inaugural Address

Woodrow Wilson basically states in his address that the government has been (was) turned over to help an elite few, and those had power to mold the law to their wants and desires. He proposes that we turn this power back over to the people, because they are the initial reason for the government. He wants to improve on the sanitation system, along with regulations on food processing and handling, and newer standards on the factory worker’s environmental conditions in the workplace. He realizes these mistakes of the government and its lack of control. He makes the point of gaining back trust instead of just wiping it clean and starting over by stating, “We shall restore, not destroy. We shall deal with our economic system as it is and as it may be modified, not as it might be if we had a clean sheet of paper to write upon; and step by step we shall make it what it should be…”

The Dawes Act

The Dawes Act sounded beneficial to Native Americans in the reading, including those who had made treaties, giving them land, although maybe not much, to keep to themselves. It recognizes tribes that are especially covered through this act, including the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole, who had tried to blend into white society. However, it hoped to trick other tribes that had not agreed to this to sign away their land for the government to decide, which didn’t sit well with the Native Americans.

Reconstruction

Congress should have the right to take measures for reconstruction. Former presidents have been known to make some radical decisions, and since more people are involved with congress's decisions, more ideas will be present and less flaws will arise. States should not be forced into the union, because that will result in rebellion, and possibly a relapse of secession. Either a monitary fee or some form of work to be paid as a sign of allegiance would be a definite action to be taken with the Confederate states, because their trust is at a cost and is not to be considered a free will offering. Along with this, laws that should be heavily enforced would have to be black rights, in all areas of the United States, because the main focus was shifted towards the slavery issue and the immoral values it upheld. If people are to be found in violation of these laws (in violation of black rights), they should be punished according to the law. Those enforcing these laws should be impartial, and a test should be put into place to secure this unbiased official. With putting aside the probability of this, it is an idea that would help lay down the law and get all of society used to compliance and furthermore, paving a path to a Reconstruction of morals, rights, and the United States as a whole.

Comparison of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address to the Second Inaugural Address

Lincoln contradicts himself, giving false hope to southerners hoping to hold onto slavery. He says in his first Inaugural address that he has no 'plans to interfere (directly or indirectly) with the institution of slavery', also saying he "had no right to do so". He still holds onto the idea of secession and how we are a "perpetual union" and by no means should we be divided. Lincoln leaves the idea of taking actions towards slavery in his first address mainly to win some supporters in the middle states, paying off with West Virginia's loyalty to the union. Towards the end of the Civil War, Lincoln make a Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde transformation as he turns bolder (evident in his second inaugural address), disowning slavery and all of its practices, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. This new view of Lincoln sent a loathsome spirit throughout the South, especially for Lincoln. Now that the war had turned and was in favor of the Union, the South was an unwilling puppet in the hands of "Old Abe", defining the powers of the presidency soon to be grandfathered in, leading our country's political growth.


If you were wondering...the previous blog was on a misunderstanding between A.I. 13.1 and 13.7; however, I didn't mind this one and it took me a while, so I kept it on. Hope you don't mind...

Principal Lincoln Fires Miss(tress) Liberty: The Civil War--A Class Divided

There is definitely a similar point made in 13.1 and the 2nd Inaugural Address made by President Lincoln in March of 1865. “Mistress Columbia”, as named in 13.1, embodies the government’s lack of control over the country, letting it split apart in the late eighteenth century with the Mason-Dixon Line. This was a territory dividing Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Delaware by their cultural views (by allowing slavery), which became one of the first “North vs. South” disputes. The 2nd inaugural address spoke similar words, saying, “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it” (Lincoln, 1865). However, Lincoln is saying this was a mistake, to allow slavery to divide and distract the country. He was kind of like the principal coming into the classroom seeing the teacher sleeping on the job, putting his foot down on “Mistress Columbia’s” teaching techniques and setting forth anti-slavery measures. Lincoln saw our country dwindling, mainly on secession and slavery, nearing a dangerous end that would leave us vulnerable to outside attacks, a sort of implosion by domestic means; therefore, he pushed with emancipation, instead of letting the American citizens fight over the issue, remembering the violent outcome most prevalent in the battles between Kansas and Nebraska over popular sovereignty. He went on to say that he wanted the nation “to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations”. Overall, the excerpt from 13.1 showed us the dividing dilemma that our country faced, and Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural address showed how we were going to encounter it, mending our country’s domestic division, slowly but surely.

A Necessity for Jackson's Impeachment: the National Bank Crisis

Although President Jackson wasn’t impeached for his numerous acts against the American people, he should have been for the sole purpose of closing the 2nd national bank, with the facts being that the bank was a private institution, a primary foundation for the welfare of the economy, and the order of importance of a nation was interrupted: a nation’s interests and needs must be thought of before the selfish views and protests of a President.

If a business is established and it has been funded by the national government, it must be good. To just back out of a deal without notice is very immature and unprofessional, totally opposite of what a government needs to be, considering it is set in place to guide a country of morals, or so is what the original framers of the constitution had in mind. Going back on the country’s word and withdrawing funds to put into other banks wasn’t constitutional, because it made the president’s power greater than the House of Representatives, the reason being that he also vetoed the request to renew the bank’s re-charter. This kind of supremacy reiterated the imbalance of powers in the United States, with Jackson clearly overstepping his boundaries.

The national bank was a crucial institution for getting ordinary citizens ahead, lending money to buy land and other necessities for living the harsh life in colonial days. It provided a livelihood for farmers and others who needed land but didn’t have the money. The importance of it was it provided stability and allowed many to take risks in bettering their future for them and their families, helping those coming from a spectrum of classes. Also, with those in commerce and industry the bank helped with funds in buying goods and financing shipping costs. A large bank was needed because it had a collection of bigger funds in order to be able to accommodate the needs of many. With this benefit, people could cultivate and harness what America had to offer. By splitting this bank into many small state banks, not only was there less money to borrow out, and thus initiating sooner payback for lack of money, but it separated out this power that was a hindrance to the decisions of Jackson, trying to keep as much power as he could to himself.

The real reason for Jackson and his distrust of the National Bank could be one of many: he had been know to be quite cocky, rarely turning down a duel, which could explain his discontent with Nicholas Biddle, the banker who suggested the re-charter of the first national bank (making the 2nd national bank) in 1816, who believed contrary to Jackson’s belief of an “agrarian republic”, much like the views of President Thomas Jefferson. Jackson’s fear of “aristocratic society” was overpowering, when, in a world of capitalistic and democratic beliefs, people can make of themselves whatever they want, instead of the government regulating what people can and can’t do without the overseeing of the government. To make sure of the bank’s failure, he put into practice the “specie circular”, which made it mandatory for pieces of land to be bought in gold and silver pieces, which, being in a low supply and not the primary form of payment from the bank, was a ploy to get the bank to implode with raging people, blaming the bank for their failure. Even after what people had to go through with this land crisis, the bank couldn’t pay off this ridiculous requirement that Jackson set forth so the bank collapsed.

Jackson went against so many rules of the American people that he should have been impeached. If a president can have this much power, throwing away the hopes and dreams of all to get ahead, avoiding all measures taken to limit the president’s power all while having his own interests in mind without remorse, why shouldn’t he be impeached?

Washington's Farewell Speech

Washington’s Farewell Speech was telling America to beware of factions, saying that they could possibly lead to alliances to other countries, which is essentially bad for America, being divided on this issue. By giving in to factions, we are open to attack, while our country is split down the middle on either a strong central government (federalists) or more of liberty and decisions being in control from the peoples’ decision, not the government’s, because these groups wouldn't have the wants of the people but of other interests (not specifically set forth by the people). What severed their ties from the rest of the country would be the example France set. The French Revolution is an example of too much power, as the Federalists saw it, and the Republicans saw it as assurance of how the power really is in the hands of the people. Either way, political parties earned their spot in the history of America when officials realized these groups were needed to keep the major faction in line, always keeping the one in charge always watching its back as a little reminder of the people that they're there to serve, not just themselves.