LAD #10: The Monroe Doctrine

James "Tweety Bird" Monroe

1. What did the issuing of the Monroe Doctrine express from an American perspective post War of 1812? 

The War of 1812 occurred because the US felt as though it was being pushed around by Great Britain, and still being treated like a colony. The British freely regulated American trade and impressed sailors on their ships, with basically no repercussions. By issuing this doctrine, James Monroe sent a message to all European nations that this would not happen again. America was a strong, independent nation who didn't need no mother country to control them. The Monroe Doctrine made it clear that further colonizing the Americas, or interfering with the United States, or the other independent countries situated in the Americas would prompt US intervention, and would carry serious repercussions.

2. What was Secretary of State Adams' hope when he wrote the Monroe Doctrine?

John Quincy Adams hoped that this document would make the position of the United States on the matter of European interference and colonization of lands claimed by the US and its neighboring countries clear. He also wished that they would take this message, and the United States themselves, seriously, trusting that intervention was a serious enough consequence, and that the powerful European nations could not put aside their differences to invade the Americas regardless of the involvement of the US. It worked, and as such is often regarded as an effective form of diplomacy.

3. What is the key phrase in the entire document that you need to remember as the cornerstone of American Foreign Policy?

"But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

Christopher Columbus: Hero or Villain?

 Columbus doesn't deserve a picture, so here's Leif Erikson balling out of control.

In my opinion, there is simply no way in which Christopher Columbus could be considered a hero, or anything but a villain. His sparse and over-exaggerated accomplishments pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by him and his men while he held governorship in the West Indies. Columbus' "accomplishments" are few and far between; he is often credited with being the "discoverer of America," despite many reasons this is untrue. For one, there were indigenous people living on the continent for thousands of years prior to this discovery. It wasn't a new, never-before-seen land mass that he had found. Not only that, Columbus was not even the first person from the outside world to discover the continent, preceded by the Vikings led by Leif Erikson nearly 500 years prior. Lastly, Columbus did not even accomplish his original goal of discovering the Northwest Passage, which he was paid by the Spanish to do. Accidentally running into a continent and claiming you discovered it is not an accomplishment, it's just dumb luck. Columbus's tyranny while he was in control of the area negates and outweighs any prior accomplishments he might have had. He infamously enslaved, raped, tortured, and murdered countless natives as a characteristic of his government. This is well documented fact which has even been confirmed by those closest to Columbus, and descriptive accounts can be found in the notes of his successor, after the explorer was removed from rule by the Spanish when they heard about the atrocities he had committed. Even viewing the matter from an antiquated lens doesn't make it better; while slavery was commonly accepted in those times, the abuse of power through violence and countless human rights violations was not. As a typically open-minded person, it's impossible for me to see how anyone could consider Christopher Columbus a hero.

LAD#9: Jefferson's First Inaugural Address

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson starts off the speech by thanking his supporters (Democratic Republicans/Jeffersonian Party) and saying that while he is afraid of what the future might hold, he has high hopes for this term as President and for America as a whole. He addresses the conflict between his party and the Federalists, saying he would like to quell the conflict and restore unity to the nation. Jefferson claims the US government is the strongest of its kind, because its citizens care about laws and politics since they can directly influence them. He calls it a "chosen country," that Americans can live in and be free for many generations to come. Jefferson also makes his vision for the government clear: a ruling body that will stay out of the lives and personal freedoms of its citizens as much as possible. He outlines what he believes to be the essential principles of the government, including but not limited to: personal freedoms, republican ideals and inclusions and support of state governments. Jefferson concludes by saying he will work hard to protect and uphold these principles with the powers granted to him by the people.

LAD #7: Washington's Farewell Address

George Washington

With an upcoming presidential election, Washington found a suitable time to give his farewell address. He understood that he was a very popular candidate and would win the election no matter what. For this reason, to encourage a more varied democratic process, Washington withdrew from the race. Along with his withdrawal, he presents a few key points which he believes the American people should keep in mind. Firstly, he states his firm belief that national unity is necessary for America to succeed, and the growing division due to the different factions of government evolving at the time worried Washington greatly. Secondly, he recommends that America not keep permanent alliances with European countries, which would tie America into their constant wars, cause the enemies of their allies to be their enemies as well, and would ultimately hurt them more than it helped them.

LAD #6: Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality

La Liberté guidant le peuple by Eugéne Delacroix

In the aftermath of the French Revolution, war seemed inevitable in Europe, and sure enough, it arrived with celerity. France, led by a government of revolutionary minds, declared war on Great Britain, and by doing so threatened aggression to a great many other European countries. Not believing the Americans to be a necessary part of this conflict, and seemingly confident France would not declare war on them as well, Washington made the choice to declare neutrality in the war. Having just forged a nation on the backs of the American people, and just recently having come out of a war, he did not believe it wise to engage in another. This coupled with mixed American opinions on the French Revolution and the situation in Europe at the time caused him to make this declaration.

LAD #5: Federalist #10

 The Federalist Papers

1. Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?

Factions at their core are really just groups of like-minded people, all joined together in support of an idea or a collection of ideas. While it could be a majority, a faction was just as often a vocal minority in the community or population it represented, and by joining together these groups of people were able to benefit the needs of their group and themselves, often ignoring the will of the majority. James Madison claimed there were two ways to eliminate the causes of factions and prevent them from forming, both equally implausible. The first was to prevent people from forming these groups, which was unconstitutional and restricting of the freedoms that America was built on. The second was to assimilate these groups into one, which was also impossible because of the conflicting nature of people's thoughts and opinions.

2. If factions cannot be removed then how can they be controlled?

Madison came to the conclusion that if the causes of factions could not be stopped or controlled in any way, and that they were intrinsic to the nature of mankind, then the best solution to the problem caused by factions would be to simply let them form and attempt to control their effects after the fact. The effects referred to specifically were the restriction and manipulation of the will of the majority by these individual factions. Madison believed that the best solution was a representative or republican form of government was best suited to prevent this type of manipulation, as the representatives would vote with the needs of their states in mind, rather then based on their own opinions.

Republican Motherhood Blog

Part 1:

 The Artist and His Family by James Peale (1795)

1. What role did the Revolutionary War play in the transformation of housewifery to Republican Motherhood?

Since nearly all of the men had gone off to fight in the war, the traditional "head" of the family was absent, and so was not able to impress responsibilities and virtues upon the children. This role now fell to the mother in his stead. As their contribution to the war effort, women at this time were expected to raise "...good citizens, just, humane, and enlightened legislators" (document A). While they largely had the responsibility of raising and educating the children beforehand as well, the role of women as heads of the family did not surface until all the fathers were not able to fill that role.

2. What were the consequences of Republican Motherhood on women?

As a result of their new and important role as the shapers of future society, young women began to receive formal educations more commonly, so as to impress that knowledge onto their children. As vocalized by Benyamin Rush, "...female education should be accommodated to the state of society, manners, and government..." (document B). They were expected to have knowledge of the English language, being able to read and write, as well as understand basic arithmetic and some geography and history as well.

3. What is the significance of the ideology of Republican Motherhood as a stage in the process of women's socialization?

This new vision of women not only being housewives, caring for the children and cleaning the domicile, but also being knowledgeable of the world and passing that knowledge on to further generations, was likely the first major step in the gender equality movement. Men and women alike, society even began to understand that women were not inferior to men, as many had believed previously, just that they were not offered the same opportunities as men. When they were offered some similar opportunities, they were able to impact society in a way no one previously thought possible. In the words of Jonathan F. Stearns, "On you, ladies, depends in most important degree, the destiny of our country" (document D).

Part 2:

 

Mary Gibson Tilghman and her sons, Charles Willson Peale

 1. Describe the setting.

The setting is in the home, portraying the mother in her traditional role as caretaker, posing with the children and, note, without the husband. It appears to be a fairly upper class family, and was painted around 1789, when the mentality of women's role in the home was beginning to change.

2. Who serves at the center of the portrait and why? How does the women look? How is she "republican" rather than aristocratic?

The mother, Mary Gibson Tilghman in this case, takes the central focal point in this painting. She is portrayed as not only proper and distinguished, but also seemingly happy to be with her children. In this way, she is more republican than more aristocratic women appeared in previous portraits; she is reacting positively to the greater recognition and importance of women in society.

3. What values do her sons exhibit?

The children in this portrait appear very prim and proper as well, not only in their dress and manner, but also due to the fact that they are sitting still and posing for a portrait, which many boys their age may have been hard-pressed to do. This likely reflects the responsible and virtuous characteristics their mother has impressed upon them.

4. In there a significance to the position of Mrs. Tilghman's arm?

The mother's arm in this portrayal of familial life at the time is placed around her younger child, showing affection by embracing him, but also restraining him for the portrait. This shows that Republican mothers at the time needed to balance the warmth and tenderness of a maternal role with the strict and commanding demeanor of the paternal role they had to fill.