We have been reading and discussing the numerous actions of Andrew Jackson as a president. Within these discussions we have looked at Jackson's fight against the Bank of the United States, his Tariff of "Abominations," his displacement of the Native American population as well as his mixed feelings on patronage. Certainly there is much the United States gained from President Jackson, but there can also be considered many mistakes that were made under his administration. Jackson fought to free the American people from aristocracy and the tyranny of a government that he felt, at the time, was overreaching. However, Jackson from time to time was not above throwing his executive power around either.
So the question remains, was Andrew Jackson more positive or negative for the United States? A few links that may prove helpful if you're stuck: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson http://www.biography.com/people/andrew-jackson-9350991 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Cherokees-vs-Andrew-Jackson.html
20 Comments
Ever the capitalist, Andrew Carnegie had a different interpretation of how to deal with the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Contrary to many Progressive notions, Carnegie determined that it was not the job of the government to close the widening gap between the rich and the poor. However, the gap needed to be closed. After reading Carnegies The Gospel of Wealth answer each of the 3 questions and continue discussing your answers to each. Opinion and real examples supporting those opinions are expected.
1. Briefly describe Carnegie's plan to close the gap between the rich and the poor. 2. Do you think this system, without government intervention, would actually work? 3. Are there modern day examples of Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth? Think about the types of people that would be modern day robber barons or titans of industry and see if you can find examples of them acting as Carnegie intended. Your assignment is to support your argument either for or against my comments below. Remember, a simple "I agree" or "I disagree" will not suffice. I've elected to support Taft's Dollar Diplomacy for no other reason than I anticipated that many of you would not. This in no way reflects my actual beliefs in foreign policy at the turn of the century... Or does it?
Dollar Diplomacy was clearly the best foreign policy for America at the turn of the century. America was approaching the pinnacle of its own industrial might, and was quickly becoming an economic superpower. The days of the Jeffersonian, self-sufficient agrarian society are long gone. This era put America on the precipise of globalization. Economic options can most certainly replace military options as the United States grows more and more wealthy and powerful. Exchanging "Dollars for Bullets" as Taft said will gain the United States more friends through diplomatic means than any army ever could. Also, by sending cash instead of bombs to other countries, those countries will be more likely to allow the U.S. to sell their goods in that country tariff free! Thats more people to buy American goods, and more money for American businesses! We have been talking recently about the consolidation of American industry, workers' "rights", and the level of government involvement in business. In doing so, we have addressed the inevitable example of the conflict between business owners and laborers, the Homestead Strike.
To refresh your memory, Andrew Carnegie acquires a new steel mill in Homestead, PA. The original owners permitted their workers to unionize (perhaps why it was not successful enough to prevent a Carnegie buyout, but that is merely speculation). Carnegie, however, would not tolerate a union. He, along with his partner Frick, send workers home until they agree to be non-union and accept a lesser wage. Carnegie then brings in some "scabs" to work in his mill at the new wage and Frick hires the Pinkerton Security Company to protect the workers. This eventually winds up being a short, yet deadly war between business owners/managers (here, Carnegie and Frick) and laborers. The question, however, remains; Who was in the right? Bonus to any student that posts a response by Wednesday at 3:00 P.M. Tomorrow we will begin our discussion on the Great Depression. This is one of the most important eras in American history. The essential question that the Great Depression creates in America is "how should the government react when the country is in a time of economic crisis?"
This is the question I want you to answer now, before we begin to discuss the Great Depression. I want to get a feel as to what you're political beliefs are on this topic before we discuss it, and I want to see some discussion amongst you and your classmates. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2014
Categories
All
|