Final Social Studies Study Guide PDF

UNIT 1 Prior to European colonization, how did Native American societies tend to be structured and function? Was it a diverse or a homogeneous continent? What characteristics were important for how Native American and European contact and interactions would ultimately turn out? - Agriculturall...

UNIT 1 Prior to European colonization, how did Native American societies tend to be structured and function? Was it a diverse or a homogeneous continent? What characteristics were important for how Native American and European contact and interactions would ultimately turn out? - Agriculturally based —> good for Europeans bc they don’t know how to do that stuff - One central ruler - Polytheism - Disunity between communities—> easier for Europeans to take control Why did various European states go out exploring and colonizing? How did the motivations and goals differ from country to country? How did their methods of colonization differ? Which was best/worst? general motivations: - wealth (gold, spices, sugar) - labor (to plant/grow sugar) - convert ppl to christianity - countries competitive with each other - 2nd sons means: - funding (economies improving since black death, trips sponsored by royal families) - technology (good cargo capacity in ships, better sails) - knowledge (figuring out wind patterns/currents) Motivations and goals: Spain: sought converts, wanted gold, place for 2nd sons (didn’t get inheritance) England: Overpopulation (needed a place for ppl to go), head off spain, religious turmoil in England (Puritans felt attacked) France: sought converts, wanted furs (for hats), land, head off england Netherlands: rising sea levels (too many ppl, too little land), wanted money from trading, didn’t like Spain. Methods of colonization: Spain: WORST- violent, lots of stealing, replacing natives culture with christianity; encomienda system - most profitable colonies France: BEST- wanted to blend cultures with the natives, not very many settlers, profitable but nowhere near Spain’s level of success. Portugal: trade/conquer than set up plantations. England/Netherlands: permanent settlements Spain/France: get wealth so you can return to your home country. How did the different regions in British North America develop into distinct societies that were nevertheless tied into a greater imperial system? What were the driving forces behind each regional society and how did various push and pull factors help them to develop in the way that they did? Chesapeake: Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina Religion: Catholic/CoE Demographics: way more men than women Economics: cash crop agriculture, TOBACCO Settlements: plantations/farms, very few towns driving factor to settle: economics - headright sys, given 50 acres of land, also a chance for social mobility. New England: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire Religion: Puritan Demographics: lots of families/kids Economics: subsistence agriculture/trade w natives Settlements: Lots of towns, neighbors keeping track each others sins driving factor to settle: religious oppression in Englnd/wanted new life Colonies established by Charles II AKA middle colonies: Civil war btwn Puritan parliament and Monarchy (1642-1646) - charles established New York, New Jersey, Pennslyvannia, and Jamacia. - He have ppl who had been loyal to the crown during the war land in these settlements as a rewards. Maryland: CoE Virginia: CoE North Carolina: base of economy: tobacco/forest products, virginia planters South Carolina: base of economy: Rice/Indigo, slave trade, lots of migrants from barbados, traded w natives for deerskins Mass: Calvanist state, church and gov r one, tall straight trees Rhode Island: tolerant of all religions, biggest slave trade hub Connecticut: Calvanist state, church and gov r one New Hampshire: fishing colony Pennsylvania: base of economy: farming (corn) Established in 1681 after charles II gave it to William Penn. tolerated all religions, very good farming soil, attempted to treat Native Americans fairly, learned their language, New York: base of economy: farming/fur trade New Jersey: base of economy: farming. Lots of puritan new englanders, quakers later took over Jamaica: base of economy: Cacao/indigo/beef/sugar, lots of migrants from barbados, more than half of the inhabitants were enslaved africans Why were long term relationships with Native Americans bound to be strained? Inevitable bc british came to NE to stay, largely engaged in agriculture and Natives and British didn’t have the same policies abt land ownership. private property vs communal rights Why did slavery play a bigger and bigger role in the economy of the British colonies as time went on? How were all the colonies, even those with few enslaved people, still participants in the greater slave society of the British colonies? 1) all native ppl died out, harder to find indigenous labor 2) saw how successful it was in the caribbean 3) needed fast labor especially in port cities/cash crop fields New England Colonies: 1. Massachusetts: Slavery was limited but present, with enslaved people mainly working in households, small farms, and seafaring industries. Massachusetts was one of the first colonies to legalize slavery (1641) but also saw early abolitionist movements. 2. New Hampshire: Slavery was less common here, with enslaved people typically used for domestic work and small-scale agriculture. 3. Rhode Island: Though a small colony, Rhode Island played a major role in the transatlantic slave trade, operating many ships that transported enslaved Africans. There was also some use of enslaved labor on farms and in towns. 4. Connecticut: Slavery was relatively small in scale, mainly used in households, small farms, and maritime industries. Connecticut had one of the highest enslaved populations in New England, though it was still small compared to the southern colonies. Middle Colonies: 5. New York: Slavery was significant in New York City and on large estates along the Hudson River. Enslaved people worked in farming, construction, domestic labor, and in maritime trades. 6. New Jersey: Similar to New York, New Jersey had a moderate number of enslaved people who worked on small farms, in households, and as laborers in towns. 7. Pennsylvania: Quaker influence led to early calls for abolition, but slavery did exist, primarily in rural areas and towns. By the mid-1700s, Pennsylvania was moving toward gradual abolition. 8. Delaware: Enslaved people worked on farms and in households. Though not as reliant on slavery as the southern colonies, Delaware’s economy still benefitted from enslaved labor. Southern Colonies:  9. Maryland: Tobacco plantations dominated Maryland’s economy, and slavery was central to plantation life. The enslaved population grew rapidly in the 1700s. 10. Virginia: As the largest and wealthiest colony, Virginia had a massive enslaved population working on large tobacco plantations. By the 1700s, slavery was deeply entrenched in its economy and social fabric. 11. North Carolina: The economy was based on smaller tobacco and rice farms, with a growing dependence on enslaved labor, though to a lesser extent than its southern neighbor, South Carolina. 12. South Carolina: One of the most heavily reliant colonies on slavery, South Carolina’s economy was built on rice, indigo, and cotton plantations. Enslaved Africans made up a large portion of the population, and the harsh conditions led to a brutal slave system. 13. Georgia: Initially founded with a ban on slavery, Georgia legalized slavery in 1751 due to the demands of settlers who wanted to establish plantations. Afterward, slavery grew quickly, especially for rice and indigo production. What types of people would be attracted to each of the different regions, and how did problems conflicts with Natives, Bacon's Rebellion, the Salem Witch Crisis reflect the places where they originated? Bacon's Rebellion (1676) was an armed uprising in colonial Virginia. Led by Nathaniel Bacon against Governor William Berkeley. Causes: Frustration over high taxes and economic inequality. Government's failure to protect settlers from Native American attacks. Conflict over land access on the frontier. Bacon’s forces, a mix of poor farmers, former indentured servants, and enslaved Africans, attacked Native The rebellion collapsed after Bacon's death from illness. Results: Exposed class tensions between poor settlers and the elite. Led to a shift toward increased reliance on African slavery. Raised awareness of the need for stronger government control to prevent future uprisings. Who were the authors of the assigned Unger sources, and what were their main points? Venture Smith: a slave was literate in english, describes slave raiding in west africa + terrible conditions Jaspar Dancckaerts: very religious missionary, appalled by poor behavior of chesapeake - spend all money on drinking/gambling - didn’t property raise their children - treated workers poorly Eddis: argued that indentured servants had worse physical conditions than slaves - employers had financial incentive for servants to die before 7 years - incentive to keep workers healthy applied more to slaves bc they had to work for life Walsh: reverend - inspected slave ship and was appalled  - food/drink terrible - ppl crammed together - no fresh air/lots of disease - ships designed to maximize profit - got most ppl possible over for as cheap as possible Who were the authors of the assigned RAP sources, and what were their theses? Bayer & Nissenbaum: tensions caused by dispute over building a new church in the west underlay accusations Putnams wanted to make a name for themselves, hired pope, wanted to build new church, East side didn’t want to give up there tax dollars for that bc the alr had a church so afflicted girls (putnams children) began to accuse ppl on the east side of being witches. Karlsen: women who were going to inherit posed threat to puritan society witch accusations could fix these glitches Demos: ppl who others didn’t like were accused not perfect puritan community members accused Heyrman: religion is the issue quakers more likely to be targeted. UNIT 2 Started out viewing english gov as amazing - mirrored they’re gov - royal gov took place of the king - upper house/council took place of lords - lower house/assembly represented the ppl - however the colonists variant challenged british def of power Great Awakening: shift in religious values/expression - religion became less formalistic (ritual based) and more emotional - sought comfort/hope through religion Woodsman: anglican minister - thought new ministers were not trained and did not understand Christianity enough to be ministers - worried ppl would get lead astray by uneducated charlatans - losing believers of his proper church to new congregations Whitefield: anglican cleric - pro awakening - Personal involvement and closer relationship with God Sarah Osbourne: first hand account abt her conversion to newer church  Growing differences in the colonies, but also intedependence. Types of republicanism: Meritocracy - leading elites (ppl who were very smart/hard working) should rule the country Market Version - proposed by Adam smith —> everyone pursuing their self-interest in an ethical way. Very little government intervention. (Ex: remove safety laws for car makers, ppl would only buy the safe cars, leaving the unsafe one’s to go out of business naturally not bc the gov made them) Responsive gov version - gov should intervene in society to help assure better outcomes for ppl. Gov should rule in every interest (try to help better society actively) Roots of the coming conflict with Britain. Where did they lie? Britain left colonies alone for years —> salutary neglect - leaving colonists to develop differing opinions surrounding their rights. Colonies felt they had no representation in parliament - felt as though Britain needed to earn their consent before taxing them worried that britain was going to try and start ruling more directly - very wealthy/powerful families in colonies were fearful of losing their power. The growing break with England, where did the interests of the colonists and English government diverge? Colonists wanted a representative in parliament —> britain said no bc it would rile up ppl in other colonies (they would want seats) british officials temperature toward americans: - very condescending - refused to accept validity of colonists abt representation - quick to use threat of force The big misunderstanding (fundamental views of government) Stamp act - colonists mad bc they felt that their rights as citizens had been violated - shouldn’t be taxed without consent (no representation in parliament) - colonists feared that the british were going to start ruling more directly - families w a lot of power had underlying fear that their power would be stripped. Stamp act resolves sent back to England Declaratory act - passed by parliament saying they have any right at any time to do anything to the colonies Townshead acts - taxed things sent within the empire (england to colonies) - ppl responded by boycotting Boston Massacre (1770) - huge protest - americans began to throw rock filled snowballs at british, british retaliated by shooting. - Soldiers who killed americans found not guilty committees of correspondence: - created by Sam Adams - network btwn patriots tracking the british Boston Tea Party - england discounted tea to try and save east india company - However they increased the taxes - americans dump 3 ships worth of tea into harbor in retaliation Intolerable Acts The split between the countries (the sequence of events and actions/reactions) 1774: first continental congress - Colonists loyal to the king - they have voluntarily obeyed parliament - will listen to parliament except for revenue taxes Continental association - non importation of British goods - non-consumption of british goods - non exportation of british goods - Committees of observation — enforces of boycott through intimidation 1775: things get really tense —> britain sends troops - loyalists left for caribbean Lexington and Concord: british went on a mission to confiscate colonies military supplies, on their way over patriots began shooting at them War had started. Differences between Patriots and Loyalists (How did many groups feel?) Patriots- pro revolutions: american independence (40%) loyalists- wanted america to stay under british control (20%) Undecided- no war (40%) What were the main points of the various documents and sources? Articles of confederation: collection of sovereign states. Formed a larger entity. All states gave up powers in exchange for benefits. pro: individual states keep autonomy con: weaker states 2nd continental congress: declared independence, wrote articles, acted as gov during war. Coercive/Quebec acts: gave french more rights What about the historians? Brown, Sydnor, Bushman Brown: massachusetts- argued it was democratic - bc land was attainable for any man willing to work - according to tax poll wealth was reasonable - range sys: run in more coallitarian way Syndor: Virginnia- argued it wasn’t democratic even tho % of eligible voters increased - aristocracy (led by small # of wealthy families) - large portion of VA men could vote - argued etiquette and traditional combine to freeze to normal ppl out of gov/power - candidates should bribe contestants with drink and food - real campaigns happened behind closed doors - ppl could vote in multiple places - viva vote: voting out loud in public Bushman: argued colonies were a small part of monarchial sys - when George III died lots of memories/speeches and ppl wore fancy clothes - death acts as a political election - “you are apart of something super important, but alone you aren’t important” Document List? People List? Unger stuff? For the people list, try to sift out names that are not super important. Jonathan Carver: Unbiased description of natives Brackenridge: natives can’t complain abt other ppl on their land bc they don’t have a proper claim to it - to claim they need to develop a property by clearing, fencing, plowing, and building structures. - thought of natives as lazy, savages - use land or lose it William Penn: he admires native americans - points out similarities between natives/europeans - didn't want conflict- preserve the ppl - bring other europeans to his pov Heckewelder: saw natives on his land, letting their horses drink his water  - confronts natives and tells them to get off his land - natives tell him their idea of land ownership, mind blown. Otis: time of stamp act rights - colonists have the rights of british citizens - They should only be taxed with consent - parliament is sovereign in the empire so even incorrect laws need to be obeyed. - Solution: give colonies seats in parliament Dickenson: letters from a farmer in pennsylvania - Colonists have all rights of british citizens - parliament can trade in whole empire but not for revenue - Parliament also has supreme authority and the colonies can’t decide which laws to obey. - colonies must obey all laws but parliament doesn't have a right to make laws declaration of rights and grivences - colonists are british with british rights - colonies owe allegiance to the king - parliament can’t tax them bc they don’t have seats - colonies been obeying voluntarily but they don’t need to Franklin: colonies need more representation. England won’t hear us out. Tells british their tone is harsh, making patriot allegiance much less viable Warren: list of things parliament is doing wrong. Taxes/sending soliders /quatering act Thomas Paine: kings are dumb unless they’re elected and not hereditary - no need for a king, monarchies are based on crime Johnson: list of sketchy patriot activities and franklins opp. Soame Denyns: not everyone in england has representation, but they all pay taxes. Argues that colonists are not being treated unfairly Quincy: worried about violence and disorder - loyalist Britain was big and tough, why didn't they retain the Colonists' loyalty and win the war? options to win the war: 1) overwhelming violence (burn cities/massacre) 2) give into colonists demand a) stop taxing for revenue b) give them seats in parliament 1 couldn’t work bc the colonists were british citizens - didn’t want to excessively harm them if possible to not. 2 couldn’t work bc other colonies would want the same treatment as america —> way more uprisings. Why was Britain's strategy faulty? 1) thought their troops were stronger than the americans  2) thought that if they captured major cities it would mean victory and the colonists would surrender. 3) Thought that if they won the war they would regain the colonists loyalty How did each side have important advantages in the war? Britain advantages: stronger army, more unified/organized weakness: was not able to adjust quick enough to americans way of fighting American Advantages: - help from fance - lots of american troops were hunters/had rifles - recruiting pool was huge - home field advantage, knew the land/where to attack - americans fighting for something British advantages: - huge army - powerful navy - bayonet skills - experienced leadership - plenty of artillery France: - ammunition (guns and gunpowder) - blankets - troops - experienced officers - provided lots of training - naval forces - deterent effect: to england france was more of a threat than the colonies UNIT 3 ➔ Was the Revolution a Revolution: - Political Organization- the gov changed bc England wasn’t in charge, sovereignty in states - Economic Property- unchanged, rich stayed rich except loyalists - Predominate Myth of Social Order- founders worked hard to encourage the formation of an “American Identity” - Social Structure - was unchanged ➔ Issues Facing New Republic: - Gov stuff- congress needed revenue but couldn’t tax - articles are flawed - Couldn’t couldn’t regulate between the states or internationally - Congress couldn’t punish a state or force obedience to the articles - no national court system - Foreign Affairs - we were vulnerable bc our system (the articles) was weak - British wouldn’t leave their forts around the Great Lakes  - Spain closed off Mississippi to shipping - Rival countries put big tariffs on our exports ➔ Challenges faced by the young US: - Figuring out what kind of country we were going to be - Agrarian- mostly farming, plantations ➔ Breens Thesis: - Theory- made unity across all of these colonies possible was the language provided by the consumer culture that existed in all of the colonies - When the British taxed goods in an unfair way, it set off the Revolution in a way that made cooperation possible for the colonists. ➔ I. 3 Parts of consumer culture: a) Choice- made ppl excited to consume and made goods more attractive b) Standardization- the same varieties of goods were available everywhere c) Anglicization- All goods tied to ppl closer to England ➔ This develops over decades, and it leads to economic dependency - it was ok until they realized it gave the British lots of leverage ➔ II. Breen- - When the British started taxing the goods, they politicized them, then the colonists realized they were the weak party in the relationship - Boycotts were perfect- they got to protest and reduce their dependence on England - Boycotts began but were dropped as soon as the taxes were taken away- Breen argues this shows that the taxes on goods were the driver of colonial resistance, not just a convenient thing to blame. - Tea was universally consumed- everyone wanted it and it was a major status signifier- Everyone was into tea so taxing it was dumb - When it got politicized it instantly became clear where a person stood based on whether or not they continued to buy it. Constitution: - Made up of 7 articles and 27 Amendments a). Legislative Branch b). Executive Branch c). Judicial Branch d). Relations Between the State and New States e). Process for Amendment f). Grab Bag Article- debts, national gov paid all debt, supreme clause, oaths of office. g). Ratification Process- 9/13 had to ratify, 1787- constitutional written, 1789- took effect  - Expressed Powers- Levy taxes, to coin money, to make war, to raise an army and navy, and to regulate interstate commerce - Denied Powers - Laws that make something illegal and punish retroactively - No suspending Habeas Corpus (right to challenge the keeping of someone in custody) - Habeas Corpus - either let them go or charge them immediately- cant tax imports - No Bill of Attainder - a law that punishes an individual/ or small group ➔ Delegated Powers- Powers that the National Gov has (expressed, implied, inherent powers) ➔ Implied Powers- Combination of expressed powers and necessary and Proper Claure - congress has the power to make rules/laws so that they can do the expressed stuff - Disagreement- Necessary and Proper Clause - elastic clause - conservatives feel necessary - liberals feel proper ➔ Inherent Powers- powers that any gov needs to be a real gov ➔ Reserved Powers- all powers not delegated to the national government and not denied to states ➔ Concurrent Powers- Powers that belong to both the national government and state levels of gov - ex. taxing, punishing How was the Federalist/Anti-Federalist controversially over the Constitution pretty much laid to rest? - Federalists- wanted a strong economy, wanted to encourage manufacturing and trade wanted a strong central gov, they liked cities, wanted regulation, etc. wanted to be a “world class” competitive country. - Anti-Federalists- Dropped their opposition when Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights - 10th Amendment- created reserved powers (All powers not delegated to national, and not denied to states, belong to states Challenges of the New Republic: 1. Raise revenue- laid a tariff on imports 2. Had to formulate and pass a Bill of Rights 3. Congress had to set up an Executive - treasury, war, and state department 4. Needed to set up the Federal Judiciary- Judiciary Act of 1789- district courts, circuit of Appeals - Congress exercised the New Powers quickly to set everything up How does the title of the presentation describe the early actions of the US Government: - Starting traditions that would guide the actions of gov (precedents) that worked until someone just disregarded them- then it was decision time - Washington- Retires after 2 terms- last until Rosevelt died in 1945. After the 22nd Amendment term limits Presidents - Forms cabinet - heads of executive branch debts and up all meet to advise the president - Congress- Judiciary Act- setting up the gov - Homeland Security, FAA Patrick Henry Lee: - “Give me liberty or give me death” - Thought a strong central gov was dangerous, especially since the original constitution lacked strong protection for rights - He thought states should be more powerful partners in federal relationship - Thought powerful states were safer bc ppl could keep a close eye on them Richard Henry Lee: - Thought that a strong central gov especially if the US became powerful would cause an aristocracy to develop - He believed aristocracy was bad news and should be avoided Madison Article 1- The Constitution is good bc it gives the central gov sufficient power to unify the country economically - Argued that we had to pay our debts and become international priahs - Much of the gov debt was left out from war - speculators went around buying them at a discount Madison Article 2- The Constitution should be approved and its wonderful bc it will prevent the formation of political factions Hamilton- Super Federalist - Believed a strong gov was necessary - Wanted a strong gov to encourage the development of a strong economy that would be modern and trade w/ everybody In addition to sorting out gov what precedents were being set for the future? - 1. Laws were tailored to cement racial and sex discrimination into law - Ex. Voting laws sharpened to exclude women and African Americans from voting specifically - 2. Sectionalism (loyalty to a geographic region over the interests of the country as a whole) - Slavery was outlawed in some states, in other cases ppl sued slavery down in their states and said it was necessary and began to defend it as good - 3. Development of modern pseudo-scientific racism-racist theory claiming biological differences and tariffs between diff ethnic groups - The lofty language abt freedom and liberty meant that the elites had to justify the unjustible somehow How does the national gov avoid these? - Declares slavery to be a state issue- that way they didnt have to take a stand- states still had biggest role in defining citizenship and rights. Why did slavery diminish in 1700’s? - Tobacco was a crop in decline. It was wrecking the soil and prices were rly volatile. Planters gave up tobacco and moving to grain- less labor intensive.  - Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which tuned cotten into a viable crop bc you can get seeds out economically and quickly - Disaster bc it leads to huge forced migrations of enslaved people heading south and west How did the situation with Native Americans continue to deteriorate? - Continued unrelenting pressure for expansion, ppl wanted more land What mistaken assumption did gov make abt native Americans and attitudes vs. American way of life? - Gov kept trying to get Native Americans to embrace private property but they weren’t interested - Greens something Treaty UNIT 4: Judicial Branch Controversy Judicial review: gives the court power to invalidate laws Louisiana Purchase: US bought land from France, Napoleon mad bc of Haitian revolution; needed money bc of constant wars, gave US access to Mississippi/New Orleans Controversy surrounding Judicial branch: controversy abt a politicized judiciary, judges serve federal gov rather than neutral gov. Marbury V. Madison: - Adam’s tried to pack gov w/ ppl who weren’t loyal to jefferson AKA federalists - Adam’s hired Marbury bc he disliked Jefferson - Jefferson refused to complete the hiring request - Marbury sued under Judiciary act of 1789 - Judges knew if they chose Marbury, Jefferson would defy them and their credibility - but don’t wanna side w/ Jefferson bc they are federalists - Judges say Marbury's suit is correct but that the portion of the law is unconstitutional. - Gives the court judicial review. War of 1812 Britain and France weren’t taking US as a serious world power, US was tired of being toyed with 1807: non-importation act —> US would not except imports from England or France - didn’t work 1807: Embargo act —> US stops exports everywhere - harmed our economy 1809: non-intercourse act —> we’ll trade w everyone except England/France 1810: Macon’s bill #2 —> US would start trading with either England or France again IF one of them started to be nice to us. - England agreed but it was too late bc we already declared war on them Should the US engage in a war? Pros Cons dem-republicans wanted to fight federalists wanted to stay out of the war  US could gain some of Canada bc British would be US had a very small navy/army distracted US could control the great lakes not industrialized would give US huge leverage over native war is not worth the cost to save face americans- bc british would be gone so they would have to lower all of their prices bc they only have 1 customer save face/look tougher lots of innocent lives would be lost Treaty of Ghent: - ends the fighting - prisoners were exchanged - territory was exchanged - US and Britain agreed to let arbitration establish borders - Natives disappointed bc they were involved in the war but received nothing from the treaty - no true winner Federalists opinion about the war: held Hartford convention during the war, said New England should consider secession - worried that the US would lose - didn’t campaign at next elections and got destroyed Dem-republicans opinions: switch up their political views !! - realize industry and modernizing isn’t bad. - accept necessity of industry and building stuff - everyone now wanted modern economy - US needed to be able to arm themselves Post War of 1812 Monroe doctrine: An attempt to stay out of old world problems - set up an American and European sphere of influence - promise that US would not meddle in Europe’s business, in return, Europe can’t get new land in western hemisphere Era of good feelings: only one political party bc federalists were extinct by 1820 - end of era came in 1824 when Quincy Adams won the election - Jackson lost to Adams and claimed that the election was a “corrupt bargain” bc Adam’s offered an opponent a seat in gov if he endorsed Adams. - republicans split into dem-republicans split into democrats and national republicans 1828: Jackson wins the election - whig-party comes into existence: combination anti-masons, federalists, and national republicans —> broke up by 1850’s sectionalism: becomes a huge problem for the US 1. Slavery (parties had different views abt issues) 2. tariff  3. federal stuff ISSUE DEMOCRATS WHIGS Banks wanted to kill off banks liked banks Tariff leery of big tariffs bc of liked tariffs bc wanted to increased prices encourage industry Native-Americans be tough w/ natives so they cautious expansion and wanted would give land to white farmers to avoid conflict w/ natives Religion didn’t want government in comfortable w/ religious stuff in personal things politics (blue laws) Public less in favor wanted politics to encourage investment/infrastructure industry, trade, and federalist stuff Andrew Jackson: good @ retail politics —> started out poor, became a war hero, then a wealthy planter/slave holder - didn’t like northern elites - good @ compromising - not very good economically - lets 2nd bank of US die A - specie circular- payment of public lands must be made in gold or silver Differences Between North and South North South patterns of settlement growing cities/lots of towns few cities w/ lots of small towns along w/ some small and independent farms —> natives losing land economy manufacturing/growing like growing/trading cotton & crazy lots of subsistence and manufactured goods commercial farming, finance/banking/shipping demographics cities getting bigger, lots of small groups of wealthy whites, immigration, lots of young ppl, smaller middle class, lots of poor cities more diverse ppl, tons of enslaved ppl mindset more competitive and dynamic pro slavery, “hard physical work is a slaves job” religion outwardly focused, ppl tried to focused on personal push others through reforms improvement & salvation,  slavery wasn’t brought up Life in the North: Transport- roads, canals, railroads industry: textile plants cities: industry expansion led to ppl moving to cities work: ppl’s relationship to work became less personal, set schedule, paid by the hour Texas Texas settlement under Mexico: to live in Texas you must… 1) be catholic 2) have no slaves 3) be loyal to Mexico if fulfilled these requirements Mexico was handing out free land —> ppl took the land but didn’t practice the requirements - didn’t convert - used slaves - ignored gov Texas wanted to be independent Manifest destiny: the belief that God had essentially set aside North America for the US to grow and fill. —> inevitable that US would push until land ran out - good for americans bc allowed for social mobility - access to new resources - terrible for natives movement patterns: - mormons were moving to Utah - settlers were heading to Oregon, really rich agricultural land, lots of trees Texas entry to the union: will it be a free or slave state? Polk: really wanted to expand the US and he was willing to use very aggressive tactics Mexican-American war: - Polk maneuvered US into a war w/ Mexico that didn’t need to happen - US won the war and gained vast amounts of land - gained southern part of CA, AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO - Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty ended the war: US paid Mexico less than $20 million for a ton of new land Wilmot Proviso: attempt to bring new land in as guaranteed free territory Compromise of 1850: - CA gets in as a free state - TX got it’s present borders and 10 million dollars - NM/UT come in on the basis of popular sovereignty (ppl choose free or slave state) Fugitive Slave Law: federal law that required free states to return escaped slaves to their owners —> set up so it was very hard for fugitive slaves to keep their freedom 2nd Great Awakening - loose jobs, falling wages, less economic security - reform/revival ministers became popular Mormons: a new sect that ended up moving west after facing persecution in Midwest Utopian groups: groups that lived together and religion was their entire focus —> shakers - no kids/recruited Women: in north, led to reform - women led movements - focused on issues affecting lives of women - churches weren’t to hierarchical Positive reforms: - temperance movement: men were drinking away problems and it was causing trouble - health care: public hospitals, attempt to build humans mental institutions - prisons: trying to move them actual places of reforms - public schools: education meant to train workers, citizens, included protestant christianity - rice: fought prostitution by going after customers Slavery: political parties wanted nothing to do w/ slavery to avoid a big confrontation in congress - house “zapped” all slavery related bills (too divisive) - people who wanted slavery to continue were too powerful to be challenged in congress Abolition of slavery: immediatists: slavery must stop now gradualists: slavery is wrong, but should be stopped slowly to avoid shock