The 40 Thesis – Flashcards

The thirteen original colonies were very different at the time of their foundings, and by the eve of the American Revolution they were still diversified politically, with governments ranging from monarchical to democratic, unique culturally in terms of population make up and toleration, and specialized economically in terms of business because of the differing terrain.

In regards to colonies' development prior to 1700, religious toleration varied from section to section; excluding a few exceptions, New England colonies had very little religious toleration, the Middle Colonies had a high degree of religious toleration, and the Southern colonies permitted some forms of religious toleration.

For the first half of the twentieth century, domestic growth and crisis provided the principal cause of the expansion of presidential powers, but in the second half, the reverse was true. From 1900-1939, although America did participate in war, the country barely interacted with other countries. However, from 1939 on, the reverse was true, with war and diplomacy taking center stage as various powers arose and fell and America felt a duty to disseminate ideas that would foster injustice.

Economically, policies changed as the country went through periods of boom and bust; politically, the country often looked outward whenever some major event did not necessitate immediate reform; and socially, many immigrants were accepted into the country, even though at times heavy restrictions were put in place.

However, farmers, especially since the period following the end of the Civil War, have often been crushed under the weight of mechanization and industrialization. Politically, they have had their suggested policies ignored in favor of those of the industrial working class or the rich elite; economically, the few policies that were put in place to help them often did more harm than good; but socially, especially during the progressive movement, some long-cherished goals of farmers were championed by reform-minded individuals.

Three such groups, the Hamiltonian Federalists, Wilsonian Democrats, and New Dealers, argued for various kinds of government intervention. Hamiltonians believed that the government should be modelled after the British government; Wilsonians insisted it was the government's job to protect small businesses in a kind of regulated capitalism, and New Dealers contended that the government should intervene not just economically, but socially as well.

By the eve of the American Revolution, while the colonies had certainly begun to foster a sense of unity, they still maintained separate identities. Economically, their exports and economies were still many and varied; politically, they began meeting more often to deliberate and decide what the colonies' fate as a whole would be; and socially, under the growing threat of dictatorship, they banded together to fight for liberty.

Many third parties voiced their opinions loudly until someone with the power and the vision came along to make their demands a reality. The Populists went years having their opinions ignored, until some of their ideas made it into the progressive movement; The Bull Moose party gained legislation through more strategic means, making use of the voting system itself, and The Socialist Party is making its way to the top currently through liberal legislature.

The very nature and success of the labor movement changed drastically from Industrialism in 1870 to the Great Depression in 1935. From the period 1870-1915, unions slowly grew from having no power to, by the efforts of reform movements, having considerable sway, and by the period 1915-1935, the quality of life for all Americans went from its highest point to its lowest, and the government had to step in to help keep labor afloat.

Two excellent examples of the political importance of tariffs are the Tariff of Abominations and the Hawley-Smoot Tariff. While each directly changed the economy of the nation, the Tariff of Abominations led to a near bout with secession in the South that could have destroyed the country's government, and the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, turned into the exorbitant bill it was by lobbyists, led to higher international economic barriers that in turn helped set the scene for World War II. Thus, both of these tariffs were more influential politically than economically.

The Great Society resembled the New Deal in its origins, goals, and social and political legacy in that it was, in a sense, the heir of FDR's plan. The origins both lay in a desire for change in U.S. policies to favor the people, not the government; the goals were relatively similar, although the Great Society emphasized social reform, while the New Deal emphasized economic; and the social and political legacy of each helped solidify the power of the government while simultaneously asserting its responsibility to protect and care for its citizens.

The Populists were the heirs of the Jacksonian Democrats in many ways, although they never reached the same level of potency as their predecessors. Socially, the Populists and Jacksonians both advocated the necessity of farmers as the backbone of society, but Jacksonians tended to involve themselves in the affairs of other people groups, while the Populists focused mainly on themselves; politically, they both favored more democracy in the U.S. government; but economically, the two parties, while still advocating to varying extents a decrease in government intervention in the economy, split on just how much power the government should have over the finer points of economic affairs.

While the "common man", barring indians, generally flourished socially through reform movements and economically through a sudden loosening of the government's hold on finance, politically they got more than they bargained for as Jackson hijacked the national government, giving the executive branch undue authority.

While this trait has, at times, been a benefit to them, at other times it has hindered them from understanding the full complexity of the issues and caused them to overreact. The "Intolerable Acts", while they were extremely unfair to Bostonians, were punishments for what Parliament saw as petty selfishness, and as such could not be entirely blamed on Britain; the "corrupt bargain" was not only nonexistent, but potentially could be considered normal political horse-trading; the "Crime" of 1873 was more of a mistake, although it did hinder the cause of free silver; the "Court packing" of 1937 was a political blunder on FDR's part, and was very dangerous for American checks and balances.

In World Wars I and II, America faced great inner turmoil and external pressure, both to enter the war and to avoid it, but both times was forced into the war by aggressive measures. In WWI, especially from the period 1914-1917, America's neutrality policy changed from Wilson's strict love or morality and peace to outrage and a declaration of war in response to provocations from across the sea, and from 1939-1941, the U.S. altered their course from hesitant suspicion following the disaster of war debts and casualties following WWI to irate fervor in entering the largest, most costly war the world has ever seen.

As they faced the growing threats, the American people may have maintained some superficial semblance of conformity, but roiling just below the surface was a tide of individualism that pervaded the social and cultural aspects of American life, if not the political. Socially, the 1950s saw great reform movements that pitted conflicting interests against each other as people fought for rights they had never before possessed; culturally, the era may have on its surface appeared conformist, but various movements arose to combat this apparent uniformity; however, politically, the era's extreme fear of communism or any radical philosophy led to a great wave of conventionality that, if given even the slightest doubt, would swallow resistance whole. Thus, while the 1950s was much like the Mississippi river: on its surface, it appeared calm, without any waves to rock the boats, but just underneath the swift currents of fear and doubt threatened to sweep away everything the nation had spent almost two hundred years to build.

John Quincy Adams, William Howard Taft, and Herbert Hoover all lost in reelection due to a mix of happenstance and their own ineptitude. Adams was at odds with public opinion on nearly every issue, and was never meant to be president anyway; Taft fell due to his departure from the policies of his predecessor; and Hoover failed because of the extreme economic downturn that befell the nation only a year after his ascendency.

It can be true that a political leader in a democratic society must attend to the opinions of the people as well as confronting the society's great issues. For John Adams, his aloofness and lack of regard for the changing times led him to pass extremely controversial legislation and ultimately cost him reelection; for James K. Polk, his actions, in keeping with majority opinion, granted him a very successful career as president, in which he accomplished many of his goals; for Harry S. Truman, his qualities as a tough, decisive president created a balance between what was right for the country and what the people wanted.

FDR's responses to the Great Depression were not effective in ending the Depression, but in providing relief for workers. They also greatly increased the power of the federal government, while further deteriorating states' rights. Economically, the legislation represented intervention into the economy in order to help labor and regulate capitalism; socially, it increased the government's ability to create jobs and foster personal and artistic growth; and politically it increased bureaucracy and threatened to grant the president too much power.

The presidency was vastly altered following World War II, as growing government power necessitated a redefinition of the role of the chief executive; from 1960 to 1975, the high office shifted multiple times. Kennedy's "Camelot" formed an increased sense of intimacy with the public through the usage of new communications technologies, and also advocated idealistic reforms meant to glorify American progress into the great unknown, but did little to help civil rights; Johnson's Great Society heavily stressed social reform following the blueprints of its 1930s predecessor, and used the media coverage of reform movements to make its plans seem even more desirable; but Nixon's Watergate ended this era of complacency with the ideals of the president by fostering mistrust in the American people as the president's misdoing were caught on tape and broadcasted for all to see.

From the period 1800-1860, the Supreme Court did act as a partisan political body rather than a neutral arbiter of the constitutional principles to different extents economically, politically, and socially, mainly due to the political opinions of the two different chief justices. Politically, the Supreme Court clarified the role of the government and its branches; economically, it upheld institutions that, in the past and present, had been hotly contested and intervened in economic affairs to control the way business was run, and socially, it passed legislation to aid labor and affect the lives of countless minorities.

The debates over American expansionism in the 1840s and those in the 1890s were similar in their main composition, but varied greatly in the details. While both debates centered around those who wanted expansion and those who didn't, the debates in the 1840s focused more on the principle of expansionism in relation to existing legislation, and those of the 1890s focused more on the moral implications of American rule on the native peoples of conquered lands.

The expansionist policies of Jefferson and Polk, while in stark contrast, both strengthened to United States; especially considering that Polk was able to implement his policies, while Jefferson had to fight against his own beliefs in order to strengthen the U.S.. Politically, both modified existing ideas on expansionism in order to justify adding land to the U.S., and in doing so strengthened the U.S. by giving it the ability to expand; economically, both got huge tracts of land for very little money (relatively), which strengthened the nation by providing new land for economic growth through farming and gold mining, among other pursuits; socially, however, Jefferson's purchase strengthened the nation buy setting up a precedent for expansion and even inspiring America through various explorations, while Polk's weakened it by poking the bear of slavery at a time when it was coming close to war.

Parliamentary taxation, restriction of civil liberties, British military measures, and the legacy of colonial religious and political ideals were all very important factors in prompting Americans to rebel in 1776, but, relatively, the colonists' point of view meant more than the actions of the British, as it colored their interpretation and led innocent, albeit careless, legislation to be considered a direct attack on the American people, creating a vicious cycle that careened toward war. The most important factor was the legacy of colonial religious and political ideals, since it sparked their resistance to all restrictions placed on them; next was the restriction of civil liberties and Parliamentary taxation, both falling under the same umbrella of "too much" governmental control, because these things gave Americans a reason to rebel and fueled the flames of their anger, and the British eventually punished them using laws to keep the colonists in line, disregarding their stubborn resilience; finally, the least important of these, although still important, were the British military measures, most of which came far after the colonists reached their breaking point and served only to bring more people to the cause, although other measures still fanned the flames.

The abolitionists used many moral arguments in order to further the cause to free all slaves, who they saw as people under great oppression. Three excellent examples of this were the Missouri Compromise, in which abolitionists managed to avoid losing their political power through balanced compromise, but still argued for more land to be free; later, the Mexican War brought concern over slavery in the new acquisitions and led to more arguments for abolition, even at the expense of southern necessity; finally, the Compromise of 1850 brought the issue of slavery to a head as abolitionists fought legislation they viewed as crushing the movement to free slaves, angering the southerners in the process, but showing their greater love for their moral issues than to keep the union.

Supporters of slavery in the 19th century desperately wanted to maintain their slaves for largely pragmatic reasons, and thus used many different persuasion techniques to argue for the institution. Legally, they showed that the United States had a long history of acceding to slavery, however begrudgingly; religiously, they established slavery's morality using Biblical passages taken in arguable context; and economically, they contended that slavery formed the backbone of American economics because of their cheap labor.

The Yalta Conference and the Communist Revolution in China both strained Soviet-American relations socially and politically through tense political standoffs and ostensible betrayals on both sides of the Pacific. The Yalta conference pitted both sides against each other as they tried to push boundaries and parse out the motives of the other side, and the Communist Revolution in China further deteriorated relations as it represented a huge victory for the Soviet Union over the United States and altered future American relations with Asia.

Anti-communism in the 1940s and 1950s and the women's liberation movement of the 1960s altered different areas of American politics in radically different ways. Anti-communism led to a full-scale suppression of any ideal in conflict with the "American" way, while the women's liberation movement turned many existing cultural opinions on their heads, forever altering the role of women in the nation.

Throughout American history, the culture has grown and developed, creating a mix of cultures unique to the U.S., but at different points in time, different groups of immigrants have come to this country and have received varying reactions upon their arrival. In the period from 1820-1860, many immigrants came from western Europe seeking opportunity and peace, and were met with naught but vehement protests from those who derided their cultures, but as the times changed, specifically from the period 1880-1924, immigrants began arriving from southern Europe and other parts of the globe, and, while many still protested in alarming ways, these immigrants were met with far more acceptance than their predecessors.

The Era of Good Feelings from 1815 to 1825 marked a time not of true amity, but of barely-suppressed animosity as the diametrically opposed philosophies of nationalism and sectionalism emerged in the wake of the War of 1812. Economically, nationalists fought for greater government control over resources, while sectionalists, especially in the west, decried this impediment on their individual rights; politically, nationalists attempted to compromise on the huge slavery issue, utterly failing to please either side; however, socially, while tensions were definitely rising, sectionalism had not yet torn the nation apart, and, on the outside, one could definitely find the illusion of cohesiveness.

In the 1920s, race relations were relatively poor and consumerism was relatively new compared to the 1950s. In the '20s, blacks were still highly segregated, especially in the South, and were only just beginning to form their own sense of pride in their heritage, immigrants were prejudiced against, and the new wave of economic and technological advancements led to more people investing in unnecessary amenities; by the '50s, blacks had begun to fight for their rights as citizens, immigrants had more accepted, and consumers everywhere began finding ways to adjust to their new, more materialistic way of life.

The Progressive Era expanded the responsibility of females in many ways. In terms of economic developments, urban industrialization put more women in the workplace, and therefore they demanded equal rights with their male counterparts. In terms of political developments, Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party spawned a movement of progressivism within American culture, and women's rights eventually became a part of that. It climaxed with women finally gaining the right to vote in 1919.

The goals and strategies of the African American reform movements in the period 1890-1910 were far less broad and grandiose than those in the period 1950-1970. From 1890-1910, blacks wanted more rights, but focused more on dealing with existing segregation and improving blacks quality of life than from 1950-1970, when blacks fought for complete social, economic, and political equality with whites and the desegregation of society.

The Civil War was extremely influential on the American economy in countless different ways, but some of the most prominent changes took place in agriculture, labor, and industrialization. In terms of agriculture, the Civil War brought about the complete annihilation--literally--of the old techniques, and new ways of tilling the earth came into being; for labor, unions formed and, since slavery was abolished, people needed to find new ways to get cheap labor; and for industrialization, the creation of new factories boomed after the Civil War, as America's goals had shifted during the war economy, leading to striking new innovations.

While the growth of the American economy from the period between 1860-1900 was ostensibly due to the government policy of laissez-faire, it was actually due to various pieces of legislation passed that the growth was sustained. The legislation passed, even that meant to stimulate competition and laissez-faire, was still intervention, and often ended up necessitating more intervention; the government's encouraging development led it to pass legislation that had a startling effect on the economy, especially in the west; and railroads were a magnet for intervention, leading the government towards a greater role in economic affairs.

Though there were many reforms introduced during the period of reconstruction, none of them had any long-lasting effects. Ulysses S. Grant had a few successes against the Ku Klux Klan with his force acts, but due to multiple scandals in his administration, he was dismissed as ineffective. With the complicated election of 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes would be elected to the presidency, however, in a backroom deal known as the "Compromise of 1877", the federal troops would be permanently removed from the 5 military districts of the south. Sadly, this gave rise to the KKK and greatly diminished the protection of Republicans (mostly supporters of the 13th amendment) and all African Americans.

The Plains Indians in the second half of the 19th century were stifled and decimated by the technological developments and government action in the second half of the nineteenth century. Technological developments made it easier and easier for whites to travel west in search of new opportunity, and government action through wars and legislation both continually shrunk the amount of land available to the luckless population.

The Federalists and the Whigs were not at all similar in political ideology and interest groups, their proposed programs and policies were similar. In ideology, the Whigs leaned more towards government by the people, while the Federalists leaned towards for the people; in groups, the Whigs spoke for the majority of citizens, while the Federalists spoke for the wealthy elite; however, the proposed legislation, ironically, ended up giving the government more power (although over different things).

During the 1790s, foreign affairs contributed more to shaping American politics that did domestic issues. While the young nation struggled with questions about powers in the new Constitution, ideological conflicts over the French Revolution, foreign policy divisions created by the Napoleonic Wars, and our relations with Great Britain did more to divide Americans and promote the formation of two political parties during the 1790s.

A great president is defined not by his popularity or his bravado, but by the strength of his conviction, the quality of his leadership, and, most importantly, the timing of his term (terms in times of crisis providing the best opportunities to demonstrate leadership, or lack thereof). Using this criteria, the best presidents our nation has seen have been Lincoln, FDR, and Washington, in that order. Lincoln kept the nation together when it was falling apart at the seams, demonstrating unshakable strength in the face of a horrible crisis. FDR also saw the nation through another great issue; even though his campaign was of dubious help, he provided hope for the nation and provided many jobs during the worst economic downturn ever. Washington, president in the nation's infancy, provided a framework that all other presidents could build upon, also, being the only president without a party, he could avoid the partisan issues of other campaigns and focus on building a strong country.