History 1301 assignment 2

US I - LESSON SIX

This lesson contains my ideas about US History. It is meant to give you information, and to get you to think. The lesson is drawn from various sources and may or may not agree with concepts and ideas from your textbook. 

Novelists, Poets, and Painters – During the first half of the 19th century many American novelists, poets, etc., continued to be influenced by Europe, so they consciously emulated things European. Europe had Romanticism; America had Transcendentalism. Romanticism valued feeling over pure thought, while Transcendentalism valued feeling over pure thought. Get the picture? Same ideas; different names. Emerson and Thoreau were among America's leading Romantic/Transcendental writers. Both adapted their works to America, Walden, etc., but their style was similar to the European's. James Fenimore Cooper and Washington Irving were exceptions. These two authors were much more attuned to our national heritage. Cooper wrote about life on the frontier. His classics included "Drums Along the Mohawk" and "Last of the Mohicans." These are still very popular today, although their popularity may have more to do with a classic film staring Henry Fonda and a more recent film staring Daniel Day Lewis than with the books. Irving also wrote about America's past, specifically the Hudson River Valley and Catskill Mountains. He added humor to his stories. Most Americans know the story of Rip Van Winkle and his adventures after waking up. The Legend of Sleepy Hollow was more recently released in movie form staring Johnny Depp, so it too is very familiar. Aren't movies great? Why read the book? Just wait for the movie to come out. Besides, if you read the book and then see the film they seldom match up and this spoils both. Like novelists, poets were deeply influenced by Europe, adopting the European styles to America. Longfellow wrote about his beliefs. Poe, both a novelist and poet wrote about mystery and the occult.

Educators – For much of our history education was the domain of the family. Children learned from their parents. The bad news was that this learning was on about a third grade level. The good news was that this was a higher level than was the education of common people back in England or other parts of Europe. Wealthy Americans sent their sons to private schools, but for most families this was not an option. They didn't have the money. Horace Mann wanted to change this system. One of the basic foundations of democracy should be well-educated people. How educated were we if we were only learning at home from mom and dad? The solution? The Common School Movement based on public education. Teachers would go to teacher training schools to learn how to teach. They would then be employed by elementary schools where everybody could send their children for free. Elementary schools? We had to start somewhere, so why not at the beginning. By the 1850s the system was going strong everywhere except in the South. The South did not place any great value on education in the 19th century. This was unfortunate because by the 20th century the South lagged behind the rest of the nation. Unfortunately, the South has never caught up. To this day, when educational statistics are published, and it doesn't matter what these statistics are about, southern states are invariably at or near the bottom of the list.

Texas– Texas had been an issue for decades. In the 1820s Mexico could not get Mexicans to move to Texas, so she recruited Americans. The attraction? The Americans were given virtual self-rule. As long as this system continued American settlers loved living in Mexico and had little or no thought of having Texas become part of the United States. A good example is the Alamo. Today we often like to portray the Alamo defenders as fighting under the one star flag of the Texas Republic or even under the Stars and Stripes. The fact is they put up a Mexican flag with 1824 printed on it. Why Mexican and 1824? They were not fighting for independence.  That was John Wayne fiction. They were fighting for a return of the Mexican constitution of 1824 that had given them self-rule. But, all good things come to an end. Santa Anna, the new Mexican leader considered self-governing Americans to be an affront to Mexico's dignity. He led an army into Texas to bring the Americans under control. He failed. Americans, who wanted nothing to do with the United States, now felt vulnerable and were suddenly calling for Texas to be absorbed into the United States.

The Republic of Texas – A group today, calling itself The Republic of Texas complains that the United States illegally annexed Texas in 1845. They are right, but not for the reason they give. They say Texans were never allowed to vote on annexation, so it was illegal. This would be correct were it not for one major technicality. The Republic of Texas was also illegal. Why? Santa Anna gave Texas its freedom while under extreme duress. As soon as he was released he repudiated the agreement. Think about this. Would any court uphold an agreement where you threaten to kill someone unless they sign their home over to you, so they signed? They signed to save their lives. The agreement is null and void. The Republic of Texas was null and void. Therefore, when we annexed Texas in 1845 we were not admitting a republic; we were illegally admitting a rebellious section of Mexico. By the way, before you wonder if and when we will have to give Texas back to Mexico, we will not. We obtained clear title to Texas in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo.

Walker Tariff – In 1816 a high protective tariff was exactly what the country needed to protect its newly forming industries against established European industry. By 1826 we no longer needed protection, yet we would keep unnecessary high tariffs from 1826 to 1933 with two exceptions. Only two presidents in that 107 year period seemed to understand protective tariffs did more to hurt than help. Polk lowered tariff rates while he was president. When he left office they were jacked right back up to protectionist levels. Wilson lowered rates from 1913 to 1921. When he left they were raised again. What did we need instead of protective tariffs? Low revenue tariffs. These would provide some funds for the government, but would not be high enough to keep foreign goods out of the United States. Why were protective tariffs bad after 1826 if they were good to have in 1816? Until we could get established we needed protection. Our new companies would not be able to compete head-to-head with established European companies. The Europeans would undersell us until we went bankrupt. By 1826 we were established and no longer needed protection. So what was the problem? If we don't buy from you, then you retaliate and don't buy from us. World trade is stifled. Everybody loses. The good news is that even with protective tariffs we still became the number one economy in the world by 1890. The bad news is we could have attained number one status in 1850. Protectionism set us back by 40 years. Further bad news is that high protective tariffs were a major cause of the Great Depression. Instead of encouraging trade we were discouraging it. Polk and his advisers were among the few who understood economics.

Oregon– In those days Oregon was not just today's state. It included Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and British Columbia. The United States and England had joint ownership. However, most of the people living south of the 49th parallel were American and those living north of it were Canadian. It made sense to split the land and end joint ownership. Polk offered to do this; the British rejected his offer. Polk then said we would take the whole thing. The American people were scared. The British government was shocked but ready to fight. Polk was a madman. A weak nation had just challenged the most powerful country on earth. We would be an English colony again. But, Polk was not a madman. He was slick. Polk had an ace up his sleeve. He knew the British merchant class, the people who actually controlled England, was making too much money trading with us. They would never allow a war to destroy this trade. The British merchant class made this fact crystal clear to their government and instead of being destroyed Polk got the land south of the 49th parallel.

Mexican War – One of the reasons Polk is downplayed and even criticized was for going to war against poor weak little Mexico and then taking half of Mexico's land. Is that how it was? Today we are strong and Mexico is weak. It would be a disgrace for us to attack Mexico. But, can we apply today to yesterday? No. In fact, when the Mexican War started Mexico's army was larger than ours, so this war was no sure thing. Mexicans boasted that in three months they would be sitting in the White House. But once again Polk knew what he was doing. The Mexicans had numbers on their side. We had training and experience. Mexico's officer corps was poorly trained and jealous of each other. Even in the climatic battle for Mexico City, Santa Anna (Yes he was back.) preferred defeat to victory. Why? General Valencia had engaged the Americans first. If Santa Anna came to his aid Valencia would win and would then be the new hero and the next leader. It was preferable to lose the war than to help a rival general.

Polk – The failure whom Al Bundy's alma mater was named after gained the western 40% of the continental United States from England and Mexico. In both cases the outcome was unclear, but Polk and his advisers knew what they were doing. He was one of only two presidents who understood high protective tariffs were bad for the economy. He was definitely not a failure. Definitely not a candidate for a second term either. Texas was now in the union as a slave state. For this, Polk, a slaveholder was thoroughly disliked by northern states. They would not support him for reelection even if he had also brought California, Oregon, and much of the west into America.  Just so you know, although California was fought over by Mexico and America, there is good evidence it may have really belonged to England.  New evidence shows Francis Drake claimed the land for England in 1579.  

Taylor– This time the Democrats were disunited. It was time for the Whigs to win one. They tried their winning formula again. Get a war hero for their candidate. Hey! Maybe somebody in America does learn from the past. The Mexican War had produced two heroes – Scott and Taylor. Scott was all spit and polish and carried himself with the air of an aristocrat surrounded by staff members who were also all spit and polish. Taylor acted and dressed like a common man. He would be the better candidate. He would be the president. For two years he did a very good job. He was strong, forceful, and well liked. Unfortunately, Whig history then repeated itself. The heroic general-president died. The country inherited a man who is still considered to be the yardstick for measuring a president for mediocrity, Millard Fillmore