HISTORY

PART two use these the information in the responses (posted below) to form one 3-5 paragraph original post and respond to 2 comment in 1-2 paragraphs each?

Original Question: Jeanette Keith explores southern politics in chapter 3 of her text.  An important issue that we need to consider in order to analyze the politics of the Old South is to distinguish between the ends and the means.  The ends or purposes of politics are the principles and/or tangible goals that direct political efforts in a culture.  The means are the practical actions and ideas that politicians employ to reach their goals.  In general, the ends of politics in a culture do not change as quickly or rapidly as the means do. 

In a discussion post, come up with what you think the ends and means of politics in the Old South were.  Consider the sources we have read during this section of the course (James Madison’s “Virginia Resolutions,” Nathaniel Macon’s letters to Jackson, David Smiley’s article, and even the Remini biography of Jackson).

PART two: YOU may use use the information these responses to form the answer to part one in 3-5 paragraph original post and then respond to 2 comment in 1-2 paragraphs each?

START HERE for inspiration and topic input, respond to only 2 but use for help in creating an original response? Do not plagerize?

As old as time, historians, pundits, and prognosticators have all debated whether whatever ends had justified various means in political maneuvers, military conflicts, and social upheavals. The Old South was no exception. There are many demonstrations of this, too many to get in for a discussion post, so I will specialize on one or two. 

1. About the Virginia Resolution written by James Madison in 1798. Along with the Kentucky Resolutions (written by Thomas Jefferson that same year), Madison's resolution decried in the strongest terms the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by President Adams that year. These Sedition laws were particularly troubling to Madison, as they were curtailing the right of free speech, which was held sacrosanct by the First Amendment. He quotes the Virginia Convention that ratified the Constitution, as it stated "the Liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States." This is one of the first advocations of strict construction, a doctrine that many Southern conservatives adhered to in the early and mid 19th Century (and quite many still hold to in the 21st). Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution is longer, more detailed, and with stronger language: "our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go." Both documents point out the importance of not venturing beyond the Constitution's intrinsic meaning. (The Kentucky Resolution goes even further into the doctrine of states' rights, something later leaders like John C. Calhoun espoused and promoted.) The means were political in nature, and numerous ends were achieved; the most immediate was the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts after Jefferson was elected President in 1800. 

Other means to objectives were more active. General (and later President) Andrew Jackson hated Indians as much as he did the British, defeating both groups in separate conflicts (the Creek and Seminole wars; the Battle of New Orleans in 1815). He used various means at his disposal to achieve equally various ends, with the most common being coercion and violence. Not only did he employ these tactics as a general, he also threatened to lead an army into South Carolina against John C. Calhoun during the Nullification Crisis in 1832. He began the process of removal of the Cherokee from Georgia, negotiating the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which his successor Martin Van Buren completed in 1838. The objective was the expropriation of Indian lands for white settlement, the motives behind the means were the expansion of settlement, the acquisition of gold (which was discovered in Georgia in 1828), and the racist ideology prevalent in much of white Southern society.

As history is often more complicated than some textbooks and armchair historians would have us believe, we must dig deeper to understand complex causes for many occurrences of events and actions of people. Whether one's means employed to achieve one's ends provides justification requires intensive study and is a continuous process, and I hope this is a good start.SW

2. Here are three instances where the south used certain means to gain the end results they needed.

The War of 1812 opened up Indian Territory in the South. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 created expansion of land. In the North, war brought about economic development. Merchants lost the overseas trade and were looking for a way to invest their capital so they turned to manufacturing which brought on the Industrial Revolution in America. This created major changes in the North but the South still remained agricultural and reliant on slave labor. These differences in the North and the South had an impact on national politics. Politicians simplified these differences; the south allowed slavery and the north did not. This is the basis of the crisis over Missouri. At this time in the House of Representatives each state had two votes in the Senate. In 1819 there were eleven slave states and eleven free states. In 1820 Missouri applied for admission to the Union as a slave state. This caused so much turmoil in the Senate that Henry Clay, speaker of the house, put together a compromise. Enter Missouri as a slave state and Main as a free state and draw a line in the Louisiana Territory barring slavery to the north of the line.

The south strongly opposed the tariffs that were imposed because they directly protected the industries in the northeast. Many South Carolina leaders opposed these tariffs as unconstitutional. In 1828 when Congress passed a high protective tariff South Carolina called on Calhoun who was then the vice president. Calhoun was trying to do something fair when he said that the states had created the federal government and so each state had the right to declare a law unconstitutional. Once a state had nullified a law, then it is put to the other states and if the majority disagree that the law is unconstitutional, then the original nullifying state can either submit to the law or secede from the Union. Later in 1832 when Jackson was president Congress passed another high tariff bill. South Carolina then nullified it. They mobilized the militia and threatened to secede. Although most southerners agreed that the tariff was unfair they did not join South Carolina in the nullification. President Jackson then passed a “force bill” allowing the president to use military force to enforce federal laws. Facing the possibility of a civil war, Henry Clay and Calhoun pushed through Congress a compromise tariff which allowed South Carolina to rescind its tariff nullification and avoid a war.

President Polk wanted California so he caused a war with Mexico so that the United States could take California. When Polk was inaugurated as president in 1845 Congress annexed Texas. The state’s borders were not clear as Mexico disagreed about it. Polk used the border dispute to start a war with Mexico. In 1846 Polk sent General Zachary Taylor into the disputed territory and when Mexico fired on the troops Polk was able to say that Mexico had fired on American’s on American soil and got a declaration of war against Mexico through Congress.MM

Less

3. After reading Jeanette Keith's text in chapter 3 of our textbook, I believe that I have a very plausible opinion of what the ends and means of the Old South's politics were. I believe that in general, the ends boiled down to two very specific points that Keith mentions almost immediately in chapter 3. These issues were as follows: southern concern for the role of the national government, and concern regarding the leadership of the country. The ends, in terms of politics, for the south were to establish smaller, decentralized governments, and to facilitate personal liberties. The question thus becomes, how do they establish the means to bring about these ends? One specific point that Keith mentions gives one example of the means that the South used, and that is to back representatives that shared similar, or identical, beliefs. Individuals such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and John C. Calhoun. Thomas Jefferson, and another individual by the name of James Madison, proposed an idea called "strict construction," which exemplifies another means to achieving the desired ends. Strict Construction would essentially limit the federal governments abilities to those specifically listed in the United States Constitution. This would, in essence, keep the federal government from gaining too much power, and actually withhold the majority of the power to state and local level governments. This falls directly in line with the desired ends that the South desired. Another example of the means is in the resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison. These resolutions, which were written in response to the Sedition acts, made it clear that southern political leaders, as well as southerners in general, were not going to allow their constitutional rights to be violated, especially when it meant that there was any sort of shift in the amount of power that the federal government had. The resolutions proposed that states be allowed to declare federal legislation unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Sedition act was repealed, however, this is a clear example of the means used to establish the ends. Another glaring illustration of the means used to establish the ends is seen in John C. Calhoun, and his immensely important defense of states' rights that is seen in the discord of South Carolina at the time. In his grappling with the issues of states' rights and federal power, as well as a strong disposition to certain tariffs that had been imposed in his region, Calhoun observed that the federal government had ultimately been created by the Constitution. Additionally, Calhoun noted that because of this, states had the individual right to deem federal legislation unconstitutional, and ultimately to secede from the union if they saw fit. Although South Carolina was able to meet an agreement in regards to the tariffs, this movement by Calhoun garnered much attention, and solidified the "means" of states' rights within the "ends" of southern politics. 

Although this discussion could continue on for a great length, I think I will end at this point. It is important to remember, in the discussion over southern politics and the "ends" and "means," that the South had a great focus on the ends being smaller, decentralized government, as well as a greater focus on states' rights. All of the means listed above are just a few specific examples of how they chose to reach these ends. Sm

· 4. The political focus of the Old South centered around bettering the South, while preserving what become the “Southern Way of Life”. There are several “ends” that politics worked towards to reach this overall goal.

END: Preserving Slavery

               It is undeniable that slavery played a huge part in developing the South. Even when the Industrial Revolution was brought to the U.S. following the War of 1812, the South’s economy remained dependent on agriculture, meaning it remained dependent on slave labor. While the rest of the country had pretty much just accepted slavery as a “Southern tradition”, the Christian revivals of the early 1800’s brought the emergence of abolitionism. Initially, the South just supported slavery as a necessary evil, then as a positive good. They argued that slavery was beneficial to both races, since it civilized the black community and served as the foundation of liberty for white men. This fight for preservation entered the national arena as the South pushed for more slave states (which could also be considered an end). With the Louisiana Purchase, Indian Removal, and the acquisition of Mexican territory following the Mexican American War, the U.S. had a vast amount of land that could be settled and turned into states. Southern slave states understood that they only way they could keep any piece of power in the federal government was if these new territories were admitted to the Union as slave states. To settle these issues, there was the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which all allowed the possibility of allowing more slave states.

END: Acquisition of Native American Land

               The South needed (or at least felt that they needed) Indian land for development. The Native American tribes of the South sat on fertile lands the white population felt would be better utilized by them, white southern farmers. Southerners completely ignored the rights of the Indians to their land and began taking it for themselves. In some instances, the issue was handled diplomatically with treaties and compensation. In others, white southerners just began squatting on Indian lands and refusing to leave. The entire issue was “solved” in 1830, when President Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act.

END: State’s Rights and Strong State Governments

               The most important fight for the South centered around state’s rights, which meant the need for strong state governments and limited federal power. The first attempt at limiting the federal government was the idea of “strict constructionism”, which meant that the federal government only had the powers that were specifically stated in the Constitution, there was no room for interpretation. The next step the South, specifically South Carolina, used was “nullification”. According to South Carolina, the states created the federal government, therefore, the states could declare laws unconstitutional. The law in question would then be debated on by all of the other states, and if the others felt that the law was constitutional, the original nullifier could either submit to the law or secede. As we know, secession was the final means to preserving state’s rights, which the Southern states believed they had the right to do without it leading to war. They figured that by seceding, they could reestablish the nation the Founding Fathers had wanted, one with strong state governments and a limited federal one.CA