Describe the American System.
The American System was an economic plan that played an important role in American policy during the first half of the 19th century. After the war of 1812, Americans were feeling good after having beat the British once again. They felt strong as individuals and as a nation. One area of American life that was expanding was business. British companies began to send large quantities of inexpensive goods for Americans after the war. However, American mill owners wanted to sell their goods to Americans rather than have them buy from British sources, but they struggled to compete with prices of the British. A member of the United States House of Representatives, Henry Clay, had plans of aiding American businesses. This is what he called the, “American System.” The American system was a plan to strengthen and unify the nation. The American System included things such as a tariff, which was a tax on imported goods. This made European goods more expensive, and ultimately encouraged American citizens to buy cheaper products that were made in America. The 20%-25% tax on imported goods helped protect the nation from foreign competition. The tariff also made the country money, which was used to improve things. The American System also established a National Bank, which promoted a single currency which made trading much simpler. This system also improved the transportation system, the roads and canals, in the country. These roads and canals would make trade easier and faster for everyone, aiding the United States in its efforts to expand, and become a more powerful, wealthy, and self-sufficient nation. Henry clay hoped the American system would help the United States become more independent from Europe. He argued that an overall well managed system of sectional economic interdependence would eliminate the British influence in America. In conclusion, from the nation’s earliest days congress struggled with the issue of the government’s role in economic development. Clay’s “American System,” which was born amidst the nationalism that followed the war or 1812, is remembered as one of the most historically significant examples of a government approved program to bring together the nation’s agriculture, commerce, and industry.
Is Social Darwinism a valid point of view? Explain.
No, I do not believe Social Darwinism is a valid point of view. Social Darwinism is the theory that individuals, groups, and people are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer amongst other in the late 19th, and early 20th century and it was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform. Social Darwinism as a social policy is a disgrace. Darwin’s theory has been manipulated to fit specific ideas, and has contributed to european racism in the last half of the 19th century. Science has been used as justification to propose and enact racism many times in history, and social darwinism is yet another example. Whites would use Social Darwinism to try to justify their actions against black people. The idea of racial superiority to social darwinist was that they were ultimately just more fit and ultimately deserved their position as the so called, “Superior race.” This ideology was used to justify slavery, as they argued being a slave was just their natural position in life and there was really nothing to be done about it. Social Darwinism believed that people who did not fit a certain standard were “unfit” and therefore should not be aided. In this struggle of existence, wealth was seen as a sign of success. Social Darwinism was used as a rationalization for imperialist, colonialist, and racist policies, pushing the belief that white people as a whole were just biological better. Although I believe greatly the Social Darwinism is wrong, it is not completely impossible to see certain reasons why some would support this argument. Some would make the argument questioning what is wrong with the notion that the most intelligent individuals in a society thrive. Although a valid point, social darwinism advocated a “dog-eat-dog” philosophy of human behavior which is overall harmful and attempts to justify oppressive social policies. In conclusion, Social Darwinism as a whole undercuts sound scientific ideas, and has been manipulated to provide an argument for Racist propoganda.
Was Nat Turner’s Insurrection justified? Explain.
Yes, I think Nat Turner’s insurrection was justified. Nat Turner was getting revenge on the same white people who mindlessly beat and killed slaves. I believe if you put into perspective all the slaves that were killed by white people over the span of slavery versus the white people killed by Nat Turner his actions seem a bit more justified. At the same time, i can see both sides of the argument. I think the quote, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,” is very insightful and valuable and I think Nat turner’s actions went against that. I feel like killing the owners themselves is much more justifiable than killing children and literal infants that have no idea what is truly going on. With that being said, the white people he killed weren’t all just random. They were the slaveholders the rebels encountered as they went farm to farm and house to house to liberate the slaves. The master had a choice to participate in slavery, mean while slaves did not. I believe if you put into perspective all the slaves that were killed by white people over the span of slavery versus the white people killed by Nat Turner his actions seem a bit more justified. Many of the killings of Turner’s rebellion were innocent of any real crime regarding slavery but with that being said so were the men, women and children sold into slavery and shipped to the New World as human cargo. Some would make the argument that since it was seemingly “random killings” he was not justified in their actions, but after the rebellion ended the white militias and mobs indiscriminately killed 250 blacks without any proof of their involvement with the insurrection. I think when deciding if his actions were justifiable you have to remember that the slaves did not draw first blood, and instead rebelled against their oppressors. Do I think killing innocent lives (mostly the children) under any circumstances is okay? No. Do I think the people that directly led to the death of so many slaves had this coming? Yes. In conclusion, I ultimately do think his insurrection was justified because it was in fact a rebellion that went against the same people who would have no problem killing slaves. I also think there were many different ways and strategies he could have done that perhaps would have made his rebellion more meaningful and send a better message to the public. Perhaps if he had spared the women and children, it possibly would have been a lot more effected.