The Mexican War: An Exercise in American Imperialism?

I think that Ruiz makes the better argument with his "YES" position. Americans were so caught up in their superiority that they wanted every piece of land on our continent for themselves. He makes a good point when he says that Americans were basically racist against anyone other than themselves. Because of this, many Indians on the continent were forced to leave their lands to please the whites' greediness. This was not fair! In addition, Ruiz says that, unlike Mexico, America was not used to diversity of any kind. All of the immigrants that were welcomed were of European descent! Like Ruiz said, we could not have been a true melting pot if we did not welcome Indians or blacks to be a part of it. Polk's declaration of war on Mexico was based purely on greediness and the knowledge that Mexico couldn't defend itself properly. Therefore, he backed Mexico into a corner in which it could not escape-all for the prosperity of the "stuck-up" Americans (of course, we are no longer stuck up :) ). Based on the aforementioned points, I obviously agree with Ruiz' argument. What Polk and the rest of the country did was unfair to Mexico considering their present situation, and it made us look selfish.

Election of 1828: Democratic Revolt?

I most agree with Sean Wilentz' argument. The number of people voting between the years of 1824 and 1828 clearly doubled because of the population's interest in Andrew Jackson. The voting requirements had been lowered and Jackson truly stood up for what people believed in. Therefore, more citizens were inspired to vote, and for him. The fact that he was the first "not-wealthy" president made him more appealing also.
Despite the fact that I agree with Wilentz' position, I believe that Richard McCormick makes a much stronger argument. He backs up all of his statements with meaningful statistics, etc. If I did not already believe that Jackson was responsible for an "uprising" of democracy, I would probably take McCormick's side just because he is so convincing. For example, when he said that voting turnouts increased only as a result of the increased population, and that gubernatorial elections held a bigger turnout, he was very convincing. He successfully "proved" that a democratic "uprising" did not occur in 1824-1848, but in the year 1840 instead.

Federalist #10

Federalist #10 was written by James Madison in order to persuade the people to ratify the Constitution. This was the most popular of the Federalist papers. He states that the causes of factions cannot be removed, yet its effects can be controlled. He believed that a Republic was the cure for everything. To him, a strong federal government is definitely possible, and it would be well represented by the majority no matter what.
I think that Federalist #10 is well written, and it proves a good point. Factions should not be "eliminated," and the people would still have a say in a large republic. Madison strongly argues his points. Factions, I agree, do well represent the people's views.

Taking Sides

Howard Zinn's "no" argument is the most powerful and persuasive. What really bothered me was that the founding fathers claimed to be democratic when the only real representation was among the wealthy! Women, slaves, Native Americans, and poor people had no say and were not represented at all. After reading this point of view, it seems as if every decision that was made by the founding fathers was extremely beneficial to them, but limited the power of everyone else. In addition, I believe that they made the Constitution in such a way that the people felt more represented and cared about than they actually were. Also, the Bill of Rights was established to guarantee that the people had more freedoms; however, the Sedition Act of 1798 basically took those freedoms back. In conclusion, the founding fathers may have had good intentions, but they were not truly democratic if they only represented themselves.

Columbus Day

I do not agree with the celebration of Columbus Day. As Bill Howes believes, this sends the message that America is rooted in violence and genocide. Columbus acknowledged his actions toward the natives of America, and saw nothing wrong with it. Do we really want to have a holiday named after a mean and uncaring person? Also, he was not even the first person to "discover" America. There were already many natives living here, so why does a European get credit for finding something already "found?" Our country should abolish this holiday or, at least, the name.

Living in the Colonies

If I lived in the colonies, I would choose to live in the Middle colonies. I ruled out the Southern colonies immediately because they were just too preoccupied with slavery, and there was basically no "family life." The New England colonies don't really appeal to me either because of the emphasis they put on strict religious practices. I wouldn't want to be punished for thinking differently about my God! The Middle colonies represent the perfect habitat for me because, even though it wasn't perfect there, they were a mix between the other colonies. Opportunities for religious freedom (and other freedoms) were abundant. To sum up what I believe, the Middle colonies were more liberal, and therefore provided an extraordinary place to grow and to succeed.