America's Real Reasons for Imperialism

I think that America's "foray into imperialism" was caused mostly by its strong belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority. Our country, at the time, felt almost invincible, and strongly believed in a "survival of the fittest" kind of world, in which Americans were the fittest. Because of this overinflated ego, our citizens worked to Christianize and assimilate other cultures in order to make them less like aliens and more like what we thought decent people should be. In addition, the United States felt that it would be doomed and easily pushed around if it did not annex certain territories. Our acquisition of various territories, to put it simply, ensured that we were not far behind other countries and their achievements. Our presidents quickly gave in to this form of peer pressure, and in the meantime, guaranteed our spot as a world power. Various other endeavors clearly show our independent, carefree, and almost conceited view of our country. In the end, it all comes down to our country's belief that it is better and more powerful than anything or anyone it sets out to conquer.

Martin Luther King Jr.

I think that it's too bad that the only thing that comes to mind when people mention Martin Luther King Jr. is the "I have a dream" speech. In my opinion, Martin Luther King Jr. is not as looked up to as he should be. There are so many people nowadays who are more famous for doing less! It is not that I think he should be extremely popular, but I do believe that he should be acknowledged more, as well as his message. The article makes a good point when it states that he was in fact fighting for unpopular things. We as citizens today should pay more attention to how he lived his life, and model that. By doing so, we will see real change because he not only fought for racial equality, but anti-poverty and war issues as well. I truly admire King, and I wish that he had more recognition, and that we actually celebrated the day that is named after him! Many people do not even remember, or know, when Martin Luther King Jr. day is! I hope that Barack Obama becomes President because he seems as if he is a strong believer in equality and change, just like King was. Hopefully someday King will be known and remembered for much more than that one speech!

Martin Luther King Jr.

Reconstruction: A Splendid Failure?

I agree with Eric Foner. Reconstruction brought about the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments and gave African Americans a sense of freedom for awhile at least. I also agree that the state constitutions that were written during that time were the most democratic the South had had up to that point. Reconstruction may have had its problems, but it also brought about much needed change. I think that Eric Foner also gave the best argument. He made a great point when he said that African Americans actually had a "real measure" of political power after the Civil War. He strongly backed up his views!

Importance of the Civil War: An Exaggeration?

I do not hesitate to agree with historians when I say that the Civil War holds great importance in our nation's history. Without the Civil War, women may not have had the increase in status that they received due to nursing wounded soldiers or even fighting in battle. In addition, the Industrial Revolution really took over the economy, and "King Cotton" no longer stood in anyone's way. The Civil War proved that our country and its government can stand up to opposition and truly come out stronger and on top of things. I think one of the main reasons that the Civil War is so famous is because of the great leadership we had under Abraham Lincoln. Without him, we may have ended up with a Confederate flag. Also important is the progress that was made towards true equality. The thirteenth amendment was passed, and slaves were actually freed! The Civil War truly brought about great change for our country!

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.