Was the Mexican War an Excercise in American Imperialism?

In Manifest Destiny and the Mexican War, Ruiz shows that the Mexican War was an exercise in American imperialism. According to him, the U.S. was picking on the weaker Mexico so that it could gain more territory. Manifest Destiny was what Americans used to justify taking land from Mexico. Manifest Destiny included thinking white Protestant Americans were better than every other race in the world and that Americans needed to spread their freedom and culture across North America. In The Mexican War: A Study in Causation, Graebner concludes that President Polk tried to purchase territory in the Southwest from Mexico, but Mexico refused. Polk then aggressively pursued his goals which he felt were in the best interests of the United States. He feels that since Mexico was weaker, and Americans were persistent in their drive to fulfill Manifest Destiny, war was the result.
I agree with both articles. I agree with Ruiz in that Americans had no right to just steal land from another country because they felt it was their destiny or that they were the superior race. However, I also agree with Graebner because Americans were rapidly expanding westward and had the energy and persistence to settle in the territories and make good use of them. Most of the territories were sparsely populated by the Mexicans. Since Mexico refused, America had to choose between just giving up or being more aggressive. They chose the latter and were met with resistance which led to the war.

Did the Election of 1828 Represent a Democratic Revolt of the People?

In "'Under the Whip & Spur': Politics, Propaganda, and the 1828 Campaign," Sean Wilentz explains how many people were involved in the election of 1828. Jackson's and Adams's supporters used propaganda and extensive campaigning to influence the American public. Each side felt every vote was important, especially in key states such as New York. He believes the election of 1828 was the start of the two-party system and a democratic uprising. In "New Perspectives on Jacksonian Politics," Richard P. McCormick uses facts and statistics to show that the percentage of voter participation stayed about the same in the election of 1828 as it had been before 1824. He says that the real democratic uprising was in 1840 when well-balanced national parties had been organized (unlike in the election of 1824) and there was a much higher rate of voter participation than ever before.
I agree with McCormick that the election of 1828 did not represent a democratic revolt of the people. He made a better argument than Wilentz because he used statistics as concrete evidence to show how the percentage of voters remained the same as in the past and how the election of 1840 brought about a real democratic uprising. He used more logic in his argument than Wilentz.

Were the Founding Fathers Democratic Reformers?

The founding fathers were democratic reformers because even though they promoted their own self interests, they ultimately wanted to do what was best for the nation. They agreed to create a strong central government that would be able to function well and unite the thirteen states. The founding fathers were political geinuses that came up with a democratic system that would benefit the people and protect the people's rights and liberty.

Federalist No. 51

Federalist No. 51 by James Madison describes the separation of powers in the federal government. It explains that the government is broken into three basic branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative branch is further broken down into two houses. Each branch of government has the power to check the other branches so that no branch becomes too powerful. This way, the rights of the people are always protected because if one branch violates those rights, the other two will check it and stop it.
The Federalist No. 51 was very important because it explains the concepts of checks and balances. It told people how their rights would be protected and how the government would be kept in its place. It helped convinve the people that the new government of the Constitution wouldn't become oppressive.

Federalist No. 10

The Federalist No. 10 by James Madison states the ways the Constitution will protect individual rights and minorities by controlling the effects of factions. It also tells of the advantages of the republican government of the Constitution over the smaller democracies of the states. By electing representatives instead of just a small number of citizens to govern, the rights of minorities are protected against the interests of the majority. Having a larger national government helps prevent the oppression of the minority.
The Federalist No. 10 was a very important document because it explained the way the Constitution would protect peoples' rights, and it also helped convince New York to ratify the Constitution. It shows that having a representative democracy can work well in a large nation. It helped change peoples' views on the new government.

Should Columbus Day continue to be celebrated in the U.S.?

Columbus Day should not continue to be celebrated in the U.S. because Columbus was a cruel man who allowed his men to rape, murder, and enslave the indigenous people they encountered. Celebrating Columbus Day would be saying that that was okay. Columbus also didn't really discover the Americas. The Indians did thousands of years before he did. If anything, we should be celebrating "Indigenous People's Day" and not Columbus Day.

New England, Middle, or Southern Colonies

If I lived in America in the early 1700's, I would want to live in the Middle colonies. The Middle colonies were the most diverse and democratic. The Middle colonies had more religious toleration than New England or the South. Some groups in the Middle colonies such as the Quakers also gave women more power by allowing them to hold positions in the Church and participate in government.