Martin Luther King article

The article "Popular view of King ignores his complexity" from The Duluth News Tribune was about the fact that most Americans don't know much about Martin Luther King, Jr. Almost everyone knows that he stood for civil rights and gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but few know much more about him. Before reading this article, I didn't know that King also was working on anti-poverty and anti-war issues. He wanted peace and equality not only between races, but between all people, rich and poor. I also didn't realize just how unpopular King was at the time of his death. I knew that the KKK and other racist groups obviously didn't like him, but the hatred was more widespread than I thought it was. The article helped me to see how important it is to not limit our knowledge to certain events or facts because it we do, we will never be able to see the full picture.

Was Reconstruction a "splendid failure"?

In The New View of Reconstruction, Eric Foner says that even though Reconstruction failed to meet the goals of Radical Republicans, painlessly rebuild the South, and give the freed blacks complete rights and opportunities, Reconstruction did give African Americans some new chances and a brief taste of a free society. Political, social, and economic progress was made by blacks through the 14th and 15th amendments. Good things came out of the chaotic period of Reconstruction. The South actually was made more democratic than ever before. Public schools for blacks were established, blacks were granted full citizenship, and a small fraction of political offices were also held by blacks. Many whites in the North and South supported civil rights amendments and wanted to help the blacks. Foner believes that Reconstruction was a "splendid failure".
LaWanda Cox, however, disagrees. In Reflections on the limits of the Possible, she states that even Lincoln might not have been able to make the period of Reconstruction successful. It was a time of economical hardships for both blacks and whites in the South. A combination of poor crops and not enough land for the African Americans made many go into subsistence farming, which was a vicious cycle of poverty. There was much distrust in Congress and many different opinions, so it would have taken a very talented person such as Lincoln to handle the situation.
I agree with LaWanda Cox that Reconstruction was not a "splendid failure". Although, some blacks were able to get involved in politics, many lived in poverty and didn't have the skills of a certain trade or education to get themselves out of the situation. It took more than 100 years after the end of the war for blacks to receive all of their rights. Some good things did come from the war, but the economical situation of the South and the painful way they were brought into the Union caused hostile feelings to go on for generations. There wasn't very much that was "splendid" about the Reconstruction period. Poor leadership from Andrew Johnson, distrust, bad feelings, racism, and the economical hardships all combined to make the Reconstruction period fail to reach the high goals of equality and forgiveness.

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.