More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of The Second Great Awakening
The impact of The Second Great Awakening
The impact of The Second Great Awakening
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The social developments of the Second Great Awakening caused the american people to believe it was God’s will for the United States to stretch from the east coast to the west coast. As the U.S. expanded westward, what to do with the new territory was fiercely debated and widely discussed not only in federal government but amongst American citizens. With the nation rapidly growing, the people of the United States desperately need an answer on how to add new states into the union, if they should decide to add any territories in at all; however, in this desperate time the nation was divided in three crucial aspects. First, political parties debating over the issue of slavery in the new territories divided the U.S. into distinct political factions. …show more content…
Second, the solutions to the moral dilemmas posed by Manifest Destiny would tear the nation’s conscience in two. Third, the opportunities provided by the newly obtained territories further divided American society. With the addition of new territories as the topic, political parties grew to have different policies on a common issue. For instance, what to do about California on the subject of slavery. The vast expanse of California meant it stretched over both ends of the 36-30 line presenting a complex problem to congress and putting a distinct rift amongst political parties. This also meant it was of special interest to both factions. Democrats argued for citizens to accept the inevitable addition of California into the Union (Doc. 4 purpose), because its addition would give their pro-slavery and pro-expansionist views an opportunity to grow into the previously restricted North. Just as Democrats rallied for California, Whigs did so against the inclusion of California as a slave state and disapproved of any conflict over obtaining California ( Doc. 1 author’s pov). Since the number of free and slave states in congress was perfectly balanced at this time, admission of California into the union as either free or slave would have tremendous influence in the federal government. This high stake prize meant neither side was willing to give the other the victory, which meant the division amongst them would only grow wider. While the Mexican-American war was legally declared by congress, many citizens and politicians alike questioned if the war effort was morally righteous, and the various answers to this question would split the American people based on their ethical beliefs.
President James Polk not only believed in the legality of the war but also the reasoning behind it, arguing that having free trade, unrestricted communication, and peace with Texas was worth the cost of war (Doc. 6 pov). Evidently many Americans agreed with his argument since he was elected on a presidential platform that promised that these circumstances would be achieved. Despite his victory for the presidency, he only won the popular vote by 2 percent indicating that there were also many citizens who disagreed. Those who did not support the conflict claimed that the war was unjust and that fighting a war over land, money, and worst of all slavery was severely immoral (Doc. 2 Purpose). These points directly contradict the reasons Polk provided congress for war in 1846, encroachment of land near the Rio Grande and unpaid land claims in the area. This sharp contrast in beliefs amongst the American people can primarily be attributed to Manifest Destiny and the desire for territorial expansion because in the event that war is never considered, these opinions do not arise and population is not
split. Similar to the United States’ politics and morals, society also underwent a severe divide. North South relations had been deteriorating since the original conflict over states rights versus federal power; however, events of the 1830’s strongly contributed to the unmistakable division between North and South. Events like the Nullification Crisis only increased the tension between North and South by directly clashing their two cultures and beliefs. Events like this saw the union go to the brink of secession but fortunately return; however, when the two cultures would disagree in the Mexican-American war, they would be pushed to a point where civil conflict would be inevitable (Doc. 5 purpose/historical context). Aware of the potential disunion that would follow the Mexican-American war, attempts were made to prevent the damage with policies such as the Compromise of 1850 where both sides could have something they wanted; however, this meant that one side got something the other did not want them to have. In the provisions of the compromise of 1850 the South was provided with their more strict fugitive slave law which the North highly resented. The compromise of 1850 is not the first time where an alliance between the cultures ends up being more disadvantageous than it is beneficial. Earlier in 1846 North and South agreed to go to the Mexican-American war but the issues over the resulting territories would cause more debate and problems between North and South than staying apart would have (Doc. 3 historical context/purpose). In the era of territorial expansion and when Manifest Destiny was at the forefront of the American mind, the country not only saw significant growth but also severe division in politics, morals, social beliefs. While political policy over the newly acquired territories divided congress, moral beliefs divided the countries conscience, and regional differences separated society in two. This thorough division of the United States people was “solved” at the conclusion of the civil war; however, remnants of these divides are seen throughout the civil rights movement of the mid twentieth century.
In addition, during Polk’s term he expanded the United States’ border to the west coast. His desire to enlarge the country stemmed from his belief in “manifest destiny” which was the idea that the United States was destined to stretch to the Pacific Ocean. His presidency; his decisions for the country were influenced by manifest destiny. In the article titled “Mexican-American War,” James K. Polk wanted to acquire California and the southwestern land of the United States. Polk’s movement of troops into the conflicted zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River initiated a conflict with Mexico. The conflict developed into a war, with hefty Mexican losses, but finally ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with the U.S. as the victor. In the treaty, Mexico decided to sell all the land north of the Rio G...
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
“Perhaps no other president during the first half of the 1800’s exerted as much of an impact on U.S domestic affairs regarding land acquisition as the eleventh chief executive, James K Polk. As president he finalized the annexation of Texas, and created a war with Mexico that transferred over 1.2 million acres of land to the U.S., now five states of the American Southwest. He also brokered a deal with Great Britain to purchase the state of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Polk is thus credited with expanding the domestic terrain of the United States, but at the expense of Native Americans who lost their land, and African Americans who were taken as slaves to these new states and territories.” I rate president Polk as a high president. He did the necessary to expand Southwestward. With political forcefulness, President Polk pursued his ambitious goals. Texas joined the country as the 28th state during his first year in office. Tense negotiations with Great Britain concluded with American annexation of the Oregon Territory. Following a controversial two year war, Mexico ceded New Mexico and California to the United States. The Polk administration also achieved its major economic objectives by lowering tariffs and establishing an independent Federal Treasury. “He felt that government plans to fund internal improvements was
This caused conflict between the two countries. Is it right for the United States to declare war against Mexico? America was justified in going to war with Mexico because they could gain economic benefits, Mexico threatened America first, and citizens and James K. Polk wanted to fulfill their manifest destiny. Another reason that the Mexican War was justified was because Mexico had already threatened the United States by advancing past the boundary of the United States.
...ver had the resources nor Polk's true imperialist nature. Polk's idea of "Manifest Destiny" was simply a way to rationalize the United States practice of imperialism in North America. Little of the land gained in the 19th century was given to the U.S.; most of it was taken using force and often violence. Financial compensation for the land was irrelevant considering the wars that took place to complete acquisition of the southwest. The motives of the United States government and President Polk were not only that of expansion. They had also wanted to gain new natural resources, land for agriculture, and the power that would be attained by the country's increased size. The country's belief in Polk's imperialistic form of expansion was the key to attaining a western seashore. The power gained by this expansion helped make America into a world powerhouse it is today.
The Second Great Awakening began in 1790, as numerous Americans experienced uncertainty as they confronted a rapidly changing society with increases in urbanization and technology. The movement focused on the ability of individuals to change their lives as a means of personal salvation and as a way to reform society as a whole, which opened the door for many reform movements. The Second Great Awakening shaped reform movements such as temperance, abolition, and women’s rights in the nineteenth century because of the increase in concern for the morality of the American people.
During the early to mid eighteen hundreds, there was great unrest across the country over territorial expansion. Half of the nation believed that it would be beneficial to the country if we expanded, while the other half were firmly opposed to expansion. Within the century, the United States managed to claim Texas, California, and the majority of Indian-owned lands. Opinions on this expansion were mixed around the country. Polls taken during the time period show that the majority of the south and west supported expansion, while northerns were opposed to it. (Document B) This was because the northerners had different values and beliefs than the southerners of westerners. Both the opponents and supporters of territorial expansion during the time period between 1800 and 1855, had a tremendous influence on shaping federal government policy. However, it can be argued that the supporters of territorial expansion had the largest impact. They were able to sway the federal government to create policies and new laws that were in favor of supporter’s beliefs.
The late 1800’s was a watershed moment for the United States, during which time the Industrial Revolution and the desire for expansion brought about through Manifest Destiny, began to run parallel. Following the end of the Spanish-American war, the United States found itself with a wealth of new territory ceded to it from the dying Spanish empire. The issue of what to do with these new lands became a source of debate all the way up to the U.S. Congress. Men like Albert J. Beveridge, a Senator from Indiana, advocated the annexation, but not necessarily the incorporation of these new l...
The Civil War, a devastating conflict amongst the American North and South in the mid to late 1800s, was caused by growing tension between the opposing sides for many reasons but also because of territorial expansion of America. In determining the impact of territorial expansion in the mid 1800’s on the sectionalism that led to the civil war, one would first have to look at the tactics for territorial expansion in America. Americans began to entertain the idea of heading west in the early 1800’s, which then brought forth the acts and events of the United States spreading its boundaries from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Historical events involving the expansion of America such as Manifest Destiny, the War with Mexico, and popular sovereignty in the west, all contributed to the growing tension between the North and the South, ultimately starting the Civil War. In the early nineteenth century, most Northerners and Southerners agreed entirely that Americans should settle Western territories, and that it was God’s plan, or their “manifest destiny.”
Westward movement is the populating of lands, by the Europeans, in what is now known as the United States. The chief resolution of the westward expansion is economic betterment. The United States story begins with westward expansion and even before the Revolutionary war, early settlers were migrating westward into what is now known as the states of Kentucky,Tennessee, parts of the Ohio Valley and the South. Westward Expansion was slowed down by the French and the Native Americans, however the Louisiana Purchase significantly improved the expansion efforts. Westward expansion was enabled because of wars, the displacement of Native American Indians, buying land, and treaties. This paper will discuss the effects of westward expansion on domestic politics and on American relations with other nations.
North and South The United States of America, the great democratic experiment, was just that. Not since the great Greek culture had a government of, for, and by the people existed. The entire world felt, that on a large scale, democracy would inevitably lead to anarchy; our founding fathers were determined to prove them wrong. But as the political stand off with the British became a secession issue, a great issue split the future nation. Slavery, a southern necessity, both social and economic, threatened the unity of our nation.
In Donald Robinson’s, Slavery in the Structure of the American Revolution, he eloquently articulates the original purpose of separation of power in the United States of America: to protect private interests and freedom. Considering that separation of power is viewed as a means to prevent a unitary and centralized government, the issue of slavery influenced the adoption of separation of power. While equality is a quintessential reflection of America, the power of states’ rights prevents states from being consistent with American values. In this paper, I will examine the principle concept of separation of power in the context of ensuring private interests, in particular, the institution of slavery and segregation. I will argue how decentralized political power fundamentally prevents unity within a nation because of its intent to protect the private interests in the United States of America.
The House Divided Speech was an address given by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 with the goal to make a distinction between himself and Douglas, and to openly talk about a prognostication for time to come. Unlike Douglas, who had long supported popular sovereignty, under which the settlers in each new territory determine their own place as a slave or free state, Lincoln considered that all states had to be the same in order to become a united country. Although Lincoln’s intentions seemed to be pure, the complication with the speech is that it is not absolutely probable because of the fallacies within its wording. This speech may have appeared to be powerful and even authentic in its upholding points, but the fallacies must be recognized. Among these fallacies are false dilemma, ambiguity, appeal to authority, name-calling, and sequential fallacies.
While thousands of American men fought in the war, not all American’s believed that the war was justified. In his address to the nation, President James Polk stated that the United States would fulfill it’s destiny by bringing peace to the less fortunate. In contrast to this, many in America felt that the war was unjust, realizing that the disputed territory never belonged to the United States. Among those opposing President Polk’s declaration of war was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who refuted the President’s claims by analyzing his speech. Thomas Parker delivered a speech entitled “Sermon on War” in which he criticized the war for the same reasons as Abraham...
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).