Category: American history

After listening and reading, I have a dream. How does the way he speaks help play on emotions? What words or phrases does he use to help listeners and readers connect emotionally? What would you add or take away from his speech to make it relate today at least 3 to 5 talking points and at least 50% of the talking points must reference the speech itself, regardless Domingo is to see how effective the speech was back then and how affected it would be today 
Essay will be between two and three pages MLA format have embedded quotes and a works cited page

Read Chapter 16 in The American Yawp.
Answer one of the following prompts.
Choose a strike from the second half of the 1800s.  What were the demands of the workers?  What was the outcome of the strike?
What technical innovations do we see in this period?  How did they impact the culture of the US?
What was the Populist Party?  What were its demands?  Who were its supporters and why did they support this movement?
Make sure you quote and cite from the text plus one other quality source in your initial post. You should write at least 300 words in your response.
https://www.americanyawp.com/

Perhaps the most critical decision of the war happened in its first days when officers within the United States Army had to decide, would they remain loyal to the nation they had always served or join a cause fighting against that nation?  Essentially, were these men traitors?  Should they have been brought to task at war’s end for this pivotal decision?  Author Thomas Fleming addressed this issue in a fictional work, The Secret Trial of Robert E. Lee. The book is available on Kindle, Amazon, and Barnes and noble’s website.  In 3 pages utilizing Times New Roman, 12 pt. type, double spaced, I want you to critique Fleming’s work and then answer the essential question, were men like Robert E. Lee traitors. 

Why do only 45% of Americans take part in the political process OR VOTE?
If we are the leading figure on Democracy in the world, why do so many Americans distrust our Political Process?
Would the Foundering Fathers be happy with the way the Constitution is interpreted today?
In light of the recent NSA spying on Americans. Do you believe that government has a right to do so or is Security more important than our constitutional right?        READ http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/politics/nsa-internet-mining/index.html?hpt=po_c1
Listen to the two-minute https://www.npr.org/2018/01/12/577343980/the-civil-rights-activist-whose-name-youve-probably-never-heard take notes and answer following questions.
What is the purpose of sit-ins?
Do you think student activism was important to the civil rights movement?
What are some examples of contemporary student activism?
How dangerous is it to stage a civil rights protest today in comparison to the 1960s?

Required reading: 
Hoffer, Peter Charles. The Salem Witchcraft Trials. University of Kansas Press, 1997. ISBN: 0 7006 0859
Outline for Essay on Hoffer
Questions posed by Hoffer:
1) How did the Salem trials change the way people looked at their world?
2) Is history the product of irresistible forces or is it guided by human intervention or agency?
3) Could Salem happen again in our times?
Suggested Outline of Essay
This essay can be as linear as Hoffer’s narration, that is, starting with the prime players, developing the plot of the trials,
highlighting the procedures of the trial and concluding with the meaning of the whole episode. As with the Polk essay,
this one must include a brief background of Hoffer and an evaluation of the book overall. Please do not overlook the
comparison with Polk. I am interested in your reactions to the differences in their approach to history–the big picture vs
the more single-event focus. Here is what the essay might look like:
I. Foundation
A. Hoffer–his background and approach to the subject
B. Organization of the book
1. Salem and individuals involved
2. The Accusations of Witchcraft
II. The Legal Proceedings
A. Persons in charge
B. Witnesses
C. The end of the Trials
III. Evaluation
A. Value of book in itself
B. Contribution to understanding US Colonial History 1600 – 1800
C. Legacy
1. Parallels Hoffer draws with current issues
2. Additional comparisons from colonial America to US today

Analyze this iconographic document from a civilizational perspective. Use the question posed to help you, and explore all aspects of this visual work, using precise historical references from the course. Construct your commentary according to an articulated plan with introduction, development in 2 or 3 parts and conclusion + a list of sources used.

America’s involvement in World War I was not a foregone conclusion. Many in Congress were divided on the issue, prior to the publication of the Zimmerman Telegram.
If your last name begins with A-L, defend your argument of why the U.S. should not get involved with the war overseas. If your last name begins with M-Z, defend your argument why the U.S. should get involved in the war.
Post your response on the discussion board, supporting your position, then read and reply to at least two classmates’ posts (preferably, those who oppose your position). State the points with which you agree and those with which you disagree, as well as your reasons.
(I’m M)

Please tell me what you think the most important aspect of Michigan History is and why – one solid paragraph,

These are the professors instructions/sources for the assignment. The textbook used is America A Narrative History, Twelfth Edition, Volume Two. Write an essay that covers the focus questions.
FOCUS QUESTIONS:
1.   
What factors motivated
America’s new imperialism after the Civil War?
2.   
Is it possible for a nation
to use economic and brutal military force to impose its system on others, and
remain a republic? According to a majority of Americans at the turn of the twentieth
century, the answer was yes. Building on attitudes encapsulated by the concept
of Manifest Destiny, America set about expanding its reach into far away
places. There were several motivations for America’s empire-building actions in
the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea.
The documents associated with this Primary Source Exercise are
designed to expose the student to the debates that erupted over the conquest of
the Philippines and America’s involvement in Latin America, specifically Puerto
Rico and Cuba.
3.   
Both Beveridge and the
anti-imperialists believed they represented what was most true about American
culture and traditions. How is that possible?
DOCUMENTS
Document 1, a campaign speech by a man named Albert Beveridge who
became a United States senator from Indiana, captures the spirit and beliefs
held by the majority of Americans in 1898. After all, he won his election, and
the United States did indeed go on to become a domineering force in the
Philippines and Latin America. Chapter 19 of the textbook explains concisely
the motivating factors behind America’s imperial ambitions. Notice how this
speech provides evidence for each one of those factors.
Document 2 is very important for students to read and think about,
for it represents an opposing view. Not all Americans felt the same way about
the building of an empire. The American Anti-Imperialist League included some
famous and prominent individuals, and they did carry some weight in the public
eye, but nevertheless, their argument did NOT win the day. Pay attention to
what they use to support their position with regard to empire building.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Read the textbook, with special attention to Chapter 19.
2. Read Document 1, a campaign speech delivered on September 16,
1898 by Albert Beveridge, who became a United States senator from Indiana. As
you read, ask yourself, what is his main point? What evidence or logic does he
use to support his main point? And who is his target audience?
3. Read Document 2, the platform of an organization called the
American Anti-Imperialist League. This organization was founded in 1899 in
response to America’s imperial actions in the Pacific, as well as in the
Caribbean, in Cuba, and Puerto Rico. As you read, summarize the League’s main
argument and notice what evidence and logic they use to support their position
with respect to America’s international actions.
DOCUMENT 1
ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, “MARCH OF THE FLAG” (16 September
1898)
[1] Fellow-citizens, It is a noble land that God has given us; a
land that can feed and clothe the world; a land whose coast lines would inclose
half the countries of Europe; a land set like a sentinel between the two
imperial oceans of the globe; a greater England with a nobler destiny. It is a
mighty people that He has planted on this soil; a people sprung from the most
masterful blood of history; a people perpetually revitalized by the virile
working folk of all the earth; a people imperial by virtue of their power, by
right of their institutions, by authority of their heaven-directed purposes,
the propagandists and not the misers of liberty. It is a glorious history our
God has bestowed upon His chosen people; a history whose keynote was struck by
Liberty Bell; a history heroic with faith in our mission and our future; a
history of statesmen, who flung the boundaries of the Republic out into
unexplored lands and savage wildernesses; a history of soldiers, who carried
the flag across blazing deserts and through the ranks of hostile mountains,
even to the gates of sunset; a history of a multiplying people, who overrun a
continent in half a century; a history divinely logical, in the process of
whose tremendous reasoning we find ourselves to-day.
[2] Therefore, in this campaign the question is larger than a
party question. It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the
American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy
of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the
children of liberty wax in strength until the empire of our principles is
established over the hearts of all mankind? Have we no mission to perform, no
duty to discharge to our fellow-man? Has the Almighty Father endowed us with
gifts beyond our deserts, and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor,
merely to rot in our own selfishness, as men and nations must who take
cowardice for their companion and self for their Deity, as China has, as India
has, as Egypt has? Shall we be as the man who had one talent and hid it, or as
he who had ten talents and used them until they grew to riches? And shall we
reap the reward that waits on the discharge of our high duty as the sovereign
power of earth; shall we occupy new markets for what our farmers raise, new
markets for what our factories make, new markets for what our merchants
sell-aye, and, please God, new markets for what our ships shall carry? Shall we
avail ourselves of new sources of supply of what we do not raise or make, so
that what are luxuries to-day will be necessities to-morrow? Shall we conduct
the mightiest commerce of history with the best money known to man, or shall we
use the pauper money of Mexico, China and the Chicago platform? Shall we be
worthy of our might past of progress, brushing aside, as we have always done,
the spider webs of technicality, and march ever onward upon the highway of
development, to the doing of real deeds, the achievement of real things, and
the winning of real victories?
THE LEADING QUESTION.
[3] In a sentence, shall the American people indorse at the polls
the American administration of William McKinley, which, under the guidance of
Divine Providence, has started the Republic on its noblest career of
prosperity, duty and glory; or shall the American people rebuke that
administration, reverse the wheels of history, halt the career of the flag and
turn to that purposeless horde of criticism and carping that is assailing the
government at Washington. Shall it be McKinley, sound money and a world-conquering
commerce, or Bryan, Bailey, Bland and Blackburn, a bastard currency and a
policy of commercial retreat? In the only foreign war this Nation has had in
two generations, will you, the voters of this Republic and the guardians of its
good repute, give the other nations of the world to understand that the
American people do not approve and indorse the administration that conducted
it? These are the questions you must answer at the polls, and I well know how
you will answer them. The thunder of American guns at Santiago and Manila will
find its answer in the approval of the voters of the Republic. For the
administration of William McKinley, in both peace and war, will receive the
mightiest indorsement of a grateful people ever registered. In both peace and
war, for we rely on the new birth of national prosperity as well as on the new
birth of national glory. Think of both! Think of our country two years ago and
think of it to-day!
[4] Two years and more ago American labor begged for work; to-day
employment calls for mine, factory and field. Two years and more ago money fled
from the fingers of enterprise; to-day money is as abundant as demand and
interest is at the lowest point in all the history of trade. Two years and more
ago bonds were sold to syndicates in sudden emergencies to save the Nation’s
credit; in 1898, bonds were sold to the people in the emergency of war, to
rescue the oppressed and redeem benighted lands. In 1896, we exported gold in
obedience to the natural laws of finance; in 1898, we export bayonets in
obedience to the natural law of liberty. In 1894, the American people fought
each other in strikes and insurrections because of misunderstandings born of
the desperation of the times; in 1898, united and resistless, capitalists and
workingman, side by side, entrench and charge, the American people fought the
last great pirate of the world, in a war holy as righteousness. Two years and
more ago, error-blinded and hatred-maddened men sought to create classes among
the people, declared the decadence of American manhood and proclaimed the
beginning of the end of the Republic; to-day proves that patriots are the only
class this country knows, that American manhood is as virile under Santiago’s
sun as it was among the snows of Valley Forge, despite its slanderers, and that
the real career of history’s greatest Republic has only just begun.
[5] A moment ago I said that the administration of William
McKinley had been guided by a providence divine. That was no sacrilegious
sentence. The signature of events proves it. This man of destiny has amazed the
world. He was nominated as the apostle of protection; in two months he was the
standard bearer of the nation’s honor. He was elected as the representative of
the conservative force of the Republic; in two years he filled the world with
the thunder of the Republic’s guns and the heavens with the unfurled flag of
liberty. This man, whom the world regarded as a single-issue statesman, as a
tariff-schedule expert, gave to his countrymen the ablest argument in finance
since Hamilton; rebuked the silver pirates of the Senate with utterance rich
with the eloquence of truth; caught up the tangled lines of a diplomatic
situation, vexed with infinite complication and inherited blunders; gave
mankind a noble example of patient tact; taught the nations their first lesson
in the diplomacy of honest speech; refused to be stampeded into conflict until
the thunderbolts of war were forged; launched them at last when time had
sanctified our cause before the bar of history, and preparation had made them
irresistible; and now, in the hour of victory, clear-eyed and unelate, marks
out the lines of our foreign policy as the soon-to-be supreme power of the
world, and gives to the flag its rightful dominion over the islands of the sea.
From protection to foreign war! From the insular and isolated to the
world-embracing and universal! From the temporary and incidental to the
essential, the permanent and the eternal! Who dare say God’s hand has not
guided him? Who will fail to say amen with his vote to the administration and
career of the last American President of the nineteenth century-McKinley, the
master statesman of his day!
Textual Authentication Information

Beveridge, “March of the Flag,” Speech Text

Accessed the speech at this site, an educational one Voices of
Democracy Oratory Project at University of Maryland.
DOCUMENT 2
Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League
(October 18, 1899).
We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty
and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be
free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and
Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the
subjugation of any people is “criminal aggression” and open
disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government.
We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national
administration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in
those islands. We deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose
bravery deserves admiration even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of
the Filipinos as a needless horror. We protest against the extension of
American sovereignty by Spanish methods.
We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty,
begun by Spain and continued by us. We urge that Congress be promptly convened
to announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independence
for which they have so long fought and which of right is theirs.
The United States have always protested against the doctrine of
international law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A
self-governing state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The
United States cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right.
Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government
in the Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a
grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of “criminal aggression” in
the Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on
American hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at
home. The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our
own household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is
to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals.
Whether the ruthless slaughter of the Filipinos shall end next
month or next year is but an incident in a contest that must go on until the
declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States are
rescued from the hands of their betrayers. Those who dispute about standards of
value while the foundation of the republic is undermined will be listened to as
little as those who would wrangle about the small economies of the household
while the house is on fire. The training of a great people for a century, the
aspiration for liberty of a vast immigration are forces that will hurl aside
those who in the delirium of conquest seek to destroy the character of our
institutions.
We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their
government in times of grave national peril applies to the present situation.
If an administration may with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was
chosen, deliberately create a condition of war anywhere on the face of the
globe, debauch the civil service for spoils to promote the adventure, organize
a truth-suppressing censorship, and demand of all citizens a suspension of
judgement and their unanimous support while it chooses to continue the
fighting, representative government itself is imperiled.
We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that
stands for the forcible subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for
re-election all who in the white house or in congress betray American liberty
in pursuit of un-American ends. We still hope that both of our great political
parties will support and defend the declaration of independence in the closing
campaign of the century.
We hold with Abraham Lincoln, that “no man is good enough to
govern another man without that other’s consent. When the white man governs
himself, that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs
another man, that is more than self-government–that is despotism.”
“Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our
defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all
lands. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under
a just God cannot long retain it.”
We cordially invite the co-operation of all men and women who
remain loyal to the declaration of independence and the constitution of the
United States.

Short essay (25 points): Compare and contrast the three major colonial regions—the Chesapeake, New England, and the middle colonies— that comprised Britain’s North American empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Essays must focus on at least three relevant similarities and/or differences related to settlement patterns and population growth, social characteristics, politics, economic development, or religion.
Long essay (45 points): Discuss the evolution of American politics from the early republic, beginning in the 1790s, to the mid-1850s and the formation of Republican Party. Examine the rise of key political parties, ideas, issues, and policies in the nation’s early politics, paying close attention to the causes of ongoing disagreement that led to political change during this period
Tips for scoring well on the essays:
● Begin the essay with a thesis that outlines an argument in response to the statements posed in the
prompt.
● Devote the body of the essay to advancing the thesis.
● Provide context for claims made in the essay. Discuss specific historical conditions that led to an event
or that were crucial in encouraging the process of historical change.
● Beware of unsupported generalizations. Use evidence throughout the essay to enhance the quality of
analysis and interpretation.
● Make sure the response develops logically and that attention s given to chronological development.
● Demonstrate change over time. Do not cluster the essay in a single time period. You cannot show how
change occurs, for example, if you write only about political development in the 1790s.
● Demonstrate cause and effect. Show an understanding of how change occurs or why a particular event
is significant.
● Most Important: Do not plagiarize or attempt to use AI software to complete the essay
responses. All essays should be written in your own words and will be scanned by Turnitin for evidence of plagiarism or AI. Violations of this policy will automatically result in a 0 for the final exam and, possibly, for the course.