Could It Happen Again?

During the first episode of the documentary, the narrator said that the Civil War was tearing in half a nation which couldn't imagine it today. So I asked myself, "Could it happen again?" But in all honesty, I can't see how that it possible. In the years leading up to the Civil War, the North and South gradually became almost completely separate entities in all but name. The industries were heavily based on location; you could not be a successful cotton plantation owner with slaves in the north. Today, industry is less dependent on location, and the separate industries are more connected than before the Civil War. Another key aspect was the disunity between the people of the North and South. Before the Civil War, it was likely that you wouldn't communicate with anyone outside of a twenty mile radius on a regular basis; Northerners were almost completely detached from Southerners socially. In contrast, today, twenty miles is nothing, and we can easily communicate with people on the other side of the globe, let alone within our own country. Finally, I think that the South still held the idea that states had more power than did the federal government. Many still referred to themselves as Virginians or Georgians. In contrast to today, we rarely think of ourselves as Missourians before Americans. Are idea of national unity is more firmly cemented in our minds.

Iraq War vs Mexican War

Iraq, in general, has fallen by the wayside in many of our minds. We think of it as a failed war, a drain of the economy, etc. However, the news article "A New Chapter in Iraq" found at www.politico.com by Thomas R. Nides elaborates on the successes of the Iraqi people, despite their close call with a civil war. In my opinion, the similarities between the Mexican-American War and the Iraq War are few, while the differences are many. I can only think of two differences: both were fought in relative deserts, and both were by no means popularly supported. The differences are much more numerous. In Mexico, we were fighting a neighbor. Iraq is halfway around the world, though the term "neighbor" can be used rather loosely in today's internationally connected world. Also, in Mexico, we had declared war against a country, with formal military and generals. In Iraq, at least after ousting Saddam Hussein, we worked more to stabilize the country, while rooting out insurgents that could easily blend in with the innocent. This brings me to another similarity I hadn't previously thought of. Our reasoning for going into Iraq was because of the military rule of Saddam Hussein. However, could it have also been for oil, or influence in the Middle East? Did we not fight for similar reasons in Mexico?

Modern Reform- Pro Life Movement

In the Pro-Life Movement, there are aspects that are similar to the reforms of the mid 19th century, though there are also many differences. Present in both the Pro-Life Movement and the reforms of the 1800s, such as abolition, is the fact that in each reform movement, there were critical activists that played large roles. In the abolition movement, there were speakers such as Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison. In the modern Pro-Life Movement, there is a huge amount of activists, from religious leaders to celebrities. Also, conferences and protests were held to promote movements such as feminism and abolition, such as the Seneca Falls convention. Today, there is the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., where people from all walks of life come to share their belief that abortion is wrong, such as mentioned the article "Annual 'March for Life' Set for a Bitter Cold Monday in Washington" by Matt Cover found at www.cnsnews.com, on January 21, 2011. There are, however, some differences between the pro-life movement and mid-19th century reforms. First of all, the reform movements were attempting to bring a new right or aspect, such as abolition, into society which it had previously been lacking. The Pro-Life movement is instead trying to reverse an action which should never have been made in the first place. Also, the Pro-Life movement has more support than did the early reform movements. I think that Americans are more aware today of how their voice can make a difference. We feel more comfortable challenging the status quo than did early Americans who viewed slavery as normal or even natural.

Jackson Webquest Speech

I thought that the Jackson Webquest Speeches were a great way to get multiple perspectives on one of the most controversial presidents in American history. I liked how the different perspectives came from people in all aspects of society, from my speech on a former slave's perspective to Henry Clay. I probably learned the most from my own research into Frederick Douglass and his perspective from the slaves' point of view. I found it fascinating, if a bit disturbing, that someone who did so much as president, for better or for worse, was so avid in is disregard for slaves and natives. I figured Douglass had a point; what right had we to celebrate while millions still cried out from forced servitude? As for the project itself, working with a partner on one document at the same time worked wonderfully. We were able to communicate ideas quickly and efficiently, divide the work evenly, and quickly produce a speech that fully summed up Frederick Douglass' view on Jackson. In my opinion,  Michael Wulff's group had the best speech, mostly for his Shatner approach to speaking.