Balancing Nationalism and Sectionalism

At this time the Indian Removal Act was taking place. This was a start for the people of the nation because they were making the Indians move out west. They were taking their homes and treating them savages. They were doing this as a nation and all agreed on this. But at the same time most people were only for making decisions based on what was best for their section and not the nation as a whole.

I think that being a nation means to be together as one whole when making any decisions, no matter how large or small. This includes decisions such as court and laws. I think that being a nation means working together as one unit. I also think that being a nation means that the people will decide not only what is good for their state, but what is best for all the states as a whole.

Indian Removal Act

On May 26, 1830, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed by the Twenty-First Congress of the United states of America. After four months of strong debate, Andrew Jackson signed the bill into law. Land greed was a big reason for the federal government's position on Indian removal. This desire for Indian lands was also abetted by the Indian hating mentality that was peculiar to some American frontiersman. This period of forcible removal first started with the Cherokee Indians in the state of Georgia. In 1802, the Georgia legislature signed a compact giving the federal government all of her claims to western lands in exchange for the government's pledge to extinguish all Indian titles to land within the state. But by the mid-1820's Georgians began to doubt that the government would withhold its part of the bargain. The Cherokee Indian tribes had a substantial part of land in Georgia that they had had for many generations though. They were worried about losing their land so they forced the issue by adopting a written constitution. This document proclaimed that the Cherokee nation had complete jurisdiction over its own territory. But by now Indian removal had become entwined with the state of Georgia's rights and the Cherokee tribes had to make their claims in court. When the Cherokee nation sought aid from newly elected president Andrew Jackson, he informed them that he would not interfere with the lawful prerogatives of the state of Georgia. Jackson saw the solution of the problem with the removal of the Cherokee tribes to lands west. This would keep contact between Indians and colonists rare. He suggested that laws be past so that the Indians would have to move west of the Mississippi river.

I agree with The Indian Removal Act, but I don't agree with the way that they treated the Indians. They didn't treat the Indians like they said they would, and thats not cool.

Preserving the Nation

History shows that force is necessary to preserve a nation. The North had to preserve it's ideas by going to war with the South. The south had to preserve their ideas by going to war with the North. The North did not want to start this war. At Ft. Sumter the "first shot" of the war was fired at the union soldiers who held Ft. Sumter. Nobody died but the message was clear to Abraham Lincoln so he sent troops to reclaim Ft. Sumter from the Confederates. Because of this war the North was able to preserve its freedom. The South, however, did not preserve their ideas.

It is not possilbe for a nation to be preserved without the necessary force of politics and war. Without war who would stop others from taking our nation? Without force of politics who would keep things in order? The answer is clear that nobody would. War is needed or that nation will be pushed around like a school bully pushing around a freshman. Political force is needed to help keep things in line and order. So, as for the answer to can the use of force preserve a nations freedom? It is the only way to preserve a nations freedom.

Lucas Helms

2nd Period

Balancing Nationalism and Sectionalism

The Missouri Compromise

The Missouri Compromise was developed by Henry Clay to settle the dispute whether or not Maine would be free or slave, or Missouri would be free or slave. The Compromise stated that any states north of the line would become free states. If any states south of the line were to be established, then they would become slave states. For example, the Arkansas Territory would become a slave territory because it was located below the Compromise line. But Michigan Territory would be considered a free territory. If it were to become a free state because it was locate above the Compromise line. But what would happen to territories east of the Compromise? What happens to the territories west of the Compromise?

The Missouri Compromise came about because northerners wanted to end slavery. But people in the South wanted to keep slavery in order to keep the cotton production up. The Compromise helped solve any fighting that would uproar in America. After the Compromise was official, if two new territories applied for statehood, one would have to be free. The other would have to be slave. But, when California and Kansas decided to enter has free states, many southerns got mad because they thought that if the power in the House wasn't equal, then the people from up North would outvote slavery and make their economy bad. Maybe if Henry Clay had been more specific about the Compromise when he wrote it, then it might have prevented many conflicts during this error.

Mickeal Burdine