Gettysburg Address

The war at Gettysburg was one of the goriest battle's in The Civil War. An there was a meeting with the town people about getting rid of all of the dead bodies. The Gettysburg Address was a speech from Abraham Lincoln. He was talking about everyone that died in this war were honorable men. His speech was only two minutes long but it was very powerful and moving. He also talked about the slaves down in the south were free.The greatest thing that you can do in life is to die for country. This political speech that Abe Lincoln made did change our nation in that he wasn't talking about the Confederates and the Union but talking about how we are a whole nation.

The Gettysburg Address did change our nation. Because Abraham Lincoln said that we should honor all of the brave men. Who died at this battle between the Confederates and the Union. I think this speech did change the United States in that the Civil War was finally over. And that the slaves down in the south are now free. Lincoln also said in his speech "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." He is saying that America is going to start over. And start a new beginning as a whole nation with america having their freedom.

Mitchell Anderson

P-2

Preserving the Nation

When the Civil War ended, alot of event happened all at once causing a massive amout of chaos all over the nation. Over twenty million of the male population are dead, the rebuilding of the South had over $100 million worth of damage, and taxes increacing everywhere. Even the Northern capitalists were terrified to invest what they had. The 4 million African Americans were freed, now reconized as citizens, and were allowed to vote. A couple of days after the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was assissinated, making Andrew Johnson the next president. It took a very long time to make everything right again.

It was very obvious that not just the South lost the war but everyone else in America lost everything as well. With all those freed slaves, the first thing that will pop in their minds that they would, right at the start, do everything what they wanted to do that they couldn't do when they were slaves. They would make everywhere and everything run out of control. It was also sad to hear the millions of millions of damage to everything that the people of the South treasured the most, losing family, friend, homes, their childhood, and more, all gone. Not to mention everyone mourned to the assissination of Abraham Lincoln. Nobody liked this time at all.

Fort Sumter

In April of 1861, the Confederate army was on its way to claiming all of the forts and other federal buildings in the South. If they claimed the federal buildings, then they had control over the Confederate states and the North wouldn't have any influence on the South. Fort Sumter was one of the major forts. It was located in Charleston and Robert Anderson was the person in control of it. When the Confederate army came to seize it, Anderson asked Lincoln for help and supplies. Not wanting to be the one to fire the first shots, Lincoln gave Anderson's men food, but no weapons or additional soldiers. The following battle was a short one and Anderson was forced to surrender. This marked the beginning of the Civil War.

Lincoln was right in his decision not to send weapons or soldiers to help Anderson. Although the North lost Fort Sumter, they were not the ones to initiate the war. Lincoln could have placed the blame for the war on the Union's hands if he had allowed the soldiers of Fort Sumter to fire the first shots. This battle goes to show that peace isn't something that can be used to preserve a nation. The Union tried to use peace, but they clearly needed to use military force since the Confederates were willing to use it. It would not have been wise for the Union to use military force at Fort Sumter, but after this it was completely necessary to fight back in order to stop the South's progression and reunite the nation. Without military force, the South would have kept on gaining power. The confidence boost that the Confederates received from winning this battle would not last long, for they provoked the North into putting them back in their place.

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