Was the Mexican War an Exercise in American Imperialism?

I do agree with Professor Ramon Eduardo Ruiz that the Mexican War was an exercise in American Imperialism. He argued that the purpose for conquering Mexico's northern territories was because the United States waged an aggressive war against Mexico from which Mexico never recovered. The long-range effects on American foreign policy of the Mexican War were immense and the Monroe Doctrine was used to force the French ruler out of Mexico. Fearful of losing control over Texas, the Mexican government prohibited further immigration from the United States in 1830. Politicians were afraid if Texas were annexed it would upset the balance of power between the evenly divided free states and slave states that had been created in 1819 by the Missouri Compromise. Congress had voted for war 174 to 14 in the House and 30 to 2 in the Senate despite those who opposed the war. Ramon Eduardo Ruiz argued that the U.S. waged a racist and aggressive war against Mexico for the purpose of conquering what became the American southwest. Manifest Destiny was strictly and ideological rationale to provide noble motives for what were really acts of aggression against a neighboring country. President James Polk pursued the aggressive policy of a stronger nation in order to force Mexico to sell New Mexico and Texas to the United States and to recognize America's annexation of Texas without causing a war. Manifest Destiny was first territorial expansion but then later recognized as more than a mere land hunger; much more was involved. Manifest Destiny stood for democracy as Americans conceived it; to spread democracy and freedom was the goal. I think that Ramon Eduardo Ruiz had many good arguments that are listed in the above selections.

Did the Election of 1828 Represent a Democratic Revolt of the People?

I believe that no, the election of 1828 didn't represent a democratic revolt of the people. I agree with Richard McCormick's opinion on this packet. He believes that voting statistics demonstrate that a genuine political revolution did not take place until the presidential election of 1840, when fairly well-balanced political parties had been organized in virtually every state. Jacksonian democracy consisted of urban workingmen, southern planters, venturous conservatives, farm-bred nouveux riches, western frontiersmen, frustrated entrepreneurs, or yeoman farmers which are considered true "Jacksonians." Features of Jacksonian democracy are correspondingly diverse. With suffrage barriers it brought forth of democratic energies, evidenced by a marked upward increase in voting. Shifting legislative choice of electors to the election by popular vote, together with steady population growth, obviously swelled the presidential vote. Comparing the rate of voting in the Jackson elections with other presidential elections before and after his regime as well as with state elections helped find out whether or not voter participation rose markedly in the three presidential elections in which Jackson was a candidate. But all in all, none of the Jackson elections involved a "mighty democratic uprising" in the sense that voters were drawn to the polls in unprecedented proportions.

Were the Founding Fathers Democratic Reformers?

I would have to say No, the Founding Fathers were not democratic at all. I agree with Charles Beard's opinion and view on the issues. The Founding Fathers in fact, were not wise and were just trying to keep a balance among the dominant forces. The fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia to discuss the Constitution were mostly lawyers, or men of wealth, had money loaned out at interest, and many held government bonds. However, four groups were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. The Constitution was guarded as to not including the interests of these groups. The Founding Fathers didn't want an equal balance between slaves and masters, propertyless and property holders, Indians and white. Charles beard warned us that governments, including the one for the U.S., are neutral and that they represent the dominant economic interests and that their constitutions are intended to serve these interests in which they failed to do. The problem of democracy was in fact the division of society into rich and poor.

Federalist Paper #51

Federalist Paper # 51 states the appropriate system of checks and balances that can be created in government that also aims for a separation of powers within the national government. This means that the legislative, executive and judicial branches all have equal power. This helps to contain an equal government. The purpose of #51 is to form a more correct judgement of the structure of government planned by the Constitutional Convention. The system of checks and balances controls tyranny while still leaving a government that fulfills the needs of the people because not one branch of government is too powerful.
I do agree that the checks and balances system was a great improval for government. It helped maintain the separate branches of government, and to protect the rights of the people. From reading both Federalist Papers #10 and #51, I concluded that we’re not democratic to the extent where the people vote on every issue, but the people do have some sort of say I guess.

Federalist Paper #10

The Federalist papers in general were series arguing for the approval of the United States Constitution. Federalist paper #10 is one of the most famous of the Federalist papers, along with #51, which were both written by James Madison. Number 10 discusses on how to guard against factions, which were groups of citizens with interests not agreeing to the rights of others, or the interests of the whole community. In number 10, Madison argued that a large republic, (like the whole community) would be a better guard against dangers rather than smaller republics (like the individual states). Number 10 explains that the founding fathers did not expect the U.S government to be supporting.
In my opinion, I agree with James Madison. He displays some strong arguments in this short essay. He gives many great points as to why working with the whole community, rather than individual states, would be more beneficial. It would be a better guard against dangers and by working as a whole we are much stronger and more successful.

Should Columbus Day be celebrated?

In my opinion, I think Columbus Day should be celebrated because it allows for us to celebrate the beginning of cultural exchange between America and Europe. Millions of European immigrants brought their art, music, science, medicine, and religious thoughts to America. These contributions helped shape the U.S. today. Columbus Day also allows us to recognize the great achievements of the great Renaissance explorer Columbus. Lastly, America has the most monuments to Columbus than any nation in the world. Columbus Day became a federal holiday in all 50 states in which the nation recognizes the heritage of Italian Americans.

Where you would want to live in the colonies and why?

I would rather live in the southern colonies because they have good culture, economy and values. An advantage would be the main crop in South America and Mexico which is corn or maize, which played a big part in the agriculture. Tobacco supplied much of the money in this area. Some disadvantages were the prejudices in this area.