Secession Was a Serious Response

Secession was a serious response to fundamental disagreements over the interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the federal government of the United States. Slavery was the core issue that brought these disagreements to light. Although states' rights and sectionalism played major roles in the decision to cede from the Union, the South would most likely have used any excuse to keep the plantation economy strong and preserve the integrity of Southern social institutions.

Southerners clung to the institution of slavery more powerfully than they clung to the idea that they were being discriminated against in Congress. Had slavery not been as integral to the survival of the Southern economy, Southerners could have easily benefited from allowing Blacks to become full citizens of the United States. If the slaves were permitted the rights of citizenship they would then be counted in official populations that helped determine federal representation in Congress. Southerners did not, however, support the citizenship rights of Blacks. Their staunch pro-slavery stance was exemplified by the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court decision in 1857. In spite of this minor victory for Southerners, the slavery issue carried over into the politics of territorial acquisition.

One of the main reasons why Southerners advocated states' rights over federal rights was because of the proliferation of new states and territories gained via Westward expansion and the Mexican-American War. If slavery were categorically prohibited from new territories, Southerners could not count on their support regarding federal matters. Representation in Congress depended not only on state population counts but also on the number and strength of sectional alliances. Any new states and territories that permitted slavery under the Kansas-Nebraska Act could be counted on to support Southern political, social, and economic goals. Each of those goals depended on the proliferation of slavery and the reinforcement of the institution through such measures as the Fugitive Slave Law.

Sectionalism did stir up the resentment that preceded secession but the differences between North and South on the issue of slavery were not wholly apparent. Not all Northerners were abolitionists and few were activist abolitionists. Northerners also benefited from the vibrant Southern economy. Thus, sectionalism was not as strong a cause for secession as slavery itself was.

2. Andrew Jackson epitomizes 19th century America because of his expansionist policies, his advocacy of the common American, and his stubborn and controversial leadership style. An advocate of direct democracy, Jackson was also a populist who decried the Electoral College and the National Bank. He believed in direct elections that would empower average Americans and strip power away from the elite. Although he publicly opposed elitism, Jackson waged brutal attacks on Native Americans and engaged wholeheartedly in the slave trade. His Indian Removal policies transformed the geography, culture, and character of the United States and reinforced the American sense of Manifest Destiny and cultural superiority. Jackson's contradictory attitudes toward individual rights and freedoms can be considered characteristic of America as a whole. Jackson was known for championing the rights of the "common man" and did allow middle and low-income white Americans to at least feel that they had a greater say in the American political process. Jacksonian Democracy cannot truly be called egalitarian, however.

Although Jackson promoted popular rule, he also supported a strong central government and therefore caused conflicts with his fellow Southerners. When South Carolinians and other southerners asserted their right to nullify federal tariffs, Jackson helped passed the Force Bill. Jackson's politics were as controversial and contradictory as his social policies. While he opposed elitism he started the trend of the Kitchen Cabinet, surrounding himself with agreeable, friendly advisors in Washington. The co-founder of the Democratic Party, Jackson also encouraged strong party loyalty. The way Jackson approached the presidency remains salient today.

3. The New Deal ushered in a slew of federal agencies with acronyms ranging from AAA to the CCC to the WPA. Of the Alphabet Agencies, a few remain viable today, over half a century after Roosevelt. In addition to the specific effects of the alphabet agencies on the American economy, the New Deal had a lasting impact on American political discourse. Moreover, the New Deal changed the character of the American Democratic Party and created the still existing diametric opposition between "bleeding heart" liberals and the conservatives who oppose them.

Several of the New deal programs and agencies dealt directly with the effects of the Great Depression and were designed to re-stablize the economy and to revitalize investments. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) engendered trust in the American banking system through its policy of insuring deposits. The FDIC is one of Roosevelt's most notable legacies. However, New deal economics have largely fallen by the wayside. The neo-liberal market economy that prevailed in the latter decades of the 20th century counteracts the inherent socialism of the New Deal.

A series of public works programs like the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Public Works Association (PWA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) helped stimulate the American economy in the wake of the Depression. Public works projects resulted in improved transportation infrastructures, which would become increasingly important during the age of the automobile.

The New Deal also resulted in improved labor laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and therefore offered tacit support for labor unions. One of the most lasting legacies of the New Deal was the Social Security Act, encouraging investments in pensions which would also stimulate the economy. Although Social Security is currently a controversial issue, it has nevertheless had long-term benefits for Americans. New Deal policies were on the whole idealistic and workable had Americans been more receptive to the underlying tenets of liberal democracies with socialist underpinnings.

4. World War Two marked a new era for American domestic and foreign policy. The United States emerged from its shell and became a world superpower, an empire no less powerful or influential than Rome was 2000 years ago. The Cold War solidified America's position on the world's stage because the Untied States also had an arch-nemesis: the Soviet Union. Being able to point a finger at an enemy of democracy and civil rights allowed the United States to assert its moral superiority. The United States capitalized well on its newfound role as the economic, political, and ethical role model of the world.

The current rhetoric guiding American foreign policy in the "war on terror" mirrors that which occurred during the Cold War. America views itself as a champion of democracy and civil liberties. As a result, most Americans tolerated restrictions on civil liberties during the Cold War, reaching a peak with McCarthyism. During the war on terror, the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act has served a similar purpose. Ironically, many Americans developed a newfound mistrust of the federal government during the Cold War, after Nixon resigned. In spite of setbacks and signs that the American character was flawed, the United States readily maintained its position as a righteous superpower by claiming an ethical aversion to the communist threat and now, to the terrorist threat.