{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54407774","dateCreated":"1337628478","smartDate":"May 21, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"demantai91","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/demantai91","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54407774"},"dateDigested":1532092599,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Political Developments","description":""Jackson's election marked a new direction in American politics" (23f) "He boldly proclaimed himself to be the "champion of the common man" and believed that their interests were ignored by the aggressive national economic plans of Clay and Adams" (23f)
\n
\nGiven the change in leadership from the traditional Virginia legacy that maintained its presence in the White House since the nation was founded, and Jackson's message of elite aggression by those of Adams and Clay, is it fair to say that the warnings by Adams and Jefferson of tyranny by an elite group of the population had finally begun taking effect on the U.S Presidency?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54716168","body":""Once the colonists had thrown off the burdens and controls of England, the possibilities for political, social and artistic creativity and experimentation seemed limitless" (26).
\n
\n"People felt optimistic and determined that a new order would be brought to bear, not just on government but on all institutions of social interaction" (26)
\n
\nConsidering the possibilities the United States was given after eliminating European authority, as well as the potential opportunities for the people of the United States to form a more unique set identity, was this the key that help set in motion the foundation of the second great awakening?","dateCreated":"1338495726","smartDate":"May 31, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"demantai91","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/demantai91","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54792800","body":""In the heat of the Wilmot Proviso debate, many southern lawmakers began to question the right of Congress to determine the status of slavery in any territory." (30 b.)
\n"Lewis Cass of Michigan, coined the term "popular sovereignty. The premise was simple. Let the people of the territories themselves decide whether slavery would be permitted" (30 b.)
\n
\nAs a means to settle the long conflicting issue of slavery expansion into new territories, Lewis Cass's argument that the people should decide for themselves what role slavery would play in their lives ultimately left the issue unsettled. As the text points out, Cass never made it clear whether state governments would decide or if the issue would be put up for a public vote. How much more tension did this create between states and the Federal government, as well as in what way was putting forth popular sovereignty a form of kicking the issue of slavery even further down the road?","dateCreated":"1338832365","smartDate":"Jun 4, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"demantai91","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/demantai91","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54799968","body":""For decades, both northern states and southern states had threatened secession and dissolution of the Union over the question of where slavery was to be permitted" (31)
\n
\n"If slavery were not permitted in the territories, slavery would never gain a foothold within them and southern power in Congress would gradually erode" (31)
\n
\nGiven the decades of indifference between Northerners and Southerners over whether to expand or limit slavery to new territories, as well as Southern uncertainty over restrictions opposition intended to place on slavery, Southerners had a legitimate reason to be fearful. As the text points out, and is one of my pulled quotes, "If slavery were not permitted in the territories, slavery would never gain a foothold within them and southern power in Congress would gradually erode" (31). Thus, as the text goes on to say, is why ballot box stuffing occurred in Kansas; for fear of an abolitionist state government. If what slaveholders feared was losing their "foothold" of authority in congress, as well as their general way of life, where was the discussion of what would replace the slaves? For that matter, what would become of the south with all of its land? Industrial development? Did any abolitionist bring up what could be the solution to the south's problem?","dateCreated":"1338850963","smartDate":"Jun 4, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"demantai91","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/demantai91","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"53776786","dateCreated":"1336163167","smartDate":"May 4, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"princeofhappiness","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/princeofhappiness","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/53776786"},"dateDigested":1532092600,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Economic Reasons","description":"They did it for the money, all of them.
\n
\nWho?
\n
\n"Them."
\n
\n