In 1860-61, the crisis between North and South had reached a boiling point and the South seceded from the Union. How might our world today have been different if the Confederacy remained?
If the Confederacy remained rather than the way the war worked out, things would be very different today. The Union would still exist, however not be as strong because there would be less room for expansion than the US has had today. The Confederacy would have fallen apart still for many reasons. The purpose of the country was to rebel from the government, so whenever anyone from under the Confederacy disagreed with the government, they would simply rebel and not follow the laws of the Confederacy. That is no basis for a gov't and it would never be able to stand. Further still, slavery would have died anyway b/c the Confederacy had very little room to grow anyway, and both the north and the south knew that if slavery could not expand, it would die. So, the South would turn into a place where criminals and unwanted people would be sent, which ironically, is where the colonies started. Eventually, it would have started again as a new gov't, but it would have taken much longer, in which we would have a brand new country maybe, by now. The world we live in would be completely different.

America Today

America dreamed of spreading its influence and ideals across the continent, but wasn’t always “nice” in the process. How does the US still do this today? Be as specific as possible. --In today's world, the relevant topic of spreading the US dream would be the conflict in Iraq. Now, i have no real knowledge of the events taking place in Iraq, but i know that America pretty much just took it over and placed democracy right in the middle of the government. In order to take it over though, a small war had been fought and is still being fought today. Just a few weeks ago, the largest army from Tennessee ever sent was sent to help fight the war, and they're probably not going there to sight see. The US uses its world renown army as brute force to "convince" other countries to see things our way. We helped convince Iraq that democracy is the best form of government, mainly b/c we have done so well. America iself went from being a place where English convicts and criminals were sent to the strongest, or one of the strongest, industrial powers, economic powers, and nuclear powers in the world. The US has made its mission to be to convince the world that there is no need for wars and arguments by fighting wars and starting arguments. Sounda like a great way to start, huh?

Reparations?

In the 1980s, the federal government paid out reparations (money given to atone for a crime or injustice) to Japanese-Americans for their internment during WWII. The money was given to survivors of the event. Should governments and companies should pay reparations to African-Americans for slavery? Why or why not? There are many similarties and differences between the African-Americans of today and the Japenese-Americans of WWII. First of all, the money was given to the survivors of the Japanese during WWII. I'm pretty sure its safe to say that there are no former slaves left alive today. Second of all, the Japanese-Americans were forced from their homes to live in rundown crowded shacks. Other than before the African slave trade was closed, many of the slaves were not taken from their homes. They always lived in America and as a slave, so they knew no different. The compensation paid to the Japanese-Americans was to compensate saying the government was wrong in their actions. However, during the times of the slaves, the government did not take an opinion in most if it for fear of the states, and the original founding fathers believed slavery was correct. So, to answer the question, I believe that the Blacks were former slaves should have been granted compensation. However, I do not think that the African-Americans of today should be compensated for it.

New campaign devices in the 19th century led to ever increasing voter turnouts. By the 1840 presidential election, of all those that could vote, almost 80% did vote. Today, of all those that can vote in a presidential election, only about 50% do vote. Why don’t more people participate? Back in the 1840's, the presidential election affected everybody. Their views, opinions, and promises were heard by everybody. While today, people are still very much affected, the person is not. In today's view of "everybody does their own thing", whether the president is for or against abortion decides nothing. The draft will affect everybody, but not really just one person in particular. Back in the 19th century, everybody was Christian with no doubts, but today, nobody really cares about religion; people are interested in morals. Most of the issues of the presidency today affects the public, but not so much a single person. Again, with the idea of today that "I'm more important than everyone else," a lot of people just don't care aobut who becomes president because other than gas prices maybe going up or taxes raised, that person is not really affected. Add those people together with the masses ignorant to the fact that they don't know who stands for what in the runnings, and that takes half of the eligible population out. I'd say 50% is a good estimate for today.

Individuals today?

According to Jeffersonians, there were 3 requirements for individualism: confidence in self, opportunity to think, and economic security. Given these requirements, are we individuals today? Why or why not? In today's world, individualism is considered to be any one particular person with his own thoughts or ideas. This ties into some of the ideas that the Jeffersonians thought to be individualistic. For a person to have his or her own thoughts and ideas, he or she has to have an oppurtunity to think about what he or she believes and also enough confidence to tell others about his or her ideas. The only thing that has changed is the economic security, which was completely dropped by the ammendments to the constitution of today. The Jeffersonians believed pretty much that the constitution referred to white, landowning males. However, today, it doesn't matter if a person is poor, rich, white, black, homeless, or owns a mansion; that person is still his or her own individual.

Only Elite Governors?

Federalists viewed government as extremely important to holding society together. In fact, only the elite should govern. Do we believe this today? Do we practice this today? American's believe that anybody can rule, because all are equal. However, American's aren't going to vote for homeless people either. American's want successful people to govern over them because they figure that if the person is successful and can govern their own household well, then the people will trust them more to govern the people. The flip side to this is also true. If someone can't take care of their own financial business and own family, then how can they handle such a tremendous responsibility? The answer is that the person can't. If the "elite" is defined to be successful, rich people, then yes, to an extent, American's believe that only the elite can govern.

Americans (no longer colonists) were faced with huge ideological issues after the War for Independence. Given their beliefs about government and the people, they now had to construct a new government. Americans today tend to distrust government as well. Why is this? What can be done to improve it? Government has an uncanny ability to stay in control once given a place and position to rule. I don't have my notes with me at the moment, but whoever it was that made the checks and balances system was actually quite a genius. In a democracy, theoretically, the people have all the power and can do whatever the people want, as long as it coincides with the constitution that the people have already made concerning their particular rights. However, government tends to get greedy with power, which is what the person who made it was counting on. The checks and balances system really is based on greed. That way, when one of the three parts of government oversteps its bounds, the branch that got stepped on will stand up for its powers. Hence, no branch can do more than it is supposed to. A question that really comes to mind instead is what would happen if the three branches were going for the same goal without the peoples' approval? Utter chaos. Government today however is distrusted because of elections for the most part. During the publicity right before elections, the people running for the most powerful parts of government stand up before crowds and tell bold face lies on what they're going to do in office "for the people" to win the public favor, but when they are elected, very rarely do they every do everything they promise. The distrust, then, comes from not knowing which promises to believe and which to ignore. The problem is so broad that it would be nearly impossible to find an answer to the riddle of what could be done to improve it. I guess the promises could be put in ink and the people running for offices would be forced to sign it saying they will do what they say, but that's pretty far-fetched.