The Underlying Causes of the War of 1812 and Other Incidents in the American History

Exterminating the bison that would severely weaken these native and make it easier to military defeat them and relocate them on to smaller reservations. We took the population of bison from millions to a few hundred. Now the government didn’t go out there and kill them all, but actually persuade the localist to kill the bison themselves. The effect that approach the indians who viewed the bison as there national resource affected them drastically. It made them realize who their enemy was and how willingly they would go to get what they want. This weakens the will of the natives to fight back against the Americans. Again, Jefferson's goal was to insure the countries that rotates around people who are farmers. With all that land, it surely fulfilled Jefferson's dream. But that dream didn't last long because America was not a rural country for long. As Americans moved onto this territory to turn it into farmland, it wasn't farm land when they moved out there, when American first encountered the plains, they were shocked and frightened because they never seen and like it. Just miles of flat nothing, very descent. 

The first Americans convert to this land as the “American Desert”. And they were supposed to transform this desert to farmland. It was going to take water to change it into farmland. But the only water that was out there was underground and its very costly to get water out of the ground. An American farmer was not going to be successful without that water for his crops. They were going to be replaced with larger farming operations, huge farming corporations were going to add themselves to the equation. To ensure the cost necessary to turn out profit. Even though Americans were moving to this new land, more Americans during the nineteenth century were leaving their farms and moving to the city. In the eighteen hundreds 94% of Americans were ruralist, by nineteenth hundreds almost 5o% of the people were living in cities. We don't fulfill Jefferson's dream, we did the total opposite. Some of the changes that result as American transitions from its traditional past to the modern industrial future. Work, nature of work, human interactions, american culture all this was going to be revolutionized by the Industrial Revolution. Work in eighteen hundred traditional era people were farmers, we shift from working on farms to working in factories. That is an important shift that comes with many other consequential shifts. Where people worked and where they lived was going to change. 

We were an overwhelmingly rural country. But with industrialization people move to the cities. If we extended this all the way up today about 80% of us live in cities. So that is a complete reversal of 94% of us being rural to 80% of us moving to the urbanites. And particularly the first generation of the industrial revolution number of people from the cites doubled more than ever before. Life in the city was different than life out in small towns. The city is always awake 24/7 than small towns. Small towns usually everyone know each other than city folk do. Millions of people poured into the cities from rural America, but also Industrialization also caused millions of immigrants to travel to the US from Europe, Asia and 30 million other immigrants as well. During the entire previous century, there was only half a million people and now it's amazing how a change can affect the future for a nation. And all those immigrants mainly migrated towards the cities for work and a place to live. But having a lot of people and filth from those people can infect and make a city sickly to live in. Like I said, with small cites everyone knows each other and work and live close together. Which can limit the amount of social interactions with other cites and the government towards these small towns. Everyone knows everyone and knows their business. Not only anti-social but also hostel and more friendly. It was common in rural America that you would live in the same city your whole life and your kids would do the same as well and counting. Where as in the big city, is much more anaumous that you would be moving around to different cities.you would follow where the most money would be.

Some of the underlying cause of the War of 1812 with the United States and Great Britain was natural PRIDE issues. National Pride was the underlying cause of 1812. Immediate causes would be the trade with Great Britain, which they are stuffiling because of that illegal blockade. And the complaint that the Western Hemisphere with Britain violating treaties, and trading guns to the natives. But really what Americans are most mad about with the economic and issues is how England is disrespecting America. Not respecting our independence from them. Great Britain has won more times than the United States. Great Britians’ Navy created a blockade stopping all goods traveling over to the United States. And also the Great Britain Soldiers would try to intimidate the US soldiers. Another issue was Merchant Grievances which opposite trading companies towards the US would try and sabotage the goods they were selling or would try and make an unfair trade. But some traders were western settlers who were national traders who had so much Pride and didn't like being tricked when it came to trade. Some other relation issues that help modernize the US were: Embargo Act, the Treaty of Ghent, Hartford Convention, and the Monroe Doctrine.

The Embargo Act was an act passed by Congress in 1807 prohibiting American ships from leaving for any foreign port. It was passed by President Thomas Jefferson, the intent of the act was to force both Britain and France to recognize neutral rights by depriving them of Ameircan goods. He created the act to try and keep the War of 1812 from happening. But it backfired on the US economically hurting us more than Great Britain. The Treaty of Ghent was signed in December 1814 between the United States and Britain that ended the War of 1812.

Hartford Convention was where federalist representatives from the five New England states met to discuss their grievances. This brought up concerns regarding the War of 1812 and the political problems that were happening due to the increasing of the government's strength over the nation. Monroe Doctrine was a Declaration by President James Monroe in 1823 that the Western Hemisphere was closed to further European colonization and that the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of European nations.

Regardless to no longer having connections with certain nations anymore, we as a new colony had to find ways to function without Britain anymore. Just a little example of the colonies changing, Americanizng, so we start out with a united group of puritans with a certain ideal of self sufficiency in traditionalism. But inedible they are going to transform. they are going to produce more surplus, they are going to trade with the outside world, basically they are modernizing. they are leaving their traditional self sefinicant of systems of lifestyles behind and moving more towards mercantil capitalism. As they transform economically religiously that is going to create conflict in dept. For example, originally they all had to live very close to each other in the same town, but now they can move out to where their farms are to make more of a living. So denim-fragments are splitting instead of being united they are separated in different competing communities. Virtual representation doesn't work anymore and they have to advantage it in favor of American representation. Ultimately, as the colonists develop actual representation within the colonies, they are going to come to the conclusion that they can't live under English virtual representation anymore. It was another contribution factor for the fight for independence from England.

The Charles Rivers Bridge Case was a Supreme Court Case, which is an example of the exercise of negative liberalism that was the Jacksonian Economic Approach. For the most part they wanted the government to stay out of economic affairs. But, they were acceptance sometimes government would intervene to protect the common people from business abuse. The Court struck down the monopoly enjoyed by that private company, the Charles River Bridge Company. Strucking down that monopoly allowed the government to build a new free public bridge. The government got involved with the economy in a negative way, they are getting rid of an obstacle to economic progress. They want economic process to occur better in a way for the republic, but necceryary private interest for some business owners.

Like a lot of wars that happened in History, The Civil War had numerous just coming from pitty fights to major issues. So the South with their abundance of cotton and slave labor by definition you had extremely unequal income distribution. Not just the slaves having no income but also the common white folk are just living off the land. Very unequal income distribution few people spending their money on the economy and causing economic progress. Overwhelmingly rural, not much urbanization in local industry.

You have the elite having control of everything and no economic growth. Because of the extreme messed up income there wasn't much investment in education. The elite who had the money bought private education leaving the more uneducated group out in the cold with poor education. The western economy, which was the old west, there we had farmers but they were family farmers and they were growing for surplus. So by definition, they had more equal income distribution, people are actually participating in market places causing economic growth. Bringing up another part of the Civil War and what affected it was the Whig Party. Which formed an opposition to the Jacksonian Democratic Party, they represented the cosmopolitan , they wanted to return back to the federalist roots. They are in favor of an active government, especially in economic matters. 

The whigs are described as supporting positive liberalism. Positive active governmental role to promote economic growth and they claim the benefits towards everybody. Where as the democrats describe their economic position as native liberalism. Obviously they wanted the economy to grow, but they dont think its the role of government to promote that growth by engaging in activities like the tariffs of national banks. They think that benefits the rich, doesn't trickle down to everybody else. But the Jackson democrats did argue sometimes that it would benefit the government's intermediate economy negative or regulatory way. So we got a court case to illustrate the exercise of negative liberalism “The Charles River Bridge Case”. So this case was handed down in 1837, so that would be after the “Tender of John Marshall”. New chief justice provides over this decision, his name Roger B Taney. This case involves a river in Massachusetts, Charles River and a bridge, decades before this case the state of Massachusetts granted a charter to a private company to build a bridge across that river. This company created a “Toll Bridge” which for years this bridge company as an effective monopoly over people who wanted to cross the river. But this is the only option for miles in any direction. 

Eventually the people of Massachuttes get annoyed with the bridge and always having to pay this toll to use it. In response to public opinion, the state decides to build a second free and public bridge. The company that builds this second bridge gets hired and paid by the state but it would be governed owned and operated. And so it would be free to the public. But the opposite of the first bridge sues to prevent the second bridge from being built. First, they claim that their charter gave them the right to build their bridge in the first place. Their charter their claiming was essentially a contract and they point to the contract clause of the constitution. And claim that if the state builds this second bridge it will violate their constitutional rights protected under the common clause of the constitution. Even though they are a corporation their claiming constitutional protection. And their argument is that idf the second bridge is built, it will violate their contract, because that contract implied that they would have a monopoly on travel across the river in perpetuity. The second bridge will violate the contract, deprive them of their livelihood. 

The determining factor behind the government's involvement in the problem is the government needs to be motivated by protecting the private interests of a company. Might be similar to modern day toll road or highway. We have changed from drive the roads that bend and winded with the earth, but now we have roads that cut through it saving on time and money from gas prices. Not only that you no longer have to stop and go through all the small towns but also the crazy amount of intersections and slow speed limits. Back to the suing of the bridge the company could have used the argument that if they other bridge was built, the small cities would be overlooked and be out of business from the lack of travelers. Deprived of their livelihood, violate their implied contract. The government basically told them “too bad for you” the public would be better served with this new free bridge. That's the price of progress. To be honest, we actually put them out of business by giving the public a new transportation. If they wanted to stay in business they just have to adapt. Trickle down economics, we benefit the rich, everybody would eventually be affected. They would have been against modern day of negative liberalism. Examples are long work weeks or minimum wage. Government shouldnt force business to pay workers or not. Let the free market determine that. Plus, too much money to the poor, would be a bad idea, they would spend unwisely. 

A parent doesn't give a kid a whole month's allowance in one setting because they would spend it all in one sitting. That's kind of the Whigs logic, the society is the family and the economy is the common people need that guidance for their own good. Whigs are viewed that the government needs to influence moral giudice upon the people. The shift from equality to more quantity focuses on the effect of worker relationships. For example, how workers act traditionally to modern era. Worker interactions traditionally. There was not a close connection with the workers and their boss. It would be more face to face than screen to screen of what we have now. So the modern era was more impersonal and nonpersonal. Because so many modern Americans work for a corporation. The executive is running the company miles away in another state controlling what goes on in their workplace. Now some workplaces have managers who would get to know their employees better on a personal level to feel more of a connection to them and by showing appreciation. Its mainly about making the workers more productive and profitable. But it's not common for the boss to have personal relationships with the workers because some businesses have policies against that called anti fraternization policies. 

It was not professional and it would get in the way of protiviti of the workers. If the manager is dating one of the workers that would create favoritism and get the way of protiviti. Not long ago, workers could work their way up to management just through experience. It's basically required before anyone can be put in a management position that they have to have a college degree.the manager's job is to manage people not to be one of the workers. Now with the workers and how they get along traditionally, they could of gone through practice sift together and have known each other for years and might be literally family. and again they are working together rather than competing against each other. Social work environment among the employees. The skilled workers in the traditional era had more control because they have more skills.they could demand that they could be allowed to socialize with their coworkers while they work. Now I think the bosses would not be in favor of that, but they kind of had to keep the workers happy and give them what they wanted. In these earlier traditional workshops there were obligations that the boss was expected to fulfill. For example, in the afternoon when most of the work is already done, the boss was expected to have a wagon delivered to the alley behind the workshop. 

It had a keg of beer on it for the workers to hangout and drink as they finished up the work day. That is a social work environment. If your boss did that for you now, he would probably be arrested and fired from his job and released of all the end of the business. Its unprofessional. If alcohol was the most commonly used drug in the traditional work era, the modern day drug would be any sort of smoking drugs or anything that could keep the worker from working. It's really a whole manipulation of the boss to keep control of their employers. We can describe worker relationships as just another way to get more work out of the employee to speed up and advance in their investment. The entire national economy and culture comes from heterogeneous. Hetro meaning other party or another. In the traditional era, didn't workers do a variety of different tasks each and every day. Or in another terms standardization. Standardization is a major aspect of modern industrialization. The traditional era. It wasn't just work, it was also the entire american economy that were regional differences. 

The southern workforce, what people did for a living down south would have been different than what people did in the northeast which was different than what people did out west. Today we live in a national integrated economy. There's no vast economic differences between terms of work in different regions of the country. You could go anywhere in the country and work at the same restaurant you work at where you previously lived and be automatically hired on the spot. There were regional differences in the traditional era in terms of people and how they acted and thought and interacted. People down in different regions of the country, not only did they work in different industries but different accents. Different cultures, dressed differently, different styles in different parts of the country. Today there's a lot more economic standardization.