Black Hawk War Summary

A treaty between William Henry Harrison and two Sauk Indians was believed to be an opening for the Americans into all Sauk lands for only $2500. The Sauk chiefs back in Illinois and Wisconsin said that the two Sauks involved in the treaty did not have the authority to speak for the nation, so it was null. Due to the chiefs reasoning, the Indians continued to live where they had since the 1750's.
Twenty-five years later, settlers started flocking to the region of Rock River because the lead industry was very profitable. They were taking over the Sauk land, but the Indians agreed to a deal with the government: If they moved across the Mississippi, the government would supply them with enough corn to last the winter. The government did not keep their end of the deal, so about 1200 Sauk returned to the other side of the river. Lead by Black Hawk, they hoped to regain their land and harvest their corn.
Black Hawk believed he could get help from his neighbors and the British, but he was wrong. The U.S. troops and militia were out to get the Sauks. It came at the Battle of Stillman's Run in May of 1832. A few men were sent out under a white flag to surrender; however, to this the Americans paid no attention to. The Indian barely escaped.
The warriors kept trying to make their way back across the Mississippi throughout the summer of 1832. During this time many very young and elderly Indians died of hunger, thirst, and exhaustion. On August 2, the Indians were caught and held up a white flag again, but the Americans refused to recognize this. The Sauks tried to retreat by swimming across the river, but the Americans shot at them, making the Mississippi a bloody red. Many of the people who made it across were killed by Sioux Warriors. Little groups that made it, hid in the wilderness or in the hunting camps of their old neighbors. Black Hawk surrendered himself at Fort Crawford. Only about 150 Sauks survived out of the 1200 who originally came to get their land back.

Newsweek Articles

How did this election connect with Jackson?
During Andrew Jackson's presidency he promoted the inclusion of all people...if you were a white male. Although Jackson thought slavery was okay, the election of other presidents has stopped slavery. The connection of this election with Jackson is that we are ready to include. Women and blacks have come very far, and people are accepting that they can lead the nation.

Why was Jackson a change agent?
Andrew Jackson was the first presidential nominee to put the citizens at the center of politics. Jackson set a standard for all presidents after him by listening to the voices of those who were thought of as the "little people". If Jackson had not put his foot down and said aloud that we would not fight eachother within our own country, the United States might not even be here because there would have been so much of a difference between the North and South that we would not be able to recooperate. Jackson changed our country for the better by setting a good example for all those who follow in his footsteps.

Electoral College Should Go

I agree with Matthew Spearman, in that the direct popular vote should be how the president is elected. We should have a pure democracy so that when we vote, it will be counted towards the person we want to be in office, as opposed to voting for the people who will represent your vote in your state. People would feel that they are actually making a difference in voting because their vote would be directly affecting the person elected so more people would. As witnesses to the crisis in 2000, I am sure none of us would want to see the failure of the electoral college again. Using the electoral college is a 200 year old process that needs to be adapted to fit the wants and needs of us-the United States citizens.

Federalist No. 10

1. What is a faction? A number of citizens who are united and motivated by some common impulse of passion or interest, undesirable to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent interests of the community.
Why are factions a problem in government? Usually the factions are going against what the government has done or the laws they have made. The factions cause trouble for government in a society.
2. What are the two methods for curing the mischiefs of faction? Removing its causes and by controlling its effects.
What are the two methods for removing the causes of faction? Destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence and by giving to every citizen the same opinions, same passions, and same interests.
3. What does Madison argue that the causes of faction cannot be removed? Wishing to remove liberty is not possible and without it, faction instantly expires. It would be foolish to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction. And for the second, as ling as the reason of man continues to be imperfect, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
4. Why does pure democracy have no cure for the mischiefs of faction? A pure democracy, as in a society made up of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can not have a cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion will almost always be agreed on by a majority of the group from the communication from the government.
Is Madison arguing against a system of majority rule? He thinks it can be a bad thing, but he agrees with it somewhat.
Why or why not? He agrees with it because it is in the interest of the public good and the rights of the citizens. He recommends that we adopt this way of government to mankind.
5. To what extent will enlightened leadership solve the problems of factions? According to Madison, one leader can't bring change to an entire state, let alone a country. They may be able to light a fire within the souls of the people near them, but it can't be so far dispersed that it will bring huge change.
Why does Madison have more trust in the leaders than the people? The leaders know what they want, while the people are looking for something to follow.
6. Why does a republic do a better job of controlling the effects of faction than a pure democracy? The Union is over the States composing it.
Why does a large republic do a better job of controlling the effects of faction than a small republic? The fewer the parties or interests, the greater chance there is for one of those groups to carry out their plan of domination. If there is a larger variety of parties or interests, it is less likely that the majority of them will have the same cause to diminish the rights of other citizens.


I agree with almost everything that Madison said in The Federalist No. 10. He was a very wise man, and ahead of his times. He knew they needed to break away from faction because it would eventually damage the new nation.

Were the Founding Fathers Democratic Reformers?

According to Zinn, the Founding Fathers were not democratic reformers. I agree with that opinion. The fifty-five men who contributed to the Constitution were mostly men of wealth and conservative minded. Slaves, indentured servant, women, and men without property were not represented in the Constitution. The Constitution was "coincidentally" very beneficial to the Founding Fathers. They favored a strong central government and wanted to make barriers in the Constitution as strong as they could to protect themselves against the people lower in social standards than them. The Convention was unanimous in believing that democratic government was to be favored and fought. What i have read makes me believe that the Founding Fathers were not democratic reformers.

Slavery--First Clip

In 1619, the Dutch brought nineteen Africans to Virginia. They had converted to Christianity, and under English Law, that means that they could not be enslaved. There were, however, indentured servants. According to historians, and what I learned from this clip, there was not a guarantee that slavery would come to be in America, it evolved. By 1650, only three percent of Virginians were African. Although, a shift was soon going to take place.
Around 1650, it was more economically safe to buy an indentured servant because of the life expectancy; it was only five years back then. In the late 1600s (1680), the colonists had built up immunity to diseases and improved their way of life, that equated to a life expectancy growth to twenty years old. If you bought a slave, you could get around twenty years of service for 1000 pounds. Plus, if the slave you bought had any children, you owned them too. While if you got an indentured servant, it would cost more.
Buying the slave would be much more profitable to the colonists. That is why, according to one theory, that indentured servitude evolved into slavery.