Turning points in the making of the US as a nation.

[Dartagnan]

.

[conon394]

I have a question - your title includes the word nation ("Turning points in the making of the US as a nation") which is a bit different than the first question you ask ("Doing a paper on whether or not the Emancipation Proclamation was a turning point in US history and need to compare with others").

I'd have to say my opinion would be it is overrated as a turning point. the critical turning point was in reality Antiitum (in the short run) - the CSA could sustain an offensive to force negotiation even in the theater where it had its best army, leaders and equipment and best chance to achieve a victory of diplomatic import - near the Capital of the Union. In the long run the proclamation was more or less pointless - since it mattered not at all if the Union did not win which shows to me EP more or less did nothing.If it had called for uprisings John Brown style/Haiti style etc now that would have been intresting (and also would have made Palmerston a lot more likely to push for UK intervention).

The thing is if the Union won militarily and conquered the south there was little doubt slavery would be eliminated - so the EP seems sorta pointless in the wider view. I reiterate it did not fend off European intervention - the military state of play did that - the fear that Lincoln was actually looking to provoke mass slave revolts actually made intervention by the UK more likely.

In particular I don't see it as having much to do with understanding the United states as a 'Nation'. The the fact the Union did not accept the CSA attempt to leave represents a far more fundamental step toward that than the EP. Until the Union actively moved to use force to compel the CSA states I think it would be hard to say the United States was in general a nation. I do think that understanding was not as minor as often claimed or that the issue of state sovereignty is also so clear cut (but ask Hanny he will elaborate quite a different view). All in all however its hard to deny that there was a significant 'Southern Nationalism' - distinct form the Unites States until the ACW settled the issue (to some extent until the failure of reconstruction and something of a repudiation in general of the Union's hard war stance) I don't think you can really speak about a nation of the United States.

So I don't think you can elevate the EP but ignore the ACW in it entirety.

But how about adopting the Current US constitution since until than the "USA" was very much simply a loose confederacy of States. Without the 1789 State of affairs teh North and South might have developed off into quite distinct counties and teh pace of Westward expansion considrably retarded.

[Dartagnan]

The exact title I've been given is 'In considering the process of change in the making of the US as a nation how far can the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation be seen as a key turning point?'

Personally, I wouldn't have gone for the EP either, its severely overrated. Socially, it didn't change anything, slavery would have ended soon after, and maybe even on better terms. I would however stress its importance that in a reasonably hostile congress, Lincoln circumvented their opinion. In addition, it was successful in 'purging' the republican party of any remaining anti-abolitionists and winning over the support of more sympathetic democrats (most of whom held seats in important northern areas).

Can anything be said of the stock market crash?

I get the impression that the stock market was unavoidable, and even if it didn't happen, would the nation have wound up any different?

One thing I found strange about US history is the lack of socialism. At the turn of the century the US was a heavily industrialised nation based largely on an urban population. With popular books such as the jungle even the middle classes cared for the massive social gaps, from what I've read of this book, and various other case studies, the plight of the American working class was worse than that of the Russian peasants. I can't seem to understand why I haven't heard of any socialist movements in the US at this time. If there was an action that was successful in preventing socialism, that would make easy writing.

[Mig el Pig]

The refusal of King George III to accept the petition of the (mainly english) colonists on 1 september 1775.
Since the English had the right to turn in petitions it could be considered that the King did not accept them as Englishmen.

But it's explained better here

From http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...ranch-petition

Richard Penn and Arthur Lee, representing the Continental Congress, present the so-called Olive Branch Petition to the Earl of Dartmouth on this day in 1775. Britain’s King George III, however, refused to receive the petition, which, written by John Dickinson, appealed directly to the king and expressed hope for reconciliation between the colonies and Great Britain.

Dickinson, who hoped desperately to avoid a final break with Britain, phrased colonial opposition to British policy this way: "Your Majesty's Ministers, persevering in their measures, and proceeding to open hostilities for enforcing them, have compelled us to arm in our own defence, and have engaged us in a controversy so peculiarly abhorrent to the affections of your still faithful Colonists, that when we consider whom we must oppose in this contest, and if it continues, what may be the consequences, our own particular misfortunes are accounted by us only as parts of our distress."

By phrasing their discontent this way, Congress attempted to notify the king that American colonists were unhappy with ministerial policy, not his own. They then concluded their plea with a final statement of fidelity to the crown: "That your Majesty may enjoy long and prosperous reign, and that your descendants may govern your Dominions with honour to themselves and happiness to their subjects, is our sincere prayer."

By July 1776, though, the Declaration of Independence proclaimed something very different: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." In fact, Congress insisted that Thomas Jefferson remove any language from the declaration that implicated the people of Great Britain or their elected representatives in Parliament. The fundamental grounds upon which Americans were taking up arms had shifted. The militia that had fired upon Redcoats at Lexington and Concord in April 1775 had been angry with Parliament, not the king, who they still trusted to desire only good for all of his subjects around the globe. This belief changed after Congress learned that King George refused to so much as receive the Olive Branch Petition.

Americans had hoped that Parliament had curtailed colonial rights without the king’s full knowledge, and that the petition would cause him to come to his subjects’ defense. When George III refused to read the petition, many Americans realized that Parliament was acting with royal knowledge and support. Americans’ patriotic rage was further intensified by the January 1776 publication by English-born radical Thomas Paine of Common Sense, an influential pamphlet that attacked the monarchy, which Paine claimed had allowed "crowned ruffians" to "impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears."

[conon394]

'In considering the process of change in the making of the US as a nation how far can the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation be seen as a key turning point?'

Wow what bad option since the only realistic answer is more not at all in any form.

The ideal of the US as a nation vs. a confederacy of sovereign states was in something of a gray from day one – but that day started in 1789 and with a Union victory became a reality not just debate point.

I simply don’t see the EP figuring at in that context – by the opening of the Civil war the South had a significant regional identity and the ideal of State sovereignty vs. a sovereignty of the People of the whole United States had come to a head.

Either the Union would win and the US would be a nation or presumably the Union would not win leaving what would likely become a unitary Union North and a confederacy of independent states in the South. As a piece of Union war politics the EP enabled the end (of Union Victory) but likely less so than say the rise of Grant, the effeteness of the Union staving off European intervention, or just mostly successfully implementing the draft and keeping the CSA more or less on the defensive. The turning point being the Union victory and overall the EP was not the main reason for that.

Can anything be said of the stock market crash?

Which one?

would the nation have wound up any different?

I am still little unclear here - you are using nation isn something of a loose fashion.

Is the point to follow the arc of seeing the USA as a nation and the corresponding understanding that the states stopped being Sovereign in 1789 - ie when did the USA stop for practical purposes be an union of independent states in any meaning point of argument. ''

or

Are you more interested in just a more loose understanding of turning points in the country's history and using nation synonymously?

[Londinium]

The War of 1812-15 was quite important in the early history of the United States, it helped bring the states together and strengthen the central government in it's ongoing move towards gaining more power. It also helped further develop the concept of being American, as opposed to Virginian or New Yorkers or Marylanders. New England nearly seceeded as a result of the war but the federal government managed to keep them in place and after the war, when America had stood up to the world's super power and came away unscathed, there was a great boost to pride and interest in 'Americanness'. Of course we know the British treated the war as a sideshow never really contributed many resources to it and were fighting Napoleon for most of the war but the Americans didn't see it this way. The Battle of New Orleans, which was essentially a ineptly led bungled British attack was spun into an amazing victory by Andrew Jackson and helped create another rallying point for the nascent American nationality, ranking amongst the Revolutionary War victories.

New Orleans is important in another way though, namely that if the British had won the battle (which they may have had it not been so ineptly led) they planned on either retaining the Louisana purchase for themselves or handing it back to the Spanish, which would have fundamentally changed the growth of the nascent USA.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Doing a paper on whether or not the Emancipation Proclamation was a turning point in US history and need to compare with others.

So far I have:

*The great rapprochement - complete turnaround in anglo/us relations, practically decided the fate of the 20th century.

*Emancipation - led to official 13th + 14th amendments, destroyed southern economy, provided cheap black labour for industrializing north and would lead to other social reforms for women, chinese etc. Limited by Jim Crow laws however.

*Railroads - Linked East with West, and also provided effective settling on the great plains, effectively making the US one whole nation, massive rise in immigration led to massive population and industrialisation as well as huge economic consequences. Can also be argued that this 'frontier spirit' and manifest destiny is what led to the creation of the 'american identity'.

Is there anything else worth note, I'm looking for maybe two or three more. I don't want anything obvious like declaration of independence or civil war etc....
Note, I am not a US national, and have only just recently touched on US history, only knowing so far about the course of the Civil war, revolution and international role in the 20th century, I am not very well acquainted with internal politics in the 19th century or early 20th as well as knowing very little about American society before 1950s. Are there any other important political documents that I may have overlooked?

Would the Johnson Impeachment make a good point for discussion?

Thanks.

The thing to compare the Emancipation Proclaimation to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under Lyndon Johnson. This made segregation illegal...in schools, in the workforce, as well as housing.

In my mind it's probably what your teacher/professor would be looking for.

The time of the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson administrations is sometimes called "The Second Reconstruction" as the original Reconstruction after the Civil War was a failure for the most part. The first President Johnson having a key role in this.

[conon394]

New England nearly seceeded as a result of the war

Hardly - outside of Jeffersonian paranoia about new England and the Federalists.

[removeduser_052420]

Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society.

[Dartagnan]

I thought that Johnson's great society was never actually able to happen due to escalated war spending and global oil shortages?

Regarding L.B.J, why is it that being dragged into such an inconvenient war and the first to actually remove social apartheid, he is often seen as one of the worst presidents in history?

I've decided to go for 2 new points;

Sinking of the Maine -leading the US into the Spanish-American war, creating the american 'empire' and finally ending American isolationism.
I understand that there are conspiracy theories regarding the actual sinking of the Maine (e.g was it a US run false-flag operation?), but how likely is it that if the Maine was not sunk, the US would have gathered enough popular support to enter the war?

Espionage Act - Excused hundreds of socialist arrests in a time when Marxist ideals were becoming threateningly popular in America. From what I can see, at the turn of the century the middle and lower classes were becoming sick of the greed of capitalism and the exploitation of the working classes. In an economy that depended almost entirely on the working classes, I could see a potential socialist uprising to mirror that of Russia's in a few years time. Obviously, this cannot be proven, but its just one of those 'what ifs'. What do you think?

[Boyar Son]

*Emancipation - led to official 13th + 14th amendments, destroyed southern economy

Thanks.

friggin disgusting. it's the smug new england'ers that blame the south for being so backwards but they ignore it was the north, (besides the abolition of slavery finally) that continued the destruction of the south. the rebuilding was such a horrible event and northerners preyed on the now poor southerners buying expensive valuable at a tiny fraction of the price. rich educated aristocracy gone too. imagine if the carpetbaggers weren't such s and reconstruction actually did what it was supposed to without any problems. the south would be as prestigious as it was before.

and they wonder why much of it is still angry. not up until now has the south start industrializing at a much higher rate. like Tennessee.

[conon394]

friggin disgusting. it's the smug new england'ers that blame the south for being so backwards but they ignore it was the north, (besides the abolition of slavery finally) that continued the destruction of the south. the rebuilding was such a horrible event and northerners preyed on the now poor southerners

Perhaps turn about is fair play

I don't recall that the South was that upset about starting a war (1812) they could not win or even fight but resulted in the loss to New England of is merchant marine and carrying trade... the real issue is New England should have been allowed to consider 3/5th oft its ships as people for purposes of Congress at least than the US would have a real army and navy to fight Madison's war with.

[Boyar Son]

Perhaps turn about is fair play

I don't recall that the South was that upset about starting a war (1812) they could not win or even fight but resulted in the loss to New England of is merchant marine and carrying trade... the real issue is New England should have been allowed to consider 3/5th oft its ships as people for purposes of Congress at least than the US would have a real army and navy to fight Madison's war with.

Fair play right. besides it was the british using Americans sailors, i guess new england turning on their own kind because they were killed to hell and pushed around by a foreign enemy..hmm, must be fair. but that's insinuating that was the mindset of the civil war era north, and not just new england today.

Well may new england be happy for what they did, and someday join canada like they always wanted to. since 2003 right.

[antaeus]

i think the louisiana purchase, and the mexican war are more important than people often give credit for... as is the florida fiasco and the seminole wars.

[RuleBritannia]

No matter how much I disagree about the Revolution being justified, and no matter how much I hate it, the turning point was no doubt France, Spain, and Netherlands's allying with the American Rebels. They, along with others, provided the training and equipment the Continentals had seriously been lacking, and though still they were no match for the British, they had 3 major powers fighting Britain on fronts across the world, which eventually forced Britain to abandon the war effort in the colonies (which, up until France joined first, was going quite well apart from Saratoga) to strengthen their other fronts.

Basically, without France, Spain, and the Netherlands, America wouldn't have - and they definately couldn't have - won the Revolution.

[Boyar Son]

No matter how much I disagree about the Revolution being justified, and no matter how much I hate it, the turning point was no doubt France, Spain, and Netherlands's allying with the American Rebels. They, along with others, provided the training and equipment the Continentals had seriously been lacking, and though still they were no match for the British, they had 3 major powers fighting Britain on fronts across the world, which eventually forced Britain to abandon the war effort in the colonies (which, up until France joined first, was going quite well apart from Saratoga) to strengthen their other fronts.

Basically, without France, Spain, and the Netherlands, America wouldn't have - and they definately couldn't have - won the Revolution.

He wants turning points about America.

He looks interested in events that have nothing to do with war.

What he doesn't want is a sad post about about how America wasn't going to win the revolution w/out France, serving as an outlet for your frustration about losing the war.