Respond to the following, provide evidence and support for your analysis.
What makes western expansion possible before 1800? How did Indian groups respond to expansion? How does the expansion foster regional identity? What is the role of slavery in expansion AND in regional identity?
Respond to two other postings by explaining how their analysis either supports, refutes, or challenges your perspective.
Postings DUE by Thursday October 16th.
Why did the US expand westward? The government hoped that if more people had their own property the economy would improve and less social class division would occur, and in order to get more adequate land Westward expansion had to happen. Plus, property was still a part of the basis for freedom, so if the government restricted expansion, they would be hindering freedom as well as imitating the British. The John Jay Treaty also opened up Westward expansion.
ReplyDeleteWas the US decision to expand a surprise considering its earlier policies on the continent? I certainly wasn't surprised. The colonists had been trying to expand under British rule and the restrictions on expansion were some of the main reasons colonists became aggravated with the British. Why would anything closely resembling British restrictions be enforced by the new American government, unless they had a death wish?
How did Indian groups respond to US expansion/how did US settler interact with Indian groups? Conflicts? Indian groups responded in different ways, some small groups within tribes agreed to "treaties" proposed by the Americans, without the consent of the rest of their tribe. This gave the land to the colonists. Some Indians were mobile and just didn't settle down anywhere, knowing the Americans could come and steal their land again. Obviously not all Indians would just leave peacefully, but conflicts between Americans and Indians were slightly less in number, though of course just as terrible.
Expansion fosters regional identity because when people are more spread out and dealing with different challenges, different cultures start to form within their regions. this explains our modern Southern stereotypes and Californian stereotypes, etc.
The role of slavery in expansion and regional identity is that the more slaves, AKA the more people, the less room. Expansion was needed for so many people to live comfortably. Slaves also often formed their own sort of cultures/tried to keep their traditional ones alive, and obviously their existence as slaves affects the morality of their region's identity.
Well done, Sarah! I found these responses to be well thought up, organized, and crafted. I appreciated your making note that someNative Indian chiefs had agreed to White American treties, without their tribes consent, and that many of the tribes were still mobile, and were not so directly effected by Western expansion. I had nearly forgotten this. I also enjoyed your mentioning the efforts of John Jay. Another fairly important part of theseresponses was that slaves often formed their own cultures, alsong sidethose of whites. I had not necessarily realized the importance of this such development, but now realize that slavery, and slave culture, did infact have a substantial impact on both Westward expansion, and regional identification. I was fairly impressedby your mentioning state-by-state stereotypes, and how they connect to regional identity back in the late 17, early1800s.
DeleteI couldn't formulate a valid argument, because you wrote too beautifully as usual. way to go Sara.
DeleteSara - Nicely crafted responses. On your response regarding the "surprise" about expansion, I would challenge that statement. Considering the conflicts and troubles the colonials had with the Native American populations that expanding into the unknown, wild, and uncharted territories would be a risk. In addition, considering the attitude of colonials that they had a fear of the "evils" in the wild-landscapes therefore exploring this area would be threatening. At least from another perspective. ...
ReplyDeleteEven before the revolutionary war was fought by those in the United States for freedom from Britain, the people were wanting and needing to expand. Since their arrival, the Americans had pushed native Indians out of their terriotory, moving westward, stating that the Indians didn't have claim to the land because it was undeveloped. Not only were the Americans vying with the Indians for terriory, but also the other foreign powers that bordered their lands. The Proclamation of 1763 forbade further colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, reserving the land westward for the Indians. Settlers, enraged by the proclamation, ignored it and continued to expand. Following the revolution, settlers expanded westward, believing that the right to take possession of western lands and use them was an intricate part in American freedom. New land ordinances such as the Ordinance of 1784 and the Ordinance of 1785, were established by Jefferson and Congress in an effort to control westward expansion.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I was not surprised at the decision to expand westward considering earlier policies on the continent. Once the Americans won their independedce, it was not surprising in the least that they would do all that Britain had limited them from doing, including expanding beyond the Appalachian Mountains, westward.
Though the Indians had been promised their land and rights after the revolution, many of the promises by the Americans were not kept. In their rapid scramble to expand westward and stake claim to land, the settlers disregarded the Indians forcefully taking their land, and often causing wars, disputes, and rebellions in the process.
Westward expansion was made possible by the peoples own desire to seize more land. For land ownership still held the basis of liberty and was an essential element of American freedom.
ReplyDeleteIndian groups, when faced with the expansion of America, had very little they could say to prevent it. If they resisted it would mean bloodshed and if they didn't and accepted the treaties, which some did, then they transferred their land into the hands of the federal government. In essence Indian groups did not take U.S expansion favorably. Either way Americans were encroaching on Indian lands and saw such as a threat to their sense of freedom.
Expansion fostered regional identity in the sense that the areas that were expanded into, had specific characteristics, such as ethnicity, religion, and social classes which shaped their culture. Also, these areas of expansions regional identity which was influenced by the terrain. In a mountainous area, the people would have different ways of surviving and sustaining themselves compared to a region with prairies and lakes. Thus resulting in various identities throughout different regions, which is still seen today.
Slavery's role in expansion and regional identity was primarily the growth of population, leading to the need for more land in order to spread out. With regional identity, slavery was against some peoples belief system and moral values, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison(although they were slaveholders).So there was opposition on that front. There was also the integration of African beliefs within that of the regions. Creating a sort of cultural diversity.
I agree with Ally about how slaves created a regional identity, because of "the belief system" of whether slavery is morally correct or wrong. I also agree when you say that they needed the extra space for the south to include the slaves in their plantations. The only thing I would have added is maybe how the two economies differed so much as a direct influence of slavery and the profiting of the South from slavery. Anyways I do agree with what you have to say wth slavery and how it was the main cause of differing regional identities.
DeleteThis is very well put together and I agree with her concepts. I would have elaborated on why bloodshed would occur with the Indians due to the alliances with he British. The other opinions are all very good and I agree with them.
DeleteI agree with your thoughts on expansion's effects on regional identity. Very well put together and something I didn't think about.
DeleteI agree with Ally's opinion that slavery opposed certain people's morals, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Slavery, as an institution, provided regional identity in that it divided those who supported it's use (mainly southern farmers and plantation owners) and those who opposed the institution and promoted it's abolition (mainly northern).
ReplyDeleteAlso now remembering it from the reading, I agree with Sara's statement that "The [US] government hoped that if more people had their own property, the economy would improve and less social class division would occur." In fact, I believe it was John Adams who hoped that every member of society could acquire land, "so that the multitude may be possessed of small estates" and the United States could avoid the emergence of "fixed and unequal social classes," going along with the American concept of equality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree COMPLETELY this explains everything about expansion, because the US didn't have time to document expansion they were to busy stealing lands and conquering land they didn't own.
DeleteI knew someone would agree with me. If your off taking peoples things and breaking your promises why would you take the time to write it down.
DeleteWestward expansion was greatly wanted and greatly needed by the government and farmers. Some people in the government believed that if more people owned land that the social classes wouldn't be so extreme. Farmers wanted more land to expand their plantations. This would bring them more money and would allow them to own more slaves which was still a popular believe. This money would come from trade would be useful towards the economy. Also there was a huge population growth in America so more land was needed.The Indians who originally lived in this land were split about what they should do. An indian named Handsome Lake preached that indians would regain their rights without challenging the whites. However, Indians like Tecumseh wanted all of the different tribes that were left to unite and fight the whites. Some Indians whose power was long gone assimilated into the American society. No matter what the Indians did though Americans still pushed westward to gain the land.
ReplyDeleteI was not surprised by the westward expansion. Land was a very important asset then and to the americans the Indians didn't even own it so why wouldn't they take empty land that would bring them profit.
Slaves were an important part of westward expansion because they were part of the population and took up space. Also more slaves ment one could have a bigger plantation and make more money, however you would need more land for all these slaves to work. Also, slaves were more popular in the south and they had bigger plantations than the north. So because of the slaves the north and the south developed their own regional identities based on where they lived.
Brianna,
DeleteYour responses were well formed, ad met the criteria well. Your mentioning the importance of western expansion was something tha I would not have fully considered, but it does support your claims well. To deliberate on that a bit further, I would also mention that, although most leaders, and individuals deemed Native Americans unfit for their modern society, different people had different views on what the native populations fate should be. For instance, Jefferson was a strong advocate of white Americans buying land from Natives, however, he believed in native integration, not on the extermination of them completely, as others did. I tough that the inclusion of specific Native leaders was a great asset to your responses. The only aspect of Western expansion that I feel is missing, is how all of these acts, motives, and cultural developments shape regional identity. I believe this subject is deliberated upon in your commentary of slavery's role in Western expansion, but I cant quite decipher whether or not this has been done earlier on in your response. Overall, nice job.
Brianna, I agree with you that having more land would boost the American economy. I think your example of Handsome Lake and Tecumseh provided support to the idea that the Indians had a mixed response.
DeleteWestward expansion was made possible before 1800 because it was believed by the people that the economic well being of America laid in the western region. This was believed because there was much land and with land there is the great possibility of revenue from land sales and farming. Another motivator to expand was the idea that the unregulated settlement in the Indian territories would cause endless conflicts with the Indians. Although they thought westward expansion would benefit their relationship with the Indians it only prolonged their unhealthy relationship. The Indians response was mixed because some wanted treaties and some wanted to rebel. Overall the Indians were upset that the settlers were giving no consideration to the fact that Indians had their own land titles in the western land already. The settlers were taking land without the Indians consent and this caused Indians to want to rebel or make treaties.
ReplyDeleteExpansion fosters regional identity by seperating those who have opposing opinions on issues such as slavery. There is more room for people to spread out and live in a region with other people who share their beliefs. An example of this would be the northern and southern territory at the time. The north was more affiliated with being against slavery and the south was more affiliated with being supportive of the idea of slavery.
Slavery's main role in the expansion was the need for more land to hold more slaves because the slave population was growing quickly. Slavery's role in regional identity was it caused seperation between the two ideas of slavery. Those who were for slavery because of the economical benefits and those who opposed it due to the lack of morality it involved.
I agree with what Shyanna says regarding the Indian's options with the colonies encroaching on their land. I agree that the indian's did have mixed feelings but ultimately had to fight because there were really no other theisable options for them. However, I disagree with the fact they wanted to make treaties, they did before the revolution but once when the revolution was over they knew all treaties they made or will make will be disregarded or not fully acknowledged by the colonies. The Indians knew this from previous experiences and and that they didn't fit the "white freedom" standards so their freedom was disregarded.
DeleteShyanna, I do like your argument that expansion to Indian territories does just create more unwanted conflict between the Indians and the United States. I also agree that slavery was very important in aspects such as regional identity and expansion along with the addition that slavery began to divide the northern and southern parts of the country.
DeleteI agree that where there was land there was economic prosperity, but there was also the lingering concept of liberty being qualified through landowning which could be used to create a stronger argument. I really like your interpretation of regional identity the only thing that I think would make this even more fabulous would be a rad more elaboration on economical benefits.
DeleteShyanna, I agree with what you said but I don't understand how America thought that westward expansion would benefit their relationship with the indians. Could someone explain?
DeleteWestern expansion was made possible by America winning it's war for independence, without winning that war they would have still been bound by treaties made by the British, limiting expansion. For example, the proclamation of 1763 became void allowing the colonies to advance into land west of the Appalachians.
ReplyDeleteIndian groups responded poorly they rebelled like Pontiac's rebellion where they fought back the colonies encroaching on their land. They basically had 2 choices, assimilate into colonial life, which was unfair and too hard for them to abandon their customs, or move out, which they didn't want to do either so they attacked and faught for their lands and ultimately lost every time.
Regional identities came forth because of the opening of land, it made each part of the newly formed United States different because of geographical features and social norms in each area. This brought about the issue of slavery which the North found unacceptable but the South needed it for their economy. Slavery plays the biggest role in fostering regional identities because it brings about conflicting interests of different area of the U.S.
I agree that slavery was a major cause of the regional diversity in the United States at the time, but what are the conflicting interests and what are the different areas or regions?
DeleteI disagree with the implication that all Indians were completely against assimilation, there were some Indians who were actually willing to make the treaties, though most of the time it was only a select few who would agree to treaties behind their tribe's back.
DeleteI agree with the majority of this, the Indians did respond very poorly. However I think some of the Indians obediently made treaties due to their known alliances to the British putting them on bad grounds with the States. The other points Alex makes I can relate to and I agree with.
DeleteWestward expansion in the United States became possible in the 1800s because the demand for land was high. At this time owning land was still the foundation for freedom and liberty. Owning land gave a parson a better social status so land was almost a necessity of life. So as the population of the United States kept increasing the demand for land did too and resulted in the westward expansion of the United States.
ReplyDeleteIndian groups didn’t have very many places to turn when the settlers started moving south. The Cherokee tribe tried to take legal actions against Georgia because the state was making laws the restricted the tribes freedoms on tribal land. But despite their efforts most tribes were eventually forced to move farther westward. Some tried giving up their land to the government, but refused to leave their ancestral land until they had no choice but to leave.
As the settlers moved farther and farther west cultures began to change and evolve and divide the south from the north. Slavery also decreased as settlers moved west. Slavery began to be looked at as immoral and unjust and resulted in less people buying slaves. Although the south still had a large slave population, the north didn’t every fully adopt the slave industry. Yes people had slaves, but the population of slaves was much smaller and resulted in the division between the north and south. Ethnicity, religion, social status, and political status also played a role in regional diversity.
The role of slavery in the expansion was to sustain the economy. They worked on large plantations in the south and farmed a lot of the products sold and traded in the United States at the time. The larger population and support of slavery in the south divided the south from the north. The north began to oppose slavery and despite the efforts of the north the south refused to abolish slavery. This disagreement became the difference between the north and south and eventually resulted in the Civil War.
Your comments about the Cherokee and Georgia conflict provide wonderful evidence for your point. I may disagree with your statement regarding slavery and that it was starting to dwindle number-wise; I could be wrong but I was under the impression that slavery was increasing and that is one of the reasons more land was needed. Can someone clarify?
DeleteSam, I agree with your statements on westward expansion regarding that land was a form of social status along with your statements on Indian groups. However as Sarah has pointed out in her comment, the time period between the decline of slavery and westward expansion does feel as though it requires clarification.
DeleteYour right it wasn't dwindling number wise in te country. I was referring to the settlers who moved west. They took less slaves with them because traveling is harder when you have more mouths to feed. Settlers were also spending most of their money on land and had little or no money to buy slaves.
DeleteSam, I agree with your overall concepts for example the correlation between population and expansion. However, I think clarification is needed for the statement "land was almost a necessity for life". And could you explain your reply or elaborate a bit.
DeleteBasically before the United States gained independence they we hindered by laws that prevented westward expansion. So the United States occupied all the land they could. But as the population increased the amount of available land decreased. Larger plots of land was needed for farming and because of the large plantations in the south there was more farm land than cities. So instea of new settlers paying heavy prices for tiny bits of land they began to move west. But travelin was expensive at the time. They had to take horses or walk. This were the only forms of transportation at the time and that made traveling harder an take a lot longer. If they took horsesthen they would not only have to feed themselves but also their horses. If they decided to bring slaves then that would also be another mouth to feed. After traveling expenses they would need money to buy the land and more food and stuff to either plant food or build a house. So not taking slaves would help them save money and buy more supplies.
DeleteI agree with your argument that slavery had to sustain the economy; however, isn't that statement contradict with your later statement that slavery began to dwindle down? if that was the case, then how could it sustain an even larger country?
DeleteNo because slavery was still huge in the southern states. The huge plantations were a lot of the economy and settlers moving south didn't effect the plantations until the civil war.
DeleteWhat makes western expansion possible before 1800? The newly independent country deeply desired more land for their residents so they may own property just as many other people in the United States. Having more land meant having more rights and in this time of freedom and liberty, these rights were very important.
ReplyDeleteHow did Indian groups respond to expansion? Not all Indian groups reacted to westward expansion in similar ways. Many groups signed a form of treaty with the Americans in some sort of exchange but many didn't exactly jump for joy at having their land taken from them weather they agreed or not which lead to many of the Indians to give up their land to the federal government, doing so because it was a way to avoid bloodshed.
How does the expansion foster regional identity? Expansion opened a broader form of regional identity to the United States; the more people began to separate and expand, the more diverse the country became which is what creates their regional identity over time.
What is the role of slavery in expansion and in regional identity? Slavery played a key role in population of the United States and as settlers expand westward as did their slaves, making them a large part of the regional identity. Even though they were slaves, they still lived and were individuals who make up the country, affecting the regional identity of American and the ideas of expansion.
I agree that the Indians reacted in different ways. The Indians had no choice but to give up their land. They wanted to avoid a any bloodshed because they knew from past experiences that fighting the government didn't work. So eventually the only option thy had left was to pack up and leave their land.
DeleteTesla, I agree with your statements however I feel that you should have included that some Indians did want bloodshed and that what they got. Sometimes it was there own blood being spilled.
DeleteI agree with your thoughts about Indian's reactions towards expansion. None of them wanted to loose their land, but the alternative of war was much worse.
DeleteThe ability for the US to expand was created by a growing population. Toward the end of the 1700's the population of major cities was growing very fast. Also one of the main reasons we split from England was because of the Proclamation of 1763. Now that we are an independent nation that is growing it was only logical to expand and fulfill what we wanted to do.
ReplyDeleteThe Indians were not happy with the expansion. The land was dedicated to them but now we have laws that allowed us to claim their land. The regional identity was fostered by the creating new states that had their own state laws and were acting independent from other nation.
Slavery did not get better as we expanded. The states that used slave labor the most were able to purchase more land to increase plantations obtaining more slaves and making them work more. Although to regional identity there is some good change. Some states that did not like the notion of slavery were able to eradicate it and grow without them becoming completely independent of slavery.
I agree with what Reece said. If we did not expand then wouldn't we be hypocrites? Also his opinion on Indians is good, but seems to lack depth, I think also with the expandsion came new treaties that were formed among them. This then allowed us at a later to time to strip the Indians of their citizenship and then take their land. The regional identity is very well stated and gets the point across. Although it seemed that that states we also very similar in the North and similar in the South. Reece's comment on slavery is good and I agree that slavery had its ups and downs depending on who was expanding.
DeleteI agree with you, I do believe a major reason for expanding was a growing population. I also do agree with you that the slave issue did not get better, because along with the growing population of the whites there was also a major increase in the slave population.
DeleteDid you reply to yourself? I agree with Reece's argument. Native Americans during western expansion were less than pleased that their land was being taken from them. To elaborate, many Indian tribes either avoided confrontation with the new nation or demanded a treaty.
DeleteFirst off I love how the most elaborate reply is from yourself. Second, agree with your argument especially dealing with Native Americans reactions. You have Americans really didn't have a choice in the matter.if they didn't want to cause further conflict that either had to sign a treaty with the Americans or give up their land.
DeleteThe 1st two points are well-constructed and concise, nice job. The part about slavery is incorrect though, for slavery was directly banned in the expansion areas, beginning the abandonment of slavery as an institution in the south as well as continue in the north.
DeleteWhat made western expansion possible before 1800 was the definite need for land. Because an excess of people began pouring into the United States, land was beginning to get crowded very quickly. During that time, the only way a man could be eligible to vote was to own land, (and be white, but that's beside the point) and the scarcity of land then created a need for more land. In addition, after the patriots had won the independence war again Great Britain, they viewed the land west of the Appalachian Mountains as one of the fruits of their victory.
ReplyDeleteThe Native Americans' responses to the United States' expansion onto their lands were either to not respond or to form a treaty with the new nation. To avoid deaths, the Indians had decided to partially ignore their land being taken away from them. On the contrary, in 1795, the Treaty of Greenville was signed, which initially ended the Northwest Indian War, but also opened up U.S. expansion to Ohio and Indiana.
The westward expansion fosters regional identity by creating more land for people to use. By taking land, people of different ethnicity begin inhabiting American soil and later creating a culturally diverse regional identity.
Slavery greatly affects the regional identity. Because there was an ample amount of slaves during the 18th century, black Americans made up a large number of the population, even with the 3/5 clause. The role of slavery in relation to westward expansion did not affect slavery positively. The number of slavery in southern United States had stayed relatively consistent throughout western expansion.
I agree with your argument especially the first part talking about why America was able to expand. The fact that land was a big part of being an American citizen really did open up the path expansion. Once the proclamation of 1763 was eliminated, there really was nothing stopping American expansion.
DeleteI agree with your analysis on the need for westward expansion and the fact that the growth of the population called for more landed property. Gooood job.
DeleteBut I have to challenge your opinion on the Native Americans response to expansion because the Natives responded to expansion one way or another whether it resulted in the formation of conflict or create treaties. They never ignored the situation in which their lands were being forced from their hold.
Your arguments are solid in every realm except for the 1st paragraph. I do agree that the land was needed for demand, but it isn't because of immigration, it was because the population of the United States was exponentially growing. Also, after the revolution, voting laws were changed so that even property-less men could vote, no matter what their religious affiliation. other than that your paragraph as a whole is sound, especially the conclusion of the first paragraph. Good job overall.
DeleteWhat makes western expansion possible before 1800? The growing population definitely created a need for expansion into the western frontier. Americans had always wanted to expand. Now that they had separated from Britain, they no longer had to abide by the Proclamation of 1763, which made their desires for expansion possible! This is definitely a reason for a boom in westward expansion before 1800.
ReplyDeleteNative American' response to the westward expansion was a mixed bag. Although they didn't want to loose their land, the alternative (bloodshed) was much worse. Some tried to fight back, but they were eventually pushed back off of their original land, like in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. They knew that if they had a war with the colonists, the chance of them winning would be slim to none.
Expansion plays a big role in fostering regional identity. The more people spread out and create new communities, the more cultures are going to be created. Geographic features in these new places also create new regional identities.
Slavery plays a big role in regional identity and expansion. Even though they were not considered citizens, they also moved westward along with their masters. Perhaps their biggest contribution to regional identity was the divide between the North and South with their opposing views on the abolition of slavery.
I agree with all of your statements. I liked how you used the Cherokee Nation v.Georgia example. It made your point become clearer and I totally got what you were saying. I also enjoyed that you mentioned the geographic features because it puts an image in your head.
DeleteI agree with your analysis on the slavery national indentity. I had not though of how slave would feel completely diffent if they were born in the north or south. The northern slave probably had a stronger sense of belonging since some were taught to read or write. Compare to the southern slave they were seen nothing more of free labor.
DeleteWhat made western expansion possible before 1800 was the want/need for land because of the rapidly growing population. The settlers needed more land to fulfill the needs of the people. Also, property went hand in hand with power. So, the more land one had, the more power one had. Also, the government believed that if more people owned land, the social class division would slowly diminish. It only makes sense that they would need and want to obtain more land.
ReplyDeleteDifferent Indian groups responded differently to this expansion. Some groups went with it to escape death by the colonists. Others signed treaties with the Americans.
The expansion fostered regional identity by people being divided out which would cause the creation of different cultures.
Slavery played a great role in expansion. The slave population was quite large, more so in the South than in the North. So, this required the need for more land. Also, the role of slavery in regional identity was that they attempted to keep their previous culture alive while also creating different aspects to their culture.
What makes western expansion possible before 1800? The thing that made western expansion possible was the strive of the people to have mor land. The colonies came to the new world to own land as a symbol of wealth. There were also plantation farmers who wanted more land to get a larger plantation which would in turn gain them more profit. In result what really made land expansion possible was the American Dream that land meant wealth or power so many Americans desired land.
ReplyDeleteHow did Indian groups respond to expansion? Many groups responded differently. Some were violent like the Metacom rebellion. On the other hand some tribe moved to different land. There was even some tribes that were afraid of the American because of what they had done in the past and moved from fear of what could happen.
How does the expansion foster regional identity? As the expansion continued people from other countries would come to America to own land. There was a sense of equality to the people like a melting pot were it didn't matter were you came from as long as you were white.
What is the role of slavery in expansion AND in regional identity? As land expansion was increased slaves were needed more by plantation owners. By this point in time there were generations of slaves so they had ties to the land and sense of belonging to this land.
Tess, I agree with your initial statement that the colonists came to the land because it was a symbol of wealth/power. However, I feel like there are greater motives other than the "American Dream". I do agree with the rest of your statement and I think you did a good job at presenting your ideas.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWestward expansion was made possible primarily because the regulations put in place by Britain were no longer in effect. After the revolution The proclamation of 1763 no longer prohibited the expansion of the US.
ReplyDeleteThe Indians really had no choice during this time because conflict with the Americans will lead to further deaths among Indians and Americans alike. Some tribes did try to resist the expansion but were either severely crippled or completely destroyed.
Regional identity was created by the expansion because of the different environments and cultures of the people living in them. Religion and political views also where big factors in regional identity.
Slavery had a very large impact on regional identity because it brought along the African-American culture into different regions. Without slavery, all areas west of the appellations would have developed culture strictly based on American views.
I agree with your opinion of the need for westward expansion and I liked how you brought of the natives relations with Britain and how it affected their security over their land which enabled expansion. I used that as an example in my answer also.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore the 1800's, expansion into the west was possible before the land was officially purchased, and it was actually encouraged by the American government. The land was very cheap, only $1 per acre. It offered an environment of solidarity making it appealing, which raised the demand for land. Britain promised that the land wouldn't be inhabited by the colonists, but after the revolution, they Americans were no longer British citizens, allowing colonists to disregard this fact. All of these reasons made expansion possible before the beginning of the 19th century, except the encroachment on Indian land made the natives mad. For example, Little Turtle, leader of the Miami confederacy, rebelled and was embarrassingly defeated. Although reforms were made to protect those Indians and 11 other nearby tribes, it showed the Indians as a whole had virtually no power against America (as usual) and stopped future rebellions. So, inevitably the Americans continued to move westward. The expansion and self-governing grew together, and it also embodied an "empire of liberty" making a unique regional identity. The only hitch was slavery was banned in this territory. Nonetheless, migrants still participated in slavery illegally, since there wasn't much law enforcement or people for that matter among the large plots of private land.
ReplyDeleteQ: What makes western expansion possible before 1800?
ReplyDeleteA: After the revolutionary war, Britain's alliance with the Indians disintegrated which resulted in less security over property for the Indians. With the growing number of colonists and the slaves that accompanied them, more property was needed and western expansion was the only answer to this issue. Therefore, Americans took the land of many Indians through treaties which made expansion possible.
Q:How did Indian groups respond to expansion?
A: The native Americans reaction to expansion was either passive or conflicted. The U.S. forced treaties for property with the Indians. Most Indians sided with colonies whom best suited their basic rights which eventually resulted in the rivalry of Indians.
Q: How does the expansion foster regional identity?
A: As the U.S. expanded further westward, the meeting of different cultures within communities allowed for the mixture of identities. This utilized stereotypes and more diverse communities that simulated and encouraged regional identities.
Q:What is the role of slavery in expansion AND in regional identity?
A: African Americans was one fifth of early Americas' population therefore a need to expand was the outcome of the growing number of slaves. The expansion further emphasized the need for regional identity for African American slaves or freed slaves as they needed a place to develop and reinforce their cultures and beliefs from their former country.
The goals of the American expansionistic conflicted with the needs of the Indians in the area of expansion. Army commanders who operated in the West often tried to drive the Indians off the desired lands by killing off their source of food and as well as depriving them of supplies. In the 1860's the United States government abandoned its policy of treating much of the West as large as the Indian reserve and introduced a small system that separated tribal reservations where the Indians were to be concentrated. Tribes therefore refused to be confined to these reservations, and then caused many battles. Slavery became a large in the eyes of the public. Northern states were demanding gradual emancipation of slaves. As the free society of the north and the slave society of the south spread westward, it then seemed politically expedient to maintain equality among the newer states, which helped with the growth of the western states.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. expanded westward in order to balance the growing debt by expanding farming and trade; it was also an attempt to satisfy what some American's believed their right, to obtain their own land. Also, people such as Madison and Jefferson preferred to face conflict with natives by going west rather than engage and be dependent on trade with the British.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to expand is not surprising considering each colonists' avocation for liberty, which often equated to owning land. Though this desire was present, some like Hamilton were skeptical that the benefits of heading west would out weigh the difficulties.
According to the constitution, Indians were not citizens of the U.S. Without limitations by law the people and government did't hesitate to make (force) treaties upon tribes when they wanted the native's land. Sometimes these treaties were accepted by tribes, but were often met grudgingly or with opposition that caused devastating effects on native culture, economy, and population.
Regional identity becomes more apparent as small sections of private land form into new territories and eventually states. The areas were characterized by the majority of the population, such as plantation owners or federalists or anti-federalists. They determined the social and political identity of their region.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWestern expansion by the colonists was not a shocking act, since the aquisition of land was considered a pathway to freedom, which they all strove for,despite measures taken by the british, such as the Proclamation of 1763. Also during the 1700s, both the free, and slave, population grew along with the commerce and industry within the colonies. Despite British efforts, colonists made various treaties with, or paid Native Indian tribes for more land, despite the fact that not every tribe member of these such agreements made, were compliant. In correlation with this fact, both before, during, and after the War of Independance many Native Indians were discontented with colonial encroachement of there land, and retaliated in violence, which is why G.B. prohibited expansion in the first place. Other tribes, such as migratory ones, decided that since they were moble, the giving away their land was not so detrimental to their way of life. Following the war of Independance many colonists decided that since the younger members of Indian tribes had faught for, or supported the british, that they had forfeighted their land. this assumption, of course, resulted in further tension and voilence. One Fairly significant development in Northen America during the 1700s is that of regional identity. Native Indians always felt threatened by the colonists, especially after Jeffersons land Ordinances of 1784 and 1785. As a result, although some became advocates of Natives accepting Whites peoples ways of life, most became more united in their struggle to protect their land, and defend themselves against the colonists. The colonists had many different societal structures that caused different identities. Because of the Articles of Confederation, the Southern states were able to continue thriving off of the benefits of slavery. The Northern states, however began to take steps toward emancipation, and based their economy off of "free labor". The majority of white individuals in every state, however, foun themselves beleiving Native Indians to be savages, and slaves as either the same, or just as the members of society who must be bound, so that others may be free. Many African americans, mainly in the North became literat, and created pamphlets and poetry advocating African-American freedom. These slaves were also closer to one another and their owners. Conversely, slaves in the South were uneducated, isolated, and often reverted to violence, as seen in Gabriel s Rebellion. BY: HEATHER
ReplyDelete