AddisonDM 18:41, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
1. I only missed two so that makes this question harder! Both of them were facts that I either did not know or had forgotten, so simply searching my memory would not have helped. However, I might have been able to get the one about the order that colonies were established. <have to find question to finish my answer>
- Need to keep old exams so you can refer to them easily! Good organization often means success. (Minus 1).
2. World War I is interesting because it feels part modern and part old fashioned. It was the first major war to involve tanks, poison gas, and some other modern weaponry, but it was fought in age where Europe was still very nationalistic and not very united at all as it is today. In today’s world it is hard to imagine so many individual countries on the same continent fighting each other. This aspect of WWI makes it similar to older wars.
- Interesting analysis; good observation about the war being part old and part new.
3. The Scopes Trial seems fascinating because it was about such a big issue even though the actual legal context was rather insignificant. It was one of the few trials in American history that transcended its narrow subject matter. Legally, it was only about John Scopes teaching an illegal evolutionist textbook in a small school. Socially, however, it was about the impact of Darwinism (and particularly its unfortunate distortion, Social Darwinism) on society.
- Superb.
4. This is rather obvious, but President Teddy Roosevelt probably was. In terms of his actions, he was perhaps not the most influential, but certainly in terms of his legacy. He was perhaps the first president since Jackson to transcend the institutional aspect of the presidency and use his office as a platform for social betterment. Teddy Roosevelt’s legacy is the National Park system, the FDA, and in general the idea that the federal government can intervene in society to (try to) make it better.
- Excellent answer.
5. Debate: Was it discriminatory not to include girls and women in this draft? To put it simply, it was discriminatory. The real question though is whether or not it was a “good” kind of discrimination. In my view it almost certainly was. First, since men were conditioned to work and women were conditioned to be housewives, men were probably better prepared for the difficulties of military service. Second, perhaps I am only influenced by “outdated stereotypes,” but there seems something improper about sending young women to die in filthy trenches of poison gas. War seems more like “men’s work.” Third, an interesting thought comes to mind: when the men were off in war, someone had to take over all of the American jobs formerly held by the men. Many more women than usual therefore had a chance to work. Excluding women from the draft may actually have helped empower them domestically.
- Superb analysis.
Honors
1. I don’t think the free speech decisions were in keeping with the First Amendment. Of course, treason was never covered under free speech, but is speaking out against the draft really treasonous? It comes dangerously close to using the cover of “national interest” to silence political critics (like Adams’ ridiculous Alien and Sedition Acts!) Even if speaking against the draft and the other “treasonous” offenses were truly treasonous, the free speech cases still set a dangerous precedent. What if George Bush thought it was “subversive” to oppose his war in Iraq? What if President Obama thought it was “against the national interest” to oppose his health reform plan? Clearly, the law should not allow dissent to be punished as treason.
- Very good argument, with an excellent use of hypothetical examples from today to support full freedom of political speech.
3. Roosevelt and Wilson were both progressives, but Roosevelt was imperialistic while Wilson sought global democracy. Roosevelt was interested in enriching society by such measures as making national parks and improving food standards, while Wilson was more interested in political work like starting the Federal Reserve and advocating for the League of Nations. Roosevelt was probably more successful because many Americans did not like Wilson’s globalist ideas. Taft was President too during this period, but almost nothing is ever said about him (except that he was rather oversized!) As a more conservative president, he did not believe in as much government action and so he did much less that we can talk about today (maybe it is better that he did much less).
- Good use of humor in your answer, and your contrasting the two progressives, Roosevelt and Wilson, is correct.
5. It seems likely that Social Darwinism contributed to the cruelty of WWI. Of course, people often are violent first and seek a justification later. In the same way that religion often provided a justification for war (it’s okay to kill heathens) Social Darwinism provided a justification for war by appearing to give it a scientific basis (it is good for the species to eliminate the weak). But in addition to providing an excuse, Darwinism may well have influenced people to be even more savage in war than they otherwise would have – or it at least helped them to exaggerate their violent tendencies.
- Darwinism does have tragic consequences. Your explain them well.
- Grade: 79/80. Excellent work.