Research Paper Topic Choices

RESEARCH PAPER TOPIC CHOICES

Jackson

Choice 1 :Jacksonian Democracy: A Democratic or Despotic Movement?

The issue:Is Jacksonian Democracy a democratic movement that will help lift up the common man, or a despotic movement marked by President Andrew Jackson's abuse of his executive power?

• Arguments in favor of Jacksonian Democracy:Jacksonian Democracy aims to involve ordinary citizens in the political process and help overcome the influence of an entrenched aristocracy; it is a democratic movement based around the "common man." Jackson's policies are necessary to overcome decades of rule under a corrupt government tied to elite commercial interests that have harmed the economy and national politics. And in making use of his veto power, Jackson is wielding the power of the masses to strike down the enemies of the masses.
• Arguments against Jacksonian Democracy:Jackson's dramatic increase in presidential power—particularly the use of the veto—constitutes "executive tyranny," which threatens representative democracy. Jackson undermines the power of the legislature and judiciary, consolidating the power of government into the hands of one man. And Jacksonian Democracy, with its focus on white male supremacy, is actually anundemocratic movement that harms groups such as blacks, Native Americans and women.

Choice 2:Indian Removal Act

Necessary to Protect the Indians or Atrocity Against Them?

The issue:Is the policy of Indian removal—under which Native Americans are pressured to negotiate treaties for relocation from their homelands in the east to the Indian territory in the west—a good way to end conflict between the Indians and the settlers and also open up eastern lands for settlement? Or is it an excuse to essentially take the Indians' land for settlers seeking to expand?

• Arguments for Indian removal:As the white population increases, settlers seeking more land are increasingly coming into conflict with the Indians. Also, the states have begun to pass legislation making Indians subject to state law, and the Indians are assimilating into white culture more and more; removing the Indians to the west, away from the white settlers, will help to preserve their unique heritage. Furthermore, as the discoverers of the continent, the settlers have a right to the land—the Indians are merely occupants of the land, not its owners.
• Arguments against Indian removal:The Indians are the original inhabitants of the land, and thus they have a right to it; the government has no justification for forcing them to give it up. Several Indian tribes have begun to assimilate into white culture, adopting "civilized" white customs, at the request of the government; it is wrong to then force those tribes out into the wilderness of the west. Furthermore, Indian removal violates numerous previous treaties the government has negotiated, in which the Indians ceded land in part in exchange for promises that their remaining lands would be protected.

Choice 3: Second Bank of the United States

President Jackson's War Against the Bank

The issue:In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. Was the bank necessary to maintain a healthy national economy? Or was it unconstitutional?

• Arguments against the Bank of the United States:The bank is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the authority to charter a bank. The bank is also dangerous. With tens of millions of dollars in operating capital, it is a powerful private corporation that will use its power to benefit the nation's rich businessmen at the expense of the common man.
• Arguments in favor of the Bank of the United States:The Constitution authorizes Congress to make all the laws "necessary and proper" to help the government carry out the its duties specifically listed in the Constitution, and the bank is "necessary and proper" in helping the government carry out duties such as imposing taxes and providing for the general defense. The bank is also beneficial because it provides a sound national currency.

Choice 4: Nullification Crisis

South Carolina Declares Federal Tariffs Null and Void

The issue:At the South Carolina state convention in November 1832, an ordinance is passed declaring two federal tariffs null and void, prompting a "nullification crisis." Does a state have the right to nullify a federal law it finds unconstitutional or not in its best interests? Or, as members of the Union, are states required to comply with all federal laws?

• Arguments in favor of nullification:In joining the federal compact known as the Union, the states did not give up their sovereignty. In fact, in drafting the Constitution, the states specifically limited the power of the federal government to preserve their sovereignty. If the federal government exceeds its powers by passing unconstitutional legislation, the states are justified in nullifying that legislation.
• Arguments against nullification:The federal government has final authority over the states, which gave up much of their sovereignty in joining the Union. The federal government was created to serve the good of the people, not the interests of the individual states. Therefore, the states have no authority to nullify federal laws. The Constitution is the law of the land, and only the Supreme Court can judge whether a law is unconstitutional.

RESEARCH PAPER TOPICS

Western Expansion and Slavery

Choice 1: California Gold Rush

Beneficial Economic Boom, or Pretext for Greed and Lawlessness?

The issue:In 1848, gold was discovered in California, inspiring thousands of people to converge there in search of their fortunes. But has the resulting economic boom been worth the cost?

• Arguments in favor of the gold rush:The gold rush is a sign of America's prosperity, and an opportunity for economic growth. It enables enterprising people from different countries, backgrounds and social classes to improve their financial status through hard work. The gold rush has also rapidly transformed California for the better, by bringing thousands of people to the area and encouraging the development of urban centers, agriculture, industry, and even intellectual and cultural life. It has also accelerated the construction of a transcontinental railroad, and put California on a fast track for U.S. statehood.
• Arguments against the gold rush:The gold rush is simply a sign of greed and foolish ambition. It has enticed thousands of people into abandoning their homes, families and gainful employment, in an irrational quest to "get rich quick." Unfortunately, though gold is plentiful in California, there is not nearly enough of it to make all of those treasure-seekers rich. Furthermore, the gold rush has caused a rise in violent crime in California, proven harmful to the local environment, and inflamed prejudices against the native Indian population and foreign miners.

Choice 2: Slave Revolts

Did They Help or Hurt the Antislavery Cause?

The issue:In the 18th and 19th centuries, approximately 500 recorded incidents of slave revolts occurred. Did those revolts ultimately help or hurt the antislavery cause?

• Arguments in favor of slave revolts:Slavery is immoral, and slaves have a right to fight against the institution using all means available—including violent revolt. Slaves who participate in revolts are similar to the American colonists who fought for independence from Britain in the American Revolution (1775-83); in both cases, violent resistance is necessary to overcome oppression. The revolts also bring greater attention to the slaves' plight, and spur efforts to help end slavery.
• Arguments against slave revolts:Slave revolts hurt those they are intended to help—the slaves. In the wake of the revolts, many blacks are executed, and laws further restricting slaves' rights are passed in order to prevent further rebellion. Furthermore, resorting to violence goes against the teaching of the Bible; only peaceful means and political action should be used in the effort to end slavery.

Choice 3: Manifest Destiny

Noble Ideal or Excuse for Imperialist Expansion?

The issue:Does the U.S. have a "manifest destiny" to expand all the way to the Pacific Ocean? Or is Manifest Destiny merely an excuse to take other people's lands?

• Arguments for Manifest Destiny:Being more advanced and enlightened than other cultures, the U.S. has a God-given right to expand its borders. In fact, the U.S. has an obligation to bring its civilizing influence to the west. Expansion will also strengthen the foundations of the Union, making it invulnerable, and is necessary to accommodate the increasing population of the U.S.

• Arguments against Manifest Destiny:God would not grant any country the right to expand at the expense of the native inhabitants whose land would be taken, and the lives of those who would die in wars over territory. The term "Manifest Destiny" is merely an excuse for the U.S. to take other people's lands. Furthermore, spreading too far across the country will weaken the country's vital institutions, making the Union vulnerable.