Annexing Texas

In 1837 the United States had been presented the option of accepting a new state, Texas. I'd think it was a wise decision to not accept. Texas had just come out of a civil war with Mexico. I believe that it would've indeed caused hostility with Mexico. Not only that, but the idea was still being debated within the states. The South wanted a new slave state, and the north wanted another state against it. It would've tipped the political balance of the country,which in the end contributed to the civil war. Texas's split from Mexico was already the result of American rowdiness. Our settlers had come in and disobeyed the laws of the Mexicans. If we came and annexed them it simply wouldn't have looked good.While Mexico did not follow through when it threatened to declare war if the United States annexed Texas, the relationship between the two nations were still tense due to the disputed border with Texas. And it's understandable, though its still not as bad as we had feared. The Mexicans had argued that the border only extended to the Nueces River, several miles to the north of the Rio Grande. According to what we declared, however,  Texas included significant portions of what is today New Mexico and Colorado, and the western and southern portions of Texas itself, which they claimed extended to the Rio Grande River. The loss of territory Mexico suffered is un-ignorable. As far as America is concerned, annexing Texas simply added to the wealth of the country, so in the end, it was a smart move.

Being Louis and Clark would've been a heck of an adventure. Honestly, doing something like that is my dream. I'd love to grab a couple of buddies, take what we can carry, or rather, what we can boat, and set off on a random river to find the ocean. All the while gathering information and talking with whatever people we find. Looking at new wildlife, new plants, animals, native peoples, and simply land formations. Nature at its finest: the glorious unknown. As an assignment in my history class I was to act as Louis/Clark and explore a small section of land and give a summary of what I found like Louis and Clark had done. For this I picked none other than my friend Josh to accompany me. Often he had walked his dog down a trail across a creek. We intended to explore that creek deeper into the forest than he had yet ventured. As we followed he took notes of different plants and the such and I took notes in the form of a map. I payed no exact reference to elevation, but gave a rough estimate by appearance. As we walked we already knew, because of how we lived in the area, that this creek would not lead to the Mississippi by any means. We did find small fish in the river, signs of craw-dads, and many surface insects. Most if the bank was mud, but at times there was sand. The water remained either too low or fast moving for insects that lay eggs in water. There were no signs of deer that I could find, but there were many many signs of squirrel. As we walked through the small creek, we noticed that it was actually part of a low ravine. We marked how there were only deciduous trees/ leaving trees. Most of the ground was fertile with plants, and there were plenty of young trees growing, though, I noticed there were very few large trees. Unfortunately there weren't any people in the forest to talk to. The one lady walking her dog as we came I the creek looked rather unfriendly, and also walked very fast away from us. We did notice that somewhat deep into the woods, we actually came back into parts of Josh's neighborhood. Rather, we came into an area that had a house being built. Josh had remembered one of his friends saying he was building a house in Josh's area, and so we assumed it to be him. This was confirmed when we saw him walk out of the house taking a call on the phone.

It was interesting for me to see what exactly there was to notice in an area, especially one I had thought I already knew fairly well. Single parts I hadn't explored turned out to be fairly interesting, and also depressingly low on natural resources. I guess that's the result of urbanization. Regardless, I still have the desire to do a full reenactment of the Louis and Clark journey, and I already know I have to take Josh. Its a great thing, the spirit of adventure.

Which of the Amendments is the Most Important One?

Well first off lets state this right now. All of the Amendments work together with eachother and the Constitution as a whole. Now for my opinion. We can cut to the chase and declare the fifteenth and the nineteenth the most important two. Voting is what creates and nullifies amendments, so if we go to the base, more voters makes for more fair laws.

So I'm deciding I'm going to choose which of the amendments from the Bill of Rights. Now some people will declare the 1st as the obvious choice. Speaking out allows us to "break the chains of tyranny" and allows us to gather as a people. This isn't a bad choice,  but even if there were laws against the first, I don't think it would take long for people to.. uh.. speak up. Many, many, MANY of my friends would say to bear arms is the most important. I'd say that's a close second, but it's not quite there. My reasons against it are simply we have the army -Now before you shut me out, just keep reading. If or when the government goes crazy and takes away any of our basic rights, I believe a grand majority of the army will fight back. Now ok, I get the idea that the gov could slowly take away things until our rights get smaller and smaller. But I believe that the people of this nation are strong enough to fight back against such things in their voting power. If the gov doesn't let us vote, then there's obviously going to be a backlash against them. If they were to take away the second amendment... I'd be willing to die to get it back.

But the amendment I claim to be the most important is the ninth. Why? Because it covers so many of the basics. If those rights weren't given to us, we'd be in another as a country. It gives us unspoken and pure rights which are the BASICS. I'm glad to have those.

1st Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble, right to protest, and petition the government

September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

2nd Protects the right to bear arms September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 Full text

3rd Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

9th Protects rights not enumerated in the constitution September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

10th Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791

What if we (America) had lost the war?

Let's think about this. Do I think America would be a whole lot different? Yes and no. I mean, look, America's love for freedom and everything did stem from the war, and it did make us a proud independent people. My thought is that if England really did conquer us, it would've taken a massive amount to keep us. Losing that war would've made the people of America more aggressive in the long run. I simply think it's impossible to keep a nation's worth of people under "control" by a country an ocean away. Sure England has a massive naval power, but we've got the land right there. I don't think losing that war would've stopped the uprising cold. I don't think it would affect the spirit of America in the long run. And I sure don't think it would've stopped America from forming.

On the other hand we would've lost General Washington. We would've lost so many of our Founding Fathers. That would be a big blow against our present day America, but I think there would've been others to take their place.

Should We Have Left England When We Did?

Even though I personally think we shouldn't have ever had to rebel against the king, we didn't have much choice. After the French Indian war, England had its war debts to pay. I think it's fair to tax the colonies, but England itself had to take care of the soldiers, or have them become more permanent members of the colonies. I think it was a major problem that the soldiers were random people, not the friends and relatives that the colonists knew. The real problem is that these soldiers that no one knew, came in and lived in the towns, ate and slept for free, and then took jobs to go spend money wherever. Quartering forced the colonists to feed and house soldiers however they possibly could.

Imagine the fights this could cause. The fights it DID. Quartering was, in my opinion, the last straw for the colonists. It further prevented the colonists from raising money to pay back England, and was a huge personal inconvenience as well. As much as I don't like it, it was then or never for fighting back.

Early America: Jamestown

One of the first and most notable colonies of the United States was Jamestown. On May 14 1607,  around 100 members of a venture called the Virginia Company created the first permanent settlement the English had on North America. Unfortunately for the Virginia Company, their leader had decided to build in a marshland on the James River. Disease spread by mosquitoes and conflicts with the natives/Indians killed many settlers.

In a hypothetical situation like this, I would've tried going as far inland as I could with boats caravan-ing supplies. Once there I'd start building a wall out of wood around 7-8 feet tall, and later start trapping animals and fishing. Once a system is put into place for hunting/fishing it would be time to find the Indians. It's completely out of character for the settlers to go ask for help from what they called "savages" but I believe it would be for the best. Trying to communicate may prove difficult, but being friendly isn't a hard thing to pull off. While I wouldn't have my colony go look for natives, I'd make sure they tell me if they see anyone. Preparing a gift for them would be important.

Honestly I think that is one of America's... The United State's.. North America's.. Heck, I don't know whose fault it is. But I think it's one of the biggest mistakes we've made. Destroying the native North and South Americans is horrible. The United States is probably the most to blame. But it's a real insult that we can't take back. If I could re-do the making of the United States, I'd live along side the Indian.

Why Study History?

Let's face it. History is pretty boring for most people.

So why study???

Well for one lets look present day, here where I am in the United States. Today is August eighth, the year two thousand and thirteen. The big Fiftieth Anniversary of the Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech. Today we remember the crucial steps of getting rid of "Separate but Equal" and pushing forward equality between the human race.

Why?

For many people recent history like this is emotional. It'd be insensitive to forget and can help motivate us towards a better future. It shows the power of change a single group of people can have. It shows mistakes we've made as a country. Doesn't it make you wonder? Things like; what can I change, whats wrong that I can't see, what am I doing right, are we on the right track as a country?

The mistakes and successes of past groups, nations, peoples, or persons can guide what we do. Imagine a science experiment. On anything. You learn the advantages and disadvantages of your subject. Changes for your own experiment. A data log on whatever you want. It'll teach you the specifics. History is a record of social science. It requires exploration and thought to find what you want but what you learn can be invaluable.

So yes, looking at history from a broad spectrum isn't all that exciting. You might realize Canadian woodsmen can burn down the White House, but history in depth can teach you just about everything Math and Chemistry can't.