Missing Information!

Hey guys,

We are missing email addresses from some of you delegates, which makes it very difficult to write you back our comments on your papers. So can everyone please email your bloc leader and just in the body of your email type your name and email address, for simplicity's sake. This is really important, thank you!

Also, for anyone reading this blog who has not yet turned in your paper, it is imperative that you do so asap!

Note from Joe: If you posted your paper after December 26, please repost it as a comment to this post. This late in the game it is difficult to keep track of the papers that we are reading when they are posted as comments to 10 different posts.

This Year's HSC Rules

YMCA Model UN HSC 2009 – Game Rules

Sec 1 – Mr. Reimer’s Rule: BE ON TIME (5 minutes early)!!

Sec 2 – Mr. Foster’s Rule: BE PREPARED!

Sec 3 – No Laptops or Cell Phones can be utilized within the HSC room (remember what year it is)! .

Sec. 4 - Communications
Senators: when you seek to write a note to another Senate colleague or to an individual in another bloc, just fold the note and give it to a Senate page for delivery.
White House / Mexican / British Cabinet Members: any notes should be written and addressed clearly, including the manner you want your note to travel, and provided to a college staff member for “delivery.”
All orders are to be communicated verbally to the college advisor responsible for your bloc. Do not submit them in writing unless instructed by the college staff.
Pay attention to newspapers. They might be helpful. You might also use press releases to the newspapers to help you.
Never assume news from any source was shared with your fellow countrymen.

Sec. 5 - Bloc Conduct
Treat everyone with respect, act responsibly, and use common sense.
Bloc leaders are responsible for ensuring proper conduct within their blocs.
Be respectful of all delegates by keeping the noise levels down.
You may only stand within the taped-off boundaries of your bloc.

Sec. 6 - Travel between blocs
In order to travel, you must request to travel through the ticket office (controlled by the college staff).
You must go to were you are sent to by the ticket office even if you are misdirected.
Remember: during this time period people traveled by horse and buggies and boats. Travel time will be affected accordingly.
Spying must be conducted in a reasonable manner. College staff determine the meaning of “reasonable.”

Sec. 7 – Visitors, Experts and Consultations
· Consultation with college advisors is ongoing and does not need to be requested in advance.
· Any expert or visitor must be requested at least 15 minutes in advance with a justification of the need. (Ex: economic advisor, military advisor, Governor, or foreign official). The roles may be played by Mr. Reimer, Mr. Foster, college staff, or even outside MUN members.

Sec. 8 – Leaving the Room
· No one may leave the room without permission from a College advisor. There will be no exceptions to this rule. Someone must know where you are at all times.

Sec. 9 – Time Period Restrictions
The technology allowed within the HSC is limited to the technology of the time period. (Ex. there will be no phones, only telegraphs, which were often misprinted).

Sec. 10 – Sanctions
The following sanctions can be imposed at the will of the College advisors and/or Mr. Reimer and Mr. Foster in any order and without notice. Additionally, the list of sanctions is not all-inclusive; Mr. Reimer and Mr. Foster reserve the right to add additional sanctions as deemed necessary.
Important communications maybe misplaced, mishandled, misread, or ignored all together.
Ticket office will misguide and mislead people from their desired destinations, or worse, refuse to stamp a return trip.
On a final and very serious note, egregious character misconduct (stepping out of character…) or lack of decorum shown in your bloc can and will lead to your removal and replacement.

Sec. 11 – Suggestions & Advise
· Be specific with your requests. Make sure you know if you are asking an advisor/college staff as themselves or as their character.
· The more creative you are, the more fun the HSC will become. Take a risk and try something different, but remember to stay in character at all times.

Go West? PLEASE REPLY

(Editorial Note: this should provide a hint as to where things will be starting...)

What should we do about the good folks living out in the California territory? We have this territory that we can claim since we defeated the infidels in Mexico! There's rumors there might be resources out there... There's even access to the Pacific Ocean so we can get to China without going around Africa. Should we force the inferior Mexicans to give us it all? Should we turn it into a colony? Of course, it MUST be slave free - especially if it should ever be granted admission into our Union. I trust you all understand my feelings: we cannot let the Mexicans to continue to inhabit lands that God himself as granted our people. When we began 250 years ago, the King granted us full rights to that land. We need to protect it.

Truly greatful to be in HIS service.

Senator W. H. Seward
New York
1848.

Quick check-in

Just a quick note with a few points:

1. Reminder, everyone needs to post. To post, click at the top "sign-in" and create an account. You can then comment on any of the papers or other discussion points so far. You could also create your own top level discussion thread.

2. I have a senator from VA still available that I realized I forgot to assign. The first person who e-mails me with an interest in changing their Senator position to this important role gets it. jlr@hangley.com (This is also a test to see if anyone is reading.)

JLR

A few good primary sources...

In an effort to preserve the balance of power in Congress between slave and free states, the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Furthermore, with the exception of Missouri, this law prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36° 30´ latitude line. In 1854, the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Three years later the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html

---

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed by the United States and Mexico on February 2, 1848, ending the Mexican War and extending the boundaries of the United States by over 525,000 square miles. In addition to establishing the Rio Grande as the border between the two countries, the territory acquired by the U.S. included what will become the states of Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, most of New Mexico and Arizona, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. In exchange Mexico received fifteen million dollars in compensation for the territory and the U.S. agreed to assume claims from private citizens of these areas against the Mexican government.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Guadalupe.html

---

The Compromise of 1850 consists of five laws passed in September of 1850 that dealt with the issue of slavery. In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state, potentially upsetting the balance between the free and slave states in the U.S. Senate. Senator Henry Clay introduced a series of resolutions on January 29, 1850, in an attempt to seek a compromise and avert a crisis between North and South. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was amended and the slave trade in Washington, D.C., was abolished. Furthermore, California entered the Union as a free state and a territorial government was created in Utah. Also, an act was passed settling a boundary dispute between Texas and New Mexico that also established a territorial government in New Mexico.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Compromise1850.html

---

The Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise, allowing slavery in the territory north of the 36° 30´ latitude. Introduced by Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, the Kansas-Nebraska Act stipulated that the issue of slavery would be decided by the residents of each territory, a concept known as popular sovereignty. After the bill passed on May 30, 1854, violence erupted in Kansas between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers, a prelude to the Civil War.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html

---

The Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford was issued on March 6, 1857. Delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, this opinion declared that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. In addition, this decision declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5629040858974646181

Period Clothing Website...

http://www.ajmorris.com/roots/photo/datep18.php

England Position Papers

Henrietta Levin

I am John Russell, Whig prime minister of England. The office of prime minister is one that evolved naturally and therefore has no defined powers, in accordance with the lack of written British Constitution. At this time the prime minister was not directly elected by the people, and this limited number of enfranchised people would have limited his represetativity regardless. The prime minister did, however, represent the majority party of Parliament.
In the 1840’s and ‘50’s and for several years before, England was plagued by an assortment of epidemics, including smallpox, influenza, typhus, typhoid cholera, and scarlet fever. Scarlet fever alone killed over 20,000 people in 1840, and the English knew the cause of neither this, nor any of the other rampant diseases. The best that could be done to contain the coinciding epidemics was to isolate a person as soon as they showed symptoms of a fatal disease, though by the time that symptoms were obvious, the disease had often already been transmitted. Between 1842 and 1846 the standard of living in England went up due to increased employment, which was itself caused by new job opportunities in the newly invented railroad industry. However, typhus and influenza epidemics resurfaced in 1847, in that year alone killing more than 30,000. In 1848, a devastating cholera epidemic spread throughout all of England, killing more than in the original 1931 epidemic. Due to poor sanitation, disease continued to be a huge population limiting factor even when these epidemics settled down. However, the impact of disease was greatly lessened because of the Public Health Bill of 1948, which mandated monitoring of buildings and water quality with respect to certain health codes. In 1851, England hosted the first World Fair, known as the Great Exhibition. It invited many countries to come to England and set up an exhibit that showcased the pinnacle of that country’s technology. England was at this time the industrial leader of the world, and Prince Albert, the man who coordinated the fair, was well aware of this. The Great Exhibition displayed fantastic English technologies alongside inferior foreign ones, increasing the prowess of England’s reputation as a modern, industrialized nation. Six million people came to the fair during the six months that it was in London, and through these people England’s reputation as a superpower was spread across the globe. The crystal palace, England’s primary contribution to the fair, was an architectural fete that continued to wow spectators until it was accidentally burned down in 1936. On March 24, 1854, England and France declared war on Russia, launching the Crimean War in an effort to prevent Russian expansion. Also, there were disputes between Russia and the other involved nations concerning control of the Holy Land. British casualties throughout the war amounted to 29,017, though over 16,000 of these were not from battle, but from disease. Russia surrendered in March of 1856 and war was officially ended by the Treaty of Paris that month. The Crimean War is today seen as the first modern war because the media made the people of the involved countries intensely aware of the happenings of the war.
England was during the 1850’s still far more powerful than America due to America’s regional divisions and England’s industrialism and vast empire. However, America was progressing and was rivaling many European nations in power. These two powerful nations were extremely reliant on each other in an economic sense. Approximately 90% of American cotton was exported to England and 2/3 of English cloth was exported back to America. England and America were political allies, though some wariness remained from the then-recent War of 1812. Political relations were, however, at this time confused because both Northern and Southern advocates believed that England supported them for moral and economic reasons, respectively. I believed that an alliance with one of the American regions was necessary, though I was torn between which side because of the legitimacy of both of these reasons.
I believe that slavery is morally apprehensible and that eventual emancipation was a necessity. However, history seems to show that I did not believe in the international enforcement of these beliefs because during the American Civil War I helped the South more than the North.
At this time in history, 90% of Southern cotton was exported to England and 66% of English cloth was exported to America, primarily the South. Because of the North’s industrial nature, they were more self sufficient and therefore bought less from England. Cloth was England’s main export, and cotton was what most fabric was made out of, so the massive amount of cotton it was importing made England extremely financially dependent on the South.
I would have been in favor of Southern succession. I historically supported the Confederacy, only withdrawing my endorsement when the Emancipation Proclamation formally made slavery a central issue to the conflict. I strongly believed in the amorality of slavery and was very much against its practice. Therefore, while I would have supported succession because of economic principles, this support would have ended as soon as slavery became an official issue.
Domestically, England’s fast paced industrialism reduced its working class to a state somewhat like slavery. Though England was technically extremely opposed to slavery, large amounts of its people were treated like slaves. The industrial powers were at this time not strongly regulated by the government, and so they acted in the best interest of their business, not in that of their workers. Being the technological leader of the world made England the superpower of the time. England had lots of soft power around the world and had a considerable amount of influence in international politics.
Ireland was in a time of horrible famine and accompanying disease from 1845 to 1855 due to a fungus that reduced potatoes to black slime. Potatoes were the main crop both eaten and sold by the poor Irish population. The loss of this crop caused a death toll of 750,000 over the 10 years of the famine. During this period, England, which had placed the Irish in the retched state of poverty that forced them to depend so heavily on potatoes, offered almost no help to the starving Irish. The English chose to believe that the free market would eventually fix the problem, but I disagreed with this approach. I repeatedly tried to pass measures through Parliament that would have offered aid to the decrepit Irish, few of which were passed through the callous Parliament. I was in favor of repealing the Corn Tax, a measure that was supposed to help the Irish. However, even with the lowered prices of foreign grain, the Irish couldn’t afford it.
England was extremely powerful because of its industrialism, in which it was decades ahead of the closest competing nation, and its extensive empire that stretched across South America, Africa, and Asia. I was famous for my passion for reform and caring about the welfare of people, and so I would probably attempt to maintain the integrity of the British Empire by ensuring that the people of the imperialized nations were happy and content. This contentment would stop the people from rebelling and they would instead remain happy subjects to the British Empire.
America was an English ally. These two nations were each others’ primary trade partners and in large part supported each others’ economies. They had not had a major military stint since the war of 1812 and they had gotten along fairly well since then. However, this alliance was confused by the American regional division between the north and the south. England was unsure of which side to support throughout the majority of the regional conflict. France was an enemy, as it had been for the past several centuries. For the most part, instead of making allies or enemies, England simply annexed the majority of the world. Though it lost Northern America in the 18th century, England soon controlled most of Asia and Africa.
Bibliography:
"1689-1901AD." Britannia. 2000. 4 Nov. 2008
<http://www.britannia.com/history/emptime.html>.
Bloy, Marjie. "Lord John Russell." The Victorian Web. 11 Mar. 2002. 6 Nov. 2008
<http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/russell.html>.
"Economics and the Civil War." HistoryCentral.com. 7 Nov. 2008
<http://www.historycentral.com/civilwar/america/economics.html>.
"England's Enemies and England's Friends." Archives. 19 Dec. 1899. The New York Times. 3
Nov. 2008 <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9a0cefdf103de633a2575ac1a9649d94689ed7cf>.
Western Heritage 1300-Present Nasta. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall PTR, 2003.

Richmond Examiner Articles

Liz Rich

Richmond Examiner Editor in Chief

Westfield High School

Whig vs. Democrat; North vs. South

Certainly a controversial piece of legislation, the Compromise of 1850 and its individual components have generated strong reactions from both Whigs and Democrats, although the reactions from individuals within the parties seem inconsistent.
The Compromise of 1850 is a combination of bills intended to resolve tension related to sectionalism and slavery. These issues are partially related to the Mexican American War. The five main objectives were first combined into a single bill, but were later split due to lack of support in the United States Senate for each section. The five objectives are: to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, but to keep slavery legal; to settle a boundaries dispute in Texas over claimed Mexican land, by giving Texas $10 million to pay off their debt in exchange for giving up the lands; to allow the organization of western territories, and let them use popular sovereignty during state formation to determine whether they would be free or slave states; to admit California as a free state; and to pass the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring citizens to help return runaway slaves.
The bill’s passage has really only become possible since the death of Whig President Zachary Taylor. Taylor’s Vice President Millard Fillmore has since supported the Compromise. Whig Henry Clay and Democrat Stephen Douglas have guided the bill. The packed bill’s success has also been increased by Douglas’s separation of each section into an individual bill.
As each region and ideological school has different positions on slavery and its expansion, it is logical that the political parties and their regional factions differ on the Compromise of 1850. First, members of the Whig Party greatly differed in support for the Compromise and its intentions. President Zachary Taylor supported popular sovereignty in New Mexico and California, thus conflicting with the Compromises section on admitting California as a free state. New York Senator William Seward, fierce abolitionist, leads the antislavery faction in the Senate, along with Free Soil Ohio Senator Salmon Chase; they oppose the compromise. Fillmore aligned with moderate Whigs, and in August of 1850 sent a message to Congress suggesting giving compensation to Texas, thus switching northern Whigs away from the Wilmot Proviso. The most recent version of the Wilmot Proviso says, “There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in any territory on the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired by or annexed to the United States.” Northern Whigs opposed the Compromise because the Proviso would not be applied in western territories and because of the Fugitive Slave Act. Southern and Border State Whigs supported the Compromise because of the danger of losing slaves, leading to strong support for the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Democrats include supporters and opponents based on regional differences as well. Southerners led by Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi oppose the Compromise, as it would invalidate some of Texas’s claimed land. They also fear admission of California as a free state as it would upset Northern and Southern, or slave and free state balance. The Southern Senators also believed abolition of District of Columbia slave auctions to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, Northern Democrats supported the compromise.
The main strategy that seems to be apparent in passing the five separate bills is to sustain a Northern Democrat coalition in passing each, and adding a different majority, Whigs or Southern Democrats for each. Douglas and Clay are optimistic about the Compromise’s passage into law.

Position Paper- Mexico

1. Who is the character you are representing? — Describe his or her beliefs and role.
I am Antonio López de Santa Anna Pérez de Lebrón more commonly known as Santa Anna or the “Napoleon of West.” I am the savior of Mexico many times over, most recently after defeating the French and a loyal patriot back to when we achieved our independence from Spain. My allegiance lies with no ideology but instead with Mexico herself and to that end I have often acted more conservatively than liberally.

2. What are your responsibilities within the Mexican Government?
Currently I am the President- General of Mexico. This means I am the supreme commander of the Army and the head of the Mexican government, a position I use to its fullest authority. With the embarrassment of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo my retention of this position remains unclear.

3. Who are your political allies/enemies?
My greatest ally is myself. I have currently come into power due to my military leadership, but in the past I have been a much reviled figure in Mexico for my strong political stances (and my changing to other strong political stances when necessary). Traditionally I am a champion of the centrists and conservatives though I was first elected president as a liberal.

4. Timeline
1810- At the beginning of our fight for independence I was young Creole officer and remained loyal to the Royalist forces
1817- I served under Arredondo crushing the worthless Texan rebels through what ever means necessary. I stand by the tactics used then and am proud I have replicated them in our more recent fight with the Texan secessionists, no action can be considered inhumane in dealing with a traitor to one’s country.
1821- I finally feel the confidence that comes with age to stand up for what you believe in and come to the aid of Agustín de Iturbide.
1822- Like many others I grew wary of the “Emperor’s” excessive ambition and supported the Plan of Casa Mata with Guadalupe Victoria (Jose Miguel Felix).
1823-1824 - I was one of the principal leaders in defeating Imperialist forces and creating the 1824 Constitution which lead to the Mexican Republic.
1824-1829- During the Presidency of Jose Miguel Felix I retired to a private life, until my country would need me again. It happened that they did in 1829 where I quickly organized an effective resistance to an invasion by Spanish forces and defeated them at Tampico.
1832- I began to have problems with the administration and using my considerable renown and fame was able to become President in 1833 (as a liberal).
1834- I decide Mexico is not yet ready for democracy and take the reigns of power more securely into my own hands. Some called this autocracy, ha.
1835- The Zacatecas liberals continually worked against me in my efforts to better the Republic and my call for them to reduce their militia so I was forced to defeat them militarily and institute what were called repressive tactics by my enemies. Yet my work was not yet done and I was forced to head toward Texas to suppress Sam Houston’s rebellion.
1836- My military campaign began to falter and I was captured by Houston and sent banished to Washington where I had the privilege of meeting General Jackson. In any case the fault was not my own but that of those who worked against me for political gains back in Mexico.
1838- My country calls me back into service to fight the Pastry War against an invading force of French.
1839- Bustamante declares me acting President, a decision made to please the public.
1841- I am overthrow Bustamante due to what I felt was the evident need and want of the public for new leadership. I take on the mantle of dictator to work more efficiently.
1844- I am captured in an underfunded and under supported attempt to suppress an Indian revolt and exiled to Cuba.
1845- America Annexes Texas. I convince the US I am that the Mexican leadership will be unreasonable and I must go to Mexico to provide logical clearheaded leadership. I convince the Mexican Government that I am the only man with the skill to defeat the US forces in combat and that I will not meddle with political affairs.
1846- I have returned to Mexico taken command of the Army and become President and am leading a campaign to stop the American aggression.
1847- We hold off the US forces in Buena Vista but I realize the government has not provided a way for Mexico to win against such a grand force as the US.
1848- I have lost the Mexican-American War, and return in disgrace to Mexico unsure of what to do.

5. The State of Mexico
Military: I believe I have created a fine military in Mexico that I can lead to victory but we are underfunded and no where near as modern as the US. Which is our greatest military threat, European invaders are mainly confined to sending smaller expeditionary forces due to the large distance of travel but the US with its relative proximity and goals of expansion is a long term threat to Mexico.
International: Since the Pastry War our standing international has been tarnished and we have been unjustly charged as debtors who don’t return on our debts. We have largely been ignored by the international community and it was not until recently that Spain even acknowledged our independence.
Economic: These problems bring me to our economy. The numerous wars both civil and of foreign aggression have left us in shambles. Our nation had relied on a complex infrastructure before independence to bridge our vast land filled with mountains, valleys, deserts and even rainforests. But this infrastructure has fallen into disarray either destroyed by war or lack of maintenance. The same can be said of our once great agricultural and mining industries. Destroyed or rundown during the wars we now lack the capital to rebuild these economic systems to a level that will adequately employee and feed our nation. With the very systems that fueled our economy broken and in disarray we have seen our domestic economy and our share of the international economy greatly dwindle and with it the rise of unemployment and underemployment, the abandoning of our cities, and the retreating of local communities to the primitive ways of substance farming where once they were interdependent traders. This collapse of domestic industry that relied on the productiveness of our agricultural strength domestically and our exports particularly of silver have doomed the whole economy. But there is hope if capital can be found to repair the infrastructure, rebuild the mining industry and from these two create the basic economic strength that feeds expansion. This shall be one of my goals.
Political: With such grim futures the people are easy to revolt and be swayed by the eager politician. As such our government has become filled with infighting and partisanship in a system that is “winner take all and loser lose all.” With such a system our problems have not been addressed and the chaos has been fueled even further. My goal is to step in and provide a firm guiding hand to increase stability in these troubled times.

6. What is your character’s opinion of Mexico’s relationship with the US?
The US is aggressive, far too many of its people and politicians see itself as a supreme entity in the hemisphere. To this end the US encouraged illegal immigration into Texas and eventually revolt in that state, so that it could expand its tradition of slavery into new lands and push its internal problems on others. Texas’s annexation was in clear defiance to our country and Polk’s bogus claim that the Rio Grande was Texas’s true southern border forced us into a war defending territory that was rightfully ours and never before contested even by the Texan rebels. I am humiliated to admit that I was unable to hold off US aggression and have left our country with the embarrassment of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but I fear that the treaty and its reasonable (though not generous) accommodations to Mexico are the best we can hope for in our current situation.

7. How does your character view slavery?
Mexico has outlawed slavery since the late 1820’s I have no intention of going against that law. When the US uses Mexican territory to expand its slave base I am disgusted and appalled an in that context comes my greatest opposition to slavery.

8. Describe major forms of communication and transportation at this time internationally,
and relative to their level of use in Mexico.
Very, very slow. Our road systems are horrible and the first railroad (in Mexico) has only just begun to be built in 1842 with a projected time of completion being 30 years. The rest of the world has a leg up on railroads and most countries have significant inland waterways such as the USA’s Mississippi River which steam boats travel through fairly quickly and efficiently. Mexico on the other hand has no such inland rivers. Our lack of transportation and communication technology became increasingly evident in the Mexican-American War where the US relied on such tools as the telegraph to coordinate its military campaigns while we still had men carrying letters around on horse back. The US’s other great advantage was its advance transportation system that allowed it to pour in soldiers from all over the country while I had to assembly my army as I moved north and then pretty much had to fight with what I had with few reinforcements being brought in from the “far and wide”

9. Write a eulogy for Los Niños Héroes, include allusions to your loyalty to our country,
specifically el Presidente Antonio López de Santa Anna.

As the highest commanding officer of the Mexican forces during this war of US aggression I can take solace in few things. One of which is Los Niños Héroes. Juan de la Barrera, Juan Escutia, Francisco Márquez, Agustín Melgar, Fernando Montes de Oca and Vicente Suárez. Six young men, one only just 13, fought on defending Chapultepec Castle and Mexico City herself against the American Aggressors. These boys were all who remained of the troops I had sent to defend the Castle, the rest of whom had withdrawn under orders of their commanding officer. But these young boys had stayed knowing the importance of the mission I had assigned to hold the hill, defend the castle, protect the city, and save our country. I only wish I could have fought alongside these valiant young men though I have fought with many like them throughout my years of defending our country. I know I will remember their sacrifice for Mexico for the rest of my life as an inspiration of loyalty and courage.



Works Cited:
http://www.nndb.com/people/511/000097220/
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/plan-de-casa-mata/
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/guadalupe-victoria/
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/SS/fsa29.html
Amazing Source: http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=159
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=listarticles&secid=33 (pretty much all the articles listed are good)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/benson/Mex_Archives/Santa_Anna.html
http://www.mexonline.com/history-ninosheroes.htm
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/war/communications.html

Alexa Gaul
Council Rock HS North Delegation
Senate Block Position Paper

1) At this point in time Alabama is part of the “cotton kingdom” in the South, where the economy is highly agriculturally based. This means that citizens of Alabama live on plantations and partake in large scale slave labor. Slaves are the basis of Alabama’s economy, and without them the economy would collapse. Therefore, Alabama’s political views will always side towards the continuation and promotion of slavery.
2) William R. King’s views on slavery and Alabama’s views on slavery vary to an extent. King was politically moderate and a unionist, and he often advocated compromise. He believed that slavery could not be prohibited in territories, something that Alabama also agreed with, however he did not believe that all territories should be forced to allow slavery if they did not already have it. Alabama, on the other hand, believed that slavery should be allowed in every territory, and they did not compromise as readily as King did. Also, Alabama was not for the preservation of the Union like King was. Instead they were for the preservation and spread of slavery to the extent that they would secede from the Union if necessary. The strong viewpoint of the state is because of their economic reliance on slave labor; slavery was an economic and not moral issue for the state. Alabama citizens were sometimes annoyed that King retained such moderate views; however, overall, this did not cause serious dissent or issues.
3) Being a moderate King did not strongly side for all slave or all free states. However, he wanted slavery preserved in already existing slave states. He was not for the spread of free states; however he was okay with abolishing slave trade in some territories. This could be an issue for King if the number of free states formed a majority. This is because they could choose to abolish slavery in all states and cause the southern economy to go into turmoil. The state of Alabama, however, had much stronger opinions on the issue than King. Alabama citizens were for slavery in all states, so if more states became free than slave, they would become very upset and fear that their views would no longer be represented in the Senate. They also strongly feared that if there were more free states than slave states; the free states would abolish slavery everywhere, taking away their lives and property. The Compromise of 1850 relates to this issue because it proposed a compromise in order to deal with it. Alabama citizens in general would dislike it because the compromise admitted California as a free state. However, Alabama citizens would be slightly appeased by the fact that the compromise passed the Fugitive Slave Act (forced runaway slaves to be returned to their owners). King does not agree with all the provisions of the compromise; however, he preferred it over more extreme views on the pro-slavery and anti-slavery sides.
4) Most southern states had the same views as Alabama because like Alabama, they all had slavery. Examples of this would be Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi and the Senate members who represented these states. All these states relied on slave labor to power their economies. As far as King is concerned, the other slave states (already mentioned) would not agree with all his views, they would agree with any views of his that promoted slavery, and disagree with any that did not. They would disagree with King’s want to preserve the union at all costs, especially as Northern and Southern dissent grew. Northern states would agree with some of King’s views, mostly the preservation of the union; however, they would be anti-slavery, something which King was not. Northern States and Senate members who represented them such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire would disagree with Alabama’s and the other slave states’ views. They would disagree because they were free states and had industrial economies that did not rely on slavery, therefore, abolishing slavery would cause no problems for them. Also, slavery was a moral issue for free states, and they deemed it immoral.
5) King belonged to the Democratic Party, which included some southern and northern states. During the period from 1848-1860 the Whig party that many southern states previously belonged to disappeared, and many Southern states joined the Democratic party. Overall, the views of the party leaned towards pro-slavery because of the number of southerners it included; however, the party originally had more moderate views like those of King. Also, the party accepted of the fact that slavery was neither expanding nor being abolished, and often tried to avoid the slavery issue as much as possible. However, there was disagreement within the party because it included some northern states and senators. This would cause problems in the party, especially when Stephen Douglas revived the slavery issue while running for presidency. The state of Alabama belonged to the Democratic Party during this time period because it best represented their pro-slavery views (different reasons than King). Also, some Alabama citizens switched from the Whig Party to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party would support the pro-slavery views of Alabama in general, but not as strongly as the Alabama citizens themselves. Also, when dissent in the party developed between its northern and southern members, the party split into Southern and Northern Democrats. The Southern Democrats represented the views of Alabama. Throughout the period from 1848-1860 Alabama’s views remained pro-slavery.

Citations

Mark O. Hatfield, with the Senate Historical Office. Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 181-187.

“William Rufus Devane King.” Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Socieites, 1928-1936. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008.


Goldman, Ralph. “Democratic Party.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2006. Grolier Online Database. 14 October 2008. < http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0123810-00>.

Please Note: My citations got messed up. Other citations are posted as a comment

Washington Post Articles

Olivia Lucas, 

Editor-in-Chief

Western Family YMCA

THE POLITICAL PARTIES OF TODAY

In today’s political atmosphere there are a plethora of parties that occasionally get confusing. Approximately three dominate the scene: the Democrats, Whigs, and the Know-Nothings.
The Democratic Party was born from Andrew Jackson’s own political ideals, hence the term Jacksonian Democrats. Founded by “Old Hickory,” members typically are of the working class and do not trust those of the upper classes. It is also typical that a Democrat does not support large corporations, but does appreciate and is very protective of his personal liberties including freedom of economic choice. Although Jackson worked to keep both state and federal powers appeased, he did favor limiting federal powers as exemplified by his veto of the renewal of the Bank of the United States.
The Whig party was formed by the lingering Federalist sentiments of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. Officially founded in 1834, the party is practically the opposite of the Democrats. Their platform favors federal power over the states therefore a strong, central national government. They especially look for a government to have checks and balances, and the unchecked power of Andrew Jackson frightened them. The term Whig, if you have not understood the reference, was originally used to describe patriotic colonists who opposed the Tories and the British crown before the Revolution. (Jackson used to be called King Andrew). Jackson’s overwhelming popularity gave him great power.
The Know-Nothing Party’s creation was fueled the waves of immigrants arriving in America. Comprised of Protestant citizens who are unwelcoming to these newcomers, it was once a secret society—hence the name “know nothing.” When questioned about the goings-on of the party when they were underground, any member would just say “I don’t know.” This party is currently growing in popularity as the Whig and Democratic parties are weakening.
In response to the slavery issue that has divided the American political system, more and more politicians have become disenfranchised. Prominent figures such as Abraham Lincoln have been rumored to have intentions of starting their own political party that are based on a platform similar to that of the Whigs. As no solid events on this subject have yet occurred, there are no facts to report.

WHY WEST? MANIFEST DESTINY

Ralph Waldo Emerson has said, “Europe stretches to the Alleghenies; American lies beyond.” The rustic and natural appeal of the western territories is widely recognized and chartering the wild frontier seems romantic. The availability of land for every pioneer is an attractive guarantee for the migrants as well as the freedom from industrialization. Of course, the California Gold Rush contributes immensely as well as the prophetic fertile San Francisco Bay. Earlier this year gold was discovered in the newly acquired territory followed by a flood many men and much fewer women out west.
Fortunate for them, traveling west is now more accessible than ever because of advancements made in transportation. Railroads, first manufactured in the United States in 1828, are under construction farther west and growing more prominent in the North. It is projected that in the upcoming years the system may grow to reach as far as Missouri. Robert Fulton’s invention of the steamboat drastically decreases travel time and risk as well. Since early pioneering, the system has evolved slightly to become less cholera-plagued and the survival rate has increased.
Over this time the more tradition wagon trails have become more weathered and the towns set up along the way provide a safer trip than that of the original pioneers. In support of westward expansion, the federal government has sponsored the building of the National Road. Also referred to as the Cumberland Road, it begins in Cumberland, Maryland and will extend into Illinois. President James K. Polk was an adamant expansionist, as is obvious from his support of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. His fellow Democrats ogle California as well as all Southern slave state representatives. These men look to the west as an opportunity to add more slave states to the Union. Antislavery Whigs opposed the cession because they view the war as unnecessary.

ACQUIRING GOLDEN CALIFORNIA: The War with Mexico

Already angered by America’s successful cession of Texas, the Mexican government has repeatedly refused to sell California to the United States peacefully. In 1844, the majority elected James K. Polk knowing that he desired California and under his leadership it came to our knowledge that Britain was eyeing the land in strict violation of the Monroe Doctrine. John Slidell was previously dispatched to propose the transaction of up to $25 million for California and the areas to the east; the hubris of the Mexicans would not permit even the hearing of said generous offer.
This was very insulting and especially bold from a weak, Civil War-ridden country that is $3.25 million indebted to America for claims against her citizens. On January 13th, 1846 President Polk commanded General Zachary Taylor to lead 4,000 soldiers to the Rio Grande to prepare for any violence the Mexicans may attempt t inflict on United States citizens. The Rio Grande and the Nueces River along with the Mexicans were stationed also outline the disputed boundaries of Texas. Although an immediate clash was expected, news did not reach Washington, D.C. of one until later the very day Polk spoke with this cabinet about requesting Congress to declare war. He founded his idea in two stipulations: the claims left unpaid by Mexico and the staunch rejection of Slidell. Two unnamed cabinet members told the president that they would support him more strongly if the Mexican forces were to attack first. The message was delivered that night reporting a skirmish in which unprovoked Mexican forces cross the no-man’s-land and attacked General Taylor’s company. Over fifteen brave soldiers were wounded or killed on that day. (April 25th, 1946) America delved into the war.
Although American forces made multiple military missteps including allowing dethroned dictator Santa Anna back into Mexico, the Mexican War was technically a victory. Generals Taylor and Scott both won major battles at Buena Vista and Mexico City respectively. Along with General Scott’s troops Polk sent the Chief Clerk of the Department of State Nicholas Trist who immediately signed an armistice with Santa Anna for $10,000. Trist reaffirmed his worth with the negotiation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo effectively terminating the war. The legislation, signed February 2nd, 1948, also confirmed Texas as American, gave the land from Texas to Oregon to U.S. As long as the deferral government assumed claims against them and paid $15 million.
The Mexican Cession has increased the United States size by 1/3 and with that additional mass comes the question of slavery status. The Wilmot Proviso, announced two ears ago, mandates outlawing slavery in the new territory and has passed twice thus far in the House, but not yet the Senate. Tensions are boiling and seem to be accumulating along North-South borderline increasingly often. So what will be done for the new land? There are no cotton plantations in California, would there be any reason for slavery? Even Senator Calhoun was skeptical about acquiring Mexican territory, “Mexico is to us the forbidden fruit… the penalty of eating it would be to subject our institutions to political death.”

Cited Sources:

Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History But Never Learned
by Kenneth C. Davis

The American Pageant by Thomas A. Bailey, David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen

White House Bloc Position Papers

Jill Feeney
Cranford Delegation
Franklin Pierce

Jill Feeney
Cranford Delegation
Franklin Pierce

Franklin Pierce’s role within the White House bloc is President of the United States. The job of the president consists of numerous responsibilities and powers including, deciding whether to sign legislation into action or veto it, acting as America’s Commander and Chief, enforcing federal laws and making treaties. The President also has to ability to create a cabinet of advisors.

Before being elected President, Franklin Pierce had an extensive history of being involved in politics. He was the son the New Hampshire Governor, a man who fought in the American Revolution, and was raised around many of the Jeffersonian Democratic views. After graduating law school in 1829, Pierce was elected to serve in the New Hampshire state legislature where he served for four years and was elected Speaker of the House. From there, Pierce was elected to the United States House of Representative and in 1837 he was elected into the United States Senate. After being dedicated to the Senate for five years, Pierce resigned to perform law in New Hampshire. Throughout his early political career, Pierce became a well know Democrat and was then appointed by President Polk to be the United States District Attorney. Before running for president in 1852, Pierce joined the army to fight in the Mexican-American War.

Pierce was a member of the Democratic Party; they had many similar views of Jeffersonian Democracy. Pierce and the Democratic Party were supporters of slavery and the Compromise of 1850. The Democratic Party was opposed to many of the views of the Whig Party. If Pierce had to opportunity to start his own political party, it would be similar to Jeffersonian Democrats. His party would be more powerful than the Whig Party, proslavery, support America’s attempt to expand their territories, and support both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Compromise of 1850.

As the President of the United States, Franklin Pierce will be involved in many major issues up until 1856. Pierce will be involved in the overall break-down between the north and the south that occurred throughout the United Stated, more specifically when Pierce makes the decision whither or not to support and sign the Compromise of 1850. Another pressing issue that Pierce will be involved in will be the expansion of the United States; two ways that Pierce tried to expand was by gaining new territories and making railroads. Lastly, Pierce will be involved in keeping the peace between the abolitionists and the people that are for slavery, otherwise, there could be an incident such as Bleeding Kansas.

In order to prevent an event such as Bleeding Kansas, Pierce would have had to not sign the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska Act created the two territories know as Kansas and Nebraska. These two new territories were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they were going to be a state with or without slavery. Because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, people from both the North and the South rushed to the new territories to claim their land and make the decision whether Kansas and Nebraska would or would not be a slave state. If Pierce had changed the terms of the Kansas-Nebraska
Act, Bleeding Kansas could have been prevented.

The railroad that was to be built from Chicago to California strongly affected the United States because in order to complete the railroad, new territories needed to be purchased. A member of Pierce’s cabinet, Jefferson Davis persuaded pierce to send James Gadsden to Mexico to by the land that is know known as Arizona and Southern New Mexico. Overall, this one purchase alone cost the government ten million dollars. Another railroad that was being expanded was the Underground Railroad, which Pierce was against for numerous reasons, mainly because it was used to transport runaway slaves.

The California gold rush will be one of the many events that effect the government. As news traveled throughout America, more and more people moved to California. Because of the sudden increase in people, farms, stores and businesses were created to serve the new population. This indirectly helped the government by making California’s economy more prosperous.

After the Mexican American War ended and the treaty was ratified in 1848, the United States and Mexico had peaceful relations. Relations between America and England were not as easy as the Mexican-American relations, because the Americans supported the Central American counties that England attempted to control. Another issue that England and America did agree on was slavery, England had gotten rid of all slavery of 1838; however, the members of England’s lower class were often treated only slightly better than American slaves. Although America and England did not see eye to eye on every issue, England tried to stay neutral when dealing with America.

Cited Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fp14.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/mexican-war/war.htm
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/pierce


**Please remember to also send your position papers to me -- JFeeney91@gmail.com**

Instructions for Posting Your Assignment and Getting Comment Credit

HSC Delegates:

As discussed in the assignment memo, your written assignment must be posted on this blog site. Additionally, we are requiring you to e-mail the memo to your bloc leaders (they will check to ensure you followed the proper formatting rules and forward to the college staff who will send you feedback).

To post on this blog site:
1. Register yourself as a user (which you need to do to comment on the site anyway).
2. Find your bloc leader's paper and click the comment button.
3. Add a "comment" which will be your paper. Copy your paper from your word processing program and paste it into the comment window.
4. Make sure you publish your post/comment!

To ensure you meet the comment requirement for the HSC, you should read the other papers in your bloc or other blocs and comment on other individual's papers and comments. This is the best way to get your comment credit.

If you have any questions, please e-mail Jill or your chair.

Best,
J. L. Reimer

Assignment Memo

Below is the memo regarding preparation for the weekend....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear 2009 Historical Simulation Committee Delegate:

Let us begin by welcoming you to this year’s Historical Simulation Committee: Dateline 1848 to 1860. This year’s topic will allow us all to go back to an era where a 60-year old nation was trying to define itself independently despite the attempts of other countries which sought to exert great influence on its direction. We will collectively grapple with issues that still impact the world today: the meaning of freedom, role of states in a union, importance of individual freedom in a collective society, and role of foreign nations in domestic affairs and international commerce.

The Historical Simulation Committee is one of the most exciting, rewarding, and intense experiences a high school student could have in the Hershey Model UN program. We will make three guarantees about this year’s simulation:

1. We will not be scripted, so realize the decisions the major players make (including the two of us in our roles as U.S. Senators) will have repercussions – some good, some disastrous.
2. The era of the simulation will be lived by all of us during committee time – thus we will have the period's limitations of technology and communications.
3. This weekend could be the most challenging, yet fun weekend of your life – if you are prepared.

That said, it is important for you to prepare thoroughly for the conference.[1] To that end, we have a number of requirements for participation in this year’s conference. Failure to comply with any of the requirements will result in your removal from the Historical Simulation Committee:

1. You are required to participate in one of two online Mock Sessions. (The substance will be the same, so no need to attend both). Both will run from 8:00 – 9:30 pm on Sunday, November 30 and Tuesday, December 2 . Directions on gaining access to the chat room can be found on our Blog site a week prior. Please make sure you state your name and position as you login for attendance purposes.

2. You should logon to our Blog weekly (http://hsc0809.blogspot.com/). This website will feature discussion groups for each Blog, plus new research and information from the bloc leaders and college staff. You should review and become familiar with the information we provide to you; it is for your benefit. On the Blog site now is background information on all blocs. In the coming weeks, we will provide the rules of this year’s simulation (as last year’s participants requested).

3. All delegates are required to make at least two substantive posts on the Blog in the comment section for their bloc prior to conference. The posts must be at least 100 words in length and cannot be completed on the same day.

4. Lastly, and most importantly, your preparations should begin with the answering of the questions at the conclusion of this memorandum. By 11:00 pm on December 10, 2007, you must post your paper in the appropriate section for your bloc on the Blog.[2] Failure to comply with this rule could (and without a very good reason APPROVED BY JASON REIMER IN ADVANCE) lead to your reassignment.[3] It is important to note that if anyone in your bloc is late without approval, the entire bloc will be sanctioned at the start of the weekend.

A word of note: the last deadline is not set arbitrarily. A member of our college staff reviews every paper and sends you personalized feedback. Not only does being late impact you and your bloc, it also negatively impacts our staff. If you know you are having an issue, please communicate that issue to Mr. Reimer in advance.

We make one last guarantee about the program – having an incredible time is completely based on everyone being prepared. That preparation starts today. Your bloc leaders designed these questions so we can begin the moment we convene in January.[4] Please do your part and ensure the success of this year’s HSC.

To conclude, here is the contact information for your bloc leaders, our college staff, and us. If, after contacting your bloc leader and college advisor, we can be of any further assistance in your preparations, please do not hesitate to e-mail us.


White House
Franklin Pierce
Jill Feeny
notmejmf@comcast.net

England
Prime Minister John Russell
Henrietta Levin
manateesxgoxmoo@aim.com

Mexico
Antonio López de Santa Anna
John Pope
popejohn12@hotmail.com

Washington Post
Editor in Chief
Olivia Lucas
livylucas07@yahoo.com

Richmond Exam.
Editor in Chief
Liz Rich
esr11491@yahoo.com

U. S. Senate
William R. King (D), Al - Senate President
Alexa Gaul
aagaul@comcast.net

U. S. Senate
Daniel Webster (W), Mass.
Mr. Reimer
jlr@hangley.com

U. S. Senate
John C. Calhoun (D), S.C.
Mr. Foster
dfoster@CRSD.org

College Staff
Press / Senate
Amy Conwell
aconwel1@jhu.edu

College Staff
Senate / White House
Joe Kardos
joekardos@gmail.com

College Staff
England / Mexico
Parker Schnell
pjschnell@gmail.com

Finally, we wish you all a great Holiday season. See you in January!

Best wishes,

Jason L. Reimer, Esquire
Donald Foster
HSC Coordinators


Instructions for Completing the Position Paper Assignment

· Answer all questions that apply to your bloc from the perspective of your assigned character.
· Position Paper guidelines:
o Each paper should be a minimum of 2 pages and maximum of 4 pages at size 12 Garamond or Times New Roman font with single spacing and 1” margins all around.
o When it is possible to use 1-2 sentence answers, please do so.
o Citations should be at the bottom of the position paper and will not count as part of the paper size requirements.
o Although you do not need to get carried away with complying with citation rules, your citations must enable our staff to find EXACTLY where you got your information.
o Encyclopedias and Wikipedia are not recognized sources for the HSC; do not cite from either.
o You must have at least four different sources.
o Instructions on uploading your paper to the Blog site will be posted on the Blog by Thanksgiving.
· If you have any questions about the assignment, please contact your Bloc leader.

Questions for the “White House” Bloc
Bloc Leader: Jill Feeney, notmejmf@comcast.net

What is your role within the bloc? What are some of your responsibilities? What are some of your past accomplishments that make you qualified for the position you now hold?
What political party are you a member of? What are the beliefs of your party?
In the mid 1800’s the political parties were not set in stone, if you could create your own political party what would it consist of?
What are three of the major issues that you will be most involved with? How will you respond/act?
In early 1848, mass amounts of gold were discovered in California and soon after proportional amounts of people moved to California due to the gold rush. How will the mass movement of people affect the government and their policies?
How will the relationship between Mexico and America be affected after the end of the Mexican-American War?
Due to everyone’s strong opinions about slavery, whether they are for or against, how will you go about preventing an event such as Bleeding Kansas?
Throughout the mid 1800’s, railroads were being built and expanded. Do you think that this will affect the government in anyway, if so how?
Is your character for or against slavery and why? Do you believe that the Missouri Compromise should be changed in anyway? If so how? What is your stance on the Underground Railroad and its activities?

How will relations between England and Mexico affect the United States foreign policy?
Do you believe that the Compromise of 1850, proposed by Henry Clay, will successfully help America from preventing a civil war?

Questions for the “England” Bloc
Bloc Leader: Henrietta Levin, manateesxgoxmoo@aim.com

1. Describe your position, power, role, and beliefs.
2. What are three major events that took place in England between 1840 and 1860?
3. In what state are England’s political and economic ties with America? In your opinion are these relationships in an acceptable condition?
4. Morally and economically, what is your opinion on slavery? Should England try to enforce this opinion abroad?
5. Is England more financially dependent on northern or southern America? Why?
6. Would you be in favor of Southern succession? Why or why not?
7. During this period England was the technological leader of the world. How did this leadership affect domestic and foreign affairs?
8. What are major issues that England was facing in this time period concerning Ireland? How do you want to address these issues?
9. Why was England such a powerful nation during this time period? To what extent would you act to maintain this power?
10. What nations were major English allies and enemies? What sort of interactions did England have with them during this time period?

Questions for the “Mexico” Bloc
Bloc Leader: John Pope, popejohn12@hotmail.com

Who is the character you are representing? — Describe his or her beliefs and role.
What are your responsibilities within the Mexican Government?
Who are your political allies/enemies?
Create a timeline of major events since the 1810 declaration of independence from Spain considering which groups/events your character supported and opposed.
What does your character think of the current state of Mexican affairs? Specifically its economy, military, international standing, domestic tranquility, and government.
What is your character’s opinion of Mexico’s relationship with the US? Include in the context of your answer the Mexican American War, Texas’s annexation and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
How does your character view slavery?
Describe major forms of communication and transportation at this time internationally, and relative to their level of use in Mexico.
Write a eulogy for Los Niños Héroes, include allusions to your loyalty to our country, specifically el Presidente Antonio López de Santa Anna.

Questions for the “U.S. Senate” Bloc
Bloc Leader: Alexa Gaul, aagaul@comcast.net

What type of economy does the state you represent have? Is it more agriculturally or industrially based? How will this influence your views on slavery?
What is your and your state's view on the issue of slavery? Is it an economic or moral issue for you and the state you represent? What is your stance on the Underground Railroad and its activities?
How do you and the state you represent feel about the number of slave states versus free states? Why is this an issue? How does the Compromise of 1850 deal with this issue and how do you feel about the compromise?
Which people and states have the same views as you? Which do not?
If you are from the South, which Southern representatives and states generally agree with you? Are there any Southerners who disagree? Any Northerners? Who are they and why do they disagree with your view? Explain.
If you are from the North, which Northern representatives and states generally agree with you? Are there any Northerners who disagree? Any Southerners? Who are they and why do they disagree with your views? Explain.
*Also, note that some states/ representatives may agree with some of your views and disagree with others. Be sure to clarify which views they agree with and/or disagree with when answering this question.
Which political party do you belong to and what are the views and beliefs of that party? What are they promoting? What are they against? Why do you belong to that particular party? Does your state advocate the views of your party? Why or why not? Is there a recent change of views within your state, or a mixed view? If so, how does this create tension within your state?

Questions for the “Richmond Examiner” Bloc
Bloc Leader: Liz Rich, esr11491@yahoo.com

Your assignment will be to write three detailed articles on one of the five topics below from the Southern perspective, approximately 300-400 words each (you must do the last article). Keep in mind that the writing will be of reporter quality and in the present tense. The articles should not be overtly opinionated unless specified-- although a Southern bias is expected as a reporter of the Richmond Examiner during the Civil War era.

Examining the Mexican War (include the US’s reasons, the terminating treaty, and the influential people involved).
Examining the evolving policies of the U.K. and other European nations towards slavery.
Examining westward expansionism (include transportation, legislation/treaties, major attractions to the west).
Examining the differences between the Whig and Democratic party positions on the Compromise of 1850.
Examining the economic justification for slavery.

Questions for the “Washington Post” Bloc
Bloc Leader: Olivia Lucas, livylucas07@yahoo.com

Your assignment will be to write three detailed articles on one of the five topics below from the Northern perspective, approximately 300-400 words each. Keep in mind that the writing will be of reporter quality and in the present tense. The articles should not be overtly opinionated unless specified-- although a Northern bias is expected as a reporter of the Washington Post during the Civil War era.

Examining the Mexican War (include the US’s reasons, the terminating treaty, and the influential people involved).
Examining the evolving policies of the U.K. and other European nations towards slavery.
Examining westward expansionism (include transportation, legislation/treaties, major attractions to the west).
Examining the key provisions of the Women’s Rights Convention in New York.
Examining the key differences between the Whig, Democratic, Republican, and Know Nothing Parties.

-------------
Footnotes:
[1] As HSC veterans will tell you, this is known as Mr. Foster’s Rule.

[2] The reason you are posting your papers online is two fold: it allows everyone in your bloc and the committee to review the papers and discuss your findings with you – and better prepare for the weekend. It also allows our college staff quicker access to your papers to provide you feedback in a timely manner.

[3] HSC veterans would quickly tell you being punctual (hint, early) is known as Mr. Reimer’s Rule. This rule does extend to the conference weekend. Failure to be on time (hint, early) to any session will result in you finding a comfortable seat on the sidelines of the simulation for a period of time – in addition to jeopardizing your entire bloc’s standing.

[4] Note: your bloc leaders prepared these questions. They might not encompass everything that will be examined during the weekend.

England Background Paper

England [1840-1860]

In the 1840’s and ‘50’s and for several years before, England was plagued by an assortment of epidemics, including smallpox, influenza, typhus, typhoid cholera, and scarlet fever. Scarlet fever alone killed over 20,000 people in 1840, and the English knew the cause of neither this, nor any of the other rampant diseases. The best that could be done to contain the coinciding epidemics was to isolate a person as soon as they showed symptoms of a fatal disease, though by the time that symptoms were obvious, the disease had often already been transmitted. Between 1842 and 1846 the standard of living in England went up due to increased employment, which was itself caused by new job opportunities in the newly invented railroad industry. However, typhus and influenza epidemics resurfaced in 1847, in that year alone killing more than 30,000. In 1848, a devastating cholera epidemic spread throughout all of England, killing more than in the original 1931 epidemic. Due to poor sanitation, disease continued to be a huge population limiting factor even when these epidemics settled down. However, the impact of disease was greatly lessened because of the Public Health Bill of 1948, which mandated monitoring of buildings and water quality with respect to certain health codes.

In 1851, England hosted the first World Fair, known as the Great Exhibition. It invited many countries to come to England and set up an exhibit that showcased the pinnacle of that country’s technology. England was at this time the industrial leader of the world, and Prince Albert, the man who coordinated the fair, was well aware of this. The Great Exhibition displayed fantastic English technologies alongside inferior foreign ones, increasing the prowess of England’s reputation as a modern, industrialized nation. Six million people came to the fair during the six months that it was in London, and through these people England’s reputation as a superpower was spread across the globe. The crystal palace, England’s primary contribution to the fair, was an architectural fete that continued to wow spectators until it was accidentally burned down in 1936.

On March 24, 1854, England and France declared war on Russia, launching the Crimean War in an effort to prevent Russian expansion. Also, there were disputes between Russia and the other involved nations concerning control of the Holy Land. British casualties throughout the war amounted to 29,017, though over 16,000 of these were not from battle, but from disease. Russia surrendered in March of 1856 and war was officially ended by the Treaty of Paris that month. The Crimean War is today seen as the first modern war because the media made the people of the involved countries intensely aware of the happenings of the war.

England outlawed domestic slavery in 1772 and throughout the entire British Empire in 1838. Slavery was considered by the English by the 1840’s to be an extremely immoral practice that should be avoided at all costs. Therefore, the British would have supported northern America in its anti-slavery sentiments. However, this anti-slavery position was more theoretical than practical. Though no Englishman could technically own a slave, the lowest English class was kept in a slave-like state of perpetual poverty and had extremely low standards of living, far worse than that of many American slaves. The royals, executives, and parliament obviously didn’t in reality care for the impoverished, suggesting that England might betray its anti-slavery morals and align itself with southern America for economic reasons. In the 1840’s England bought almost all of its cotton from the South, making England’s economy very dependent on this region. Both the North and the South expected for England to ally itself with their own region because of moral and economic reasons, respectively. However, England remained neutral as American sectionalism became more and more pronounced.

Washington Post: Possible Headlines of Major Events (from Olivia)

TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO PASSED, MEXICAN WAR HAS ENDED

TAYLOR ANNOUNCED AS PRESIDENT

GOLD! GOLD! GOLD IN CALIFORNIA!

SLAVEOWNERS CRAVING FOR MORE: EXPANSIONISM

THE PEOPLE’S CHOICE: POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN KANSAS AND NEBRASKA

BLEEDING KANSAS: MANIPULATING THE FREE VOTE WITH BRUTALITY

BRUTISH BROOKS BEATS SERENE SUMNER ON THE SENATE FLOOR

TAYLOR SHOT, FILLMORE ASSUMES PRESIDENCY

SCOTT LOSES ELECTION, WELCOME PRESIDENT PIERCE

DRED SCOTT IS PROPERTY?

LINCOLN WINS THE TENSE RACE!

A BLOW TO THE UNION, SOUTH CAROLINA SECEDES!

Mexico: Background/Major Issues (by John)

Mexico in 1848 is a nation that has been constantly wrecked by internal divisions, and external attacks. Its economy is suffocating under huge amounts of internal debt and it has little in the way of international interaction at least on a financial level since the Pastry War with France. Politically it is a whirlwind of competing factions where the most powerful player is an on again off again president/dictator/military strong man, Santa Anna.

Mexico had no guiding political philosophy after its independence or long standing native traditions of democracy. So in the years between 1821 and 1850 there constant political upheavals as competing factions sought to define Mexican society. They can chiefly be grouped into liberals who wanted to create some kind of democracy and conservatives who wanted a much stronger central government preferably even a monarch that would protect the land holding classes and the Catholic Church. These were the competing factions on a national level. After the initial revolution the series of armed turning over of powers created a since of panic and fear of reform in any ruling party, particularly the Conservative upper class which manipulated the military as its tool for self-protection and promotion. But these where just the national struggles the federation itself had a hard time holding together, with aside from the rebellion in Texas a rebellion in states in Central Mexico, and a earlier rebellion in what is considered modern Central America which resulted in its independence. 1847 saw the start of one of the longest lasting rebellions called the Caste War of Yucatan.

This political instability, tradition of disparity between the classes, international hostility and even aggression combined to create and perpetuate a weak economy in Mexico for much of the 19th century (the same reasons could explain much of 20th century economic in Mexico). The originally colonial empire had an economy centered around the Catholic Church this slowly transitioned into an economy more focused on the agricultural upper class, with this transition helping to lead to the out cry for Mexican Independence. With out stability there was no room for economic growth. The majority of Mexico’s territories were under populated and its people were generally poor and uneducated. The difference between Mexico and other countries at the time was a lack of capital to expand. The instability of the government which had continually defaulted on many international loans, and gave no confidence to international lenders with a seeming revolving door to the presidency, further exasperated the problem. One attempt to solve it was the opening up of the fringe territories that Mexico held in the North to US citizens. The hope was to better populate these areas and stimulate the economy but the US citizens took it as a chance to expand and colonize.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is the defining moment piece of Mexico’s relation with the US up to 1848. The Mexican-American War resulted in the lose of a 55% of Mexican Territory to that date. It is still a lasting point of contention in US- Mexican relations. It built off of the humiliating defeat of Texas’s Independence, and then added more humiliation. It took away some of the most agriculturally viable and mineral rich land Mexico had. In return in gave 15 million dollars in war damages and nominal protection of rights of Mexican citizens living in what became the US. Though it has often been contested that these rights were infringed upon.

The original conflict with Texas for independence revolved a lot around slavery, which had been abolished in Mexico after the war for independence with Spain. Texas had been granted a special slave holding privilege as a Mexican state out of economic necessity but it was a huge point of contention between the Mexican government and the American settlers. The refusal to “sanction slavery” was one of the key points in the refusal of Mexico to acknowledge Texas as an independent entity. One interesting point is after Texas had received independence Santa Anna had been “exiled” to the US and was accepted as an Anti-Slavery hero, because Northerners viewed the inclusion of Texas as a way to tip the balance towards slave states. To carry this analogy further the land that Mexico lost and the US gained in the Mexican-American War could be seen as the point of contention that lead to the Civil War because so much land integrated all at once didn’t fit in with the hard compromises that had to be made to keep a political balance. Slaves would continue to seek and gain refugee in Mexico long after Texas’s independence and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.


Suggested Sources:
http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history.html
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/index_flash.html
http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/Hispanic/history_heritage/pns_mexico_slaves0716.asp
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/

White House: Major Issues (by Jill)

The delegates within the White House will have many challenging situations presented to them throughout the conference. Each delegate will be faced with different issues that can pop up at any time, that is why it is important that they know the basic information about the general time period and the roles which they will be playing.

In 1848, there were many events that the White House had to deal with. These events included: the end of the Mexican-American War, the new found gold in California, the surprisingly large amount of supporters for the Declaration of Sentiments, and the debate whether or not to pass the Wilmot Proviso.

After two years of being at war with Mexico, the United States presented the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to the Mexican government. Because the United States’ numerous military victories, they were able to dictate the terms of the settlement. The original treaty stated that the United States would receive at least 500,000 square miles of valuable territory which inevitably aided them in their rise to becoming a world super power and gave the U.S. the right of transit across the Rio Grande. In return, the United States would pay the Mexican government up to twenty million dollars, and would assume a maximum of three million dollars worth of citizen claims against Mexico. Once these terms were presented to the Mexican government, the Unites States government began to negotiate the terms until both countries were satisfied and had signed the treaty.

In late January of 1848, gold was discovered by James Marshall at Sutter’s Mill in Colona, California. Less than one year latter, news of the mass amount s of gold in California reached the East coast. By 1849, approximately eighty thousand Americans had left their homes for the opportunity to “strike it rich” during the California Gold Rush. Because of the Gold Rush, underground mines were opened and a new industry was born.

In 1848, the first Women’s Rights Convention was held in New York. At that time, the Declaration of Sentiments was presented and signed by one hundred men and women at the conference. The Declaration of Sentiments, which followed the same format as the Declaration of Independence, declared that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. Although the Declaration of Sentiments did not have as large of a direct effect towards the American people as many other events of the time did, it did cause tension to arise within the country not only between men and women, but also between traditionalists and the progressives.

The Wilmot Proviso was submitted to congress in mid-1846 by David Wilmot with the purpose of preventing slavery from being instated into the land that was gained by America during the Mexican-American War. The Wilmot Proviso was not passed in 1846 and it continued to be debated in 1848. The debate carried on for so long, it was no longer a debate between the Democratic Party and the Whig Party; instead it was a debate between the Northerners and the Southerners which caused much tension.

Suggested Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/aftermath/
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/californiagoldrush.htm
http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/seneca.html
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/ps-wilmotproviso.html
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/ps-wilmotproviso.html

Senate: Major Issues (from Alexa)

The issues within the Senate developed because of the variation in Northern and Southern mentalities. The Northern view against slavery was formed because of their economy. Northern states had an industrial based economy and little agriculture, and therefore they had few slaves in general. Because the North did not have need for slavery, they could then judge slavery on a moral standpoint, from which they deemed slavery to be immoral and wrong. Therefore, they wanted states to be free, and not include slavery. The Southern states were strongly agriculturally based. The South relied heavily on large plantation farming to support their economy. On these farms slaves worked for no pay, making the South’s economy prosper further, and creating a luxurious lifestyle for southern plantation owners. The South needed slavery in order to sustain its economy and lifestyle, so when the North wanted to rid of slavery within the United States, the South responded with fiery debate and outrage. For the South, slavery was an economic and not a moral issue. The idea of slavery being moral or not wasn’t even considered because of how heavily their economy relied on slaves for its proper functioning.

From these mentalities issues came up. An extremely large one of these issues dealt with expansion of the United States. Because the US had expanded so much, new states were quickly being added and admitted into the Union. However, the Northern and Southern states had very different opinions on the rules that should be admitted in these new states, and the issue of slave versus free states arose. The Northern states wanted states to be free of slavery, and new states to be admitted as free states, while the Southern states wanted slavery to be allowed in all states, and for new states to be admitted as slave states. At the time both North and South had 15 states each who supported their view, so the admittance of more states on either side would cause inequality within the Senate. Both North and South worried that if they didn’t have more states on their side, their views would not be represented. When the Compromise of 1850 was approved, California was admitted as a free state, and other states were given the right to choose whether they wanted to be free or slave states. It seemed that more states were leaning towards being free than slave, relieving the North and causing the South to worry more. Southerners feared that their views would no longer be represented and paranoia of this is a crucial part of what led to their eventual secession from the Union.

Slavery itself was also an issue. Northerners started morphing from the idea of just having new states not allowing slavery to ridding of slavery altogether. This was what the South had feared most, and the fact that their economy had such a strong reliance on slavery prevented them from being able to abolish it without destroying their entire lifestyle, culture, and prosperity. No one wants to give up the privileges they’ve had their entire life. Therefore, the South fought vehemently to preserve slavery, and to push for its right to be allowed ever where. The South wanted slavery to be a constitutional right for all states.

Another issue within the societies was the Fugitive Slave Act. Henry Clay made the Fugitive Slave Act stricter in the Compromise of 1850 in order to appease the South. However, the North didn’t follow the Fugitive Slave Act and instead let runaway slaves live as free citizens in the North. The fact that the North was not following their side of the Compromise infuriated Southerners, especially since they needed the slave power on the plantation. To them slaves were property, and the Northerners were stealing that property right out from under their fingertips.

These were the main issues going on between North and South in the period between 1848 and 1860; the issues that eventually led to Southern secession from the Union and Civil War.


Suggested Sources:
Calhoun, John. “The Clay Compromise Measures.” March 4, 1850.
Gatell, Frank. “Whig Party.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2006. Grolier Online Database.
14 October 2008. < assetid="0416660-00">.
Goldman, Ralph. “Democratic Party.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2006. Grolier Online Database. 14 October 2008. < http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0123810-00>.
Kraus, Michael. The United States to 1865. New York: University of Michigan, 1959.
"Republican Party." Ohio History Central. July 1, 2005. 14 October 2008. .
The American Pageant by David Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen and Thomas A. Bailey. Twelfth Edition.
“US-Mexican War.” PBS. March 14, 2006. 10 October 2008.
<>.

General Background Information (written by bloc leaders)

The dissension between the North and South in 1800s America was something that happened gradually; a tension that developed over time through westward expansion, the idea of “manifest destiny,” and the Mexican War. Through these events the issue of slavery arose and steadily grew more urgent, revealing the North and South’s strongly differing views on the issue. From these views debates and dissension increased leading to the Compromise of 1850, which attempted to appease both sides, and satisfy their needs. However, as all students who have learned of the Civil War know, in the end the compromise did not achieve its goal of stopping a possible secession. The HSC simulation begins shortly before the Compromise of 1850, before the secession takes place. In order for one to understand all that is happening at the time, they must first understand the issues taking place during the time period, and what caused them to arise.

Westward expansion began in the early 1800’s as many Americans moved westward, leaving their old lives behind in hope of new opportunity and prosperity. The US had gained much new land including the Louisiana Purchase. People seized the opportunity to settle in these new lands and through this settlement new states were created. As these states joined the Union the issue arose of whether they should be admitted as free or slave states. The North wanted the new states to be free of slavery, while the South wanted slavery to not only be allowed in the new western states, but made legal in all states. As more people expanded west and more states formed this issue became more and more of a problem, and disagreement grew more intense. This argument worsened through the idea of “manifest destiny,” a feeling of freedom and opportunity to have a better life. “Manifest destiny” promoted the expansion west, promising a new, better beginning for those that moved there. However it also indirectly promoted a North antislavery philosophy because through “manifest destiny” their new, better beginning included one without slavery. Therefore, as the fervor of “manifest destiny” spread throughout the country causing people to spread west, it also empowered some into the idea of abolishing slavery.

The Mexican-American War began during this westward expansion time period right in the fervor of “manifest destiny.” The US was eager to continue its seemingly endless expansion and continued prosperity. The US continued to expand into Mexican areas, and border disputes arose. There was also the issue of Texas who wanted to become part of the Union but was officially owned by Mexico. These issues led to the Mexican-American War, which lasted from 1846-1848. The US won the war and gained even more territory through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. From this treaty the US gained new territory all the way to Oregon. This new territory caused the already dire issue of slavery versus non-slavery to arise again, stirring another spur of debates and dissension. There were also new measures of disagreement even while the war was taking place. Early into the war David Wilmot, Pennsylvania Representative in Congress proposed a bill, named the Wilmot Proviso, to ban slavery in any land won during the war. All Northern states except for one agreed with this proviso, while the Southern states strongly disagreed and denunciated the proviso. This proviso stirred up the already existing fiery debates that continued to rage through the Compromise of 1850 until after the Civil War.

In 1850 Henry Clay proposed a compromise in order alleviate the fiery disagreement and debate between North and South. He wanted to stop secession before it began as well as solve the issue of slave versus free states that the North and South had been arguing over for decades. This compromise was supposed to finally make both sides happy one and for all. However, that never happened, and both North and South continued to quarrel.

The Compromise of 1850 did however achieve some things. It temporarily settled the argument between North and South by making concessions to both sides. To appease the North it admitted California as a free state and abolished slave trade in Washington D.C. To appease to the South, it divided the Mexican Cession land into New Mexico and Texas and gave both states popular sovereignty which is the right to choose whether they wanted to be free or slave states. It also made the fugitive slave law stricter, so now any slave that escaped would have to be given back to the owner whether they lived in a free state or not.

Description of Political Parties

In the mid 1800s two political parties existed: the Democrats and the Whigs. However in the period from 1848 on mass political party turmoil began with old parties ending, new parties being created, and multiple parties joining together to form other parties. Following is a description of a few major parties: the Whigs, Democrats, Republicans, and Know-nothings.

The Whig party lasted from 1834-1856. It was originally formed in opposition to Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party. The Whigs developed directly from the National Republicans. There was much variation within the Whig party because it contained representatives from both the Northern and Southern states. This variation of views became a problem as the issues of slavery and national expansion began to arise. Southern Whigs had much different views on the issues than the Northern Whigs did which led to high tension within the party. In the time span between 1848-1852 the Whig party suffered high tension and confusion because two very influential party members, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, both died, some Northern Whigs joined the antislavery Free Soil party, and Southern Whigs began to join the Democratic Party which they believed to better serve their interests. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster were both Whigs who really emphasized the party’s beliefs, which were based on union and compromise. After their death these beliefs were not as strongly supported, and as the party split and tension between states grew, compromise and union became increasingly less important to the people. Instead, both Southerners and Northerners cared more about getting their way, than working everything out.

The Democratic Party was one of the oldest and longest existing parties in the United States. Many Southern Whigs converted to this party, feeling that their views were better expressed through the Democratic party then their previous Whig party. The Democratic Party during the time period of 1848 through the Civil War was the party that represented the South’s views. They were composed of Southerners and were for slavery and slave states. They aimed to protect the right of slave property, or right to own slaves. This party struggled much to have its views represented and accepted, and eventually party members grew frustrated, leading to secession from the Union.

The Republican Party originated in 1854 as a response to the Kansas-Nebraska act which gave both the states of Kansas and Nebraska the right to popular sovereignty (to choose whether they wanted to be free or slave states). It was made up of former Northern Whigs, the Free Soil Party, and the American party. Abraham Lincoln was the first president from the Republican Party, and he was an abolitionist. The party itself emphasized abolishing slavery and changing for the better. However, it did not try to rid of slavery in states that already possessed it, it only tried to stop slavery in new states and territories. It was a very radical and forward pushing party for the time period, and its views severely angered the Southerners.