During Jefferson’s presidency, the western frontier extended beyond Ohio and Kentucky

into the Indiana Territory. Settlers in this region depended for their economic existence on
transporting goods on rivers that flowed westward into the Mississippi and southward as far as
New Orleans. Thus, they were greatly alarmed when in 1802, Spanish officials who were still in
charge of New Orleans closed the port to Americans. They revoked the right of deposit granted
in the Pinckney Treaty of 1795, which had allowed American farmers tax-free use of the port;
people on the frontier clamored for government action. As such, from 1803 to 1860, the U.S.
promoted the concept of westward expansion through Manifest Destiny to preserve American
agrarianism and individualism and to justify their lust for land for reasons such increases in
sectional power or for the promotion of slavery. Later on, the closing of the frontier in 1890 and
the Panic of 1893 led to a reemergence in the concept of MD under the pretense of imperialism.
However, this new expansionist sentiment saw the U.S. embarking on an aggressive policy of
acquisition in order to control foreign territories instead with the continued racist attitudes and
violations of human rights as from nearly a century ago.
The United States, under Thomas Jefferson, acquired the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 as
Jefferson believed the territory could preserve the ideal citizen of the yeoman farmer. The
yeoman farmer embodied the independent citizen beholden to no one and therefore could vote
with a clear conscience. With the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory, Jefferson provided an
opportunity to preserve his dream of an agrarian-based democracy. Later, Jacksonian Democrats,
self-appointed successors of Jeffersonian democratic principles, encouraged settlement in
western portions of states and into federal territories thus preserving the idea of the yeoman
farmer. This was, however, often done at the expense of encroachment of NA land and of their
human rights as evidenced by Jackson’s decisions with regards to the Trail of Tears. Thus by the
1840s, MD came to represent a movement of the frontier west that was fully expected to
continue, especially when it mingled with the slavery debate on the extension of the institution
into new territoty. Both the N. and S. wanted to expand so that new states could enter the union
and increase a section’s political strength. For example, TX’s annexation delayed in part bc of N.
fears that it would divide into several states. Furthermore, in 1844, Dem. nominated James K.
Polk, ana vid expansionist for president. After being elected, Polk used a boundary dispute
between TX and Mex to provoke a war and to gain land. The ensuing M/A war was generally
favored by S. who eyed the prospect of gaining land that could become slave states. Although the
N was skeptical, as seen with the Wilmot Proviso, they were still aware of the benefits of gaining
territory and in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended the M/A war and gave the US it’s
SW quarter. However, the outbreak of the CW more or less snuffed out any remaining thirst for
territorial expansion and the US’s MD seemed fulfilled. Following the CW, the US focused on
economic development of its plentiful natural resources which at the time seemed inexhaustible.
For instance, ​although Alaska was purchased in 1867, the acquisition was ridiculed as “Seward’s
Folly” or “Seward’s Icebox.”
The closing of the frontier in 1890, however, led to the realization that U.S. resources
were not inexhaustible and that possession of resource-rich territories might be necessary.
Furthermore, the Panic of 1893 led to the belief that the domestic market had become saturated
and that new markets were necessary if the U.S. economy was to continue to prosper. Also
present was the realization that European countries were carving up Africa and Asia and that the
U.S. “must not fall behind.” This led to the reemergence of MD under the name of imp.
Compared to MD, imp saw U.S. expansion, or at least justified it, as a God-given obligation
rather than merely a God-given right. It was the duty of the United States to lift native people out
of the state of barbarism; it was the “white man’s burden” to uplift, Christianize, and civilize the
heathen savages. However, by no means did this mean that the motives of imperialists were
solely altruistic. This is evidenced by the belligerent gp of acquisition and control of foreign
lands. For example, ​the S/A war led to the acquisition of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Philippines,
and Guam. The “big stick” policy of TR gave the US control of the Panama Canal Zone while
the ​Roosevelt Corollary​ to the Monroe Doctrine allowed the U.S. to “police” the Western
Hemisphere and to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations. However, the US continued to
subjugate groups and failed to universally adhere to democratic principles as seen with the 1901
Insular Cases that continued to legally prevent a guarantee of natural rights to Filipinos and to
Puerto Ricans.

The US entered the 21​st​ century with unrivaled economic and military dominance in the
world. However, ​the US was faulted by many in the Arab world for siding with Israel in the
deadly cycle of Palestinian terror-bombing and Israeli reprisals and for violating Arab lands by
stationing troops in the Middle East after the Gulf War. As a result, Islamic extremists like
Osama bin Laden and the supporters of Al-Qaeda decided to wage a “holy war” ​against the
"Jews and Crusaders" to restore a Islamic caliphate throughout the world. This sentiment
ultimately culminated during the 9/11 terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda in the US. ​These attacks
galvanized pub​lic opinion as nothing since the​ Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ​in 1941, and they
empowered the Bush admin to take great steps in majorly altering dp to focus on strengthening
security and for fp so that the issue of terrorism and its prevention and defeat would dominate.
After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration sought to take domestic policy in a new
direction by attempting to enhance domestic security. First came the l​argest reorganization of
government since the creation of the Department of Defense after WWII with the creation of a
new Homeland Secu​rity Department that combined more than 20 federal agencies including the
Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and ones dealing with customs and immigration.​ In addition,
due to ​the criticism that the FBI, CIA, and the Defense Department received from a bipartisan
commission on terrorism for failing to work together to "connect the dots" that may have
uncovered the 9/11 plot in 2004, Congress created a Director of National Intelligence with the
difficult job of coordinating the intelligence activities of all agencies. Furthermore, as similar to
past eras of the US when faced with extreme crises, the US tends to restrict civil liberties of its
citizens. For instance, during WWI, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918
sought to prevent intervention with military operations and to make it illegal to criticize the
government. In the case after the 9/11 attacks, t​he Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2003 gave
unparalleled powers to the U.S. government to obtain information and expand surveillance and
arrest powers. ​ ​However, many Americans were troubled by unlimited wiretaps, the collection of
records about cell phone calls and emails, the use of military tribunals to try suspects accused of
terrorism, and the imprisonment of suspects indefinitely at a U.S. prison in Guantanamo, Cuba.
Terrorism dominated U.S. foreign policy after 9/11. For instance, the Bush administration
refused to join the Kyoto Accord to prevent global warming, walked out of a U.N. conference on
racism, aban​doned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, and for years would not
negotiate with North Korea or Iran. Critics questioned whether the admin​istration valued
cooperation with the nations of the world or instead followed a unilateralist approach. Bush
argued, in what became known as the "Bush Doctrine," that the old foreign policies of
containment and deterrence were no longer effective in a world of stateless terrorism. To protect
America, the president claimed that the United States would be justified in using pre-emptive
attacks to stop the acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by terror​ists and
by nations that support terrorism. This doctrine was implemented when ​Bush singled out Iraq,
North Korea, and Iran as the "axis of evil." While U.S. intelligence agencies were finding no link
between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration pursued a
pre-emptive attack on Iraq before Saddam Hussein would supposedly build and distribute
WMDs to terrorists. Although U.N. inspectors failed to find WMDs in Iraq, the Bush
administration continued to present claims of their existence based on intelligence information
that proved false. Later, ​in early 2003, President Bush declared that Iraq had not complied with
numerous U.N. resolutions, and that "the game was over." Without the support of the U.N.
Security Council, the United States launched a​ir attacks on Iraq on March 19. In less than four
weeks, U.S. armed forces, with the support of the British and other allies, overran Iraqi forces,
captured the capital city, Baghdad, and ended Hussein's dictatorship. When U.S. forces could not
find WMDs in Iraq, criticism of the "war of choice" and the "regime change" mounted both at
home and overseas.

The 1960s was a period when long-held values and norms of behavior seemed to break
down, particularly among the young. Many college-age men and women became political
activists and were the driving force behind the civil rights and antiwar movements. Other young
people simply “dropped out” and separated themselves from mainstream culture through their
appearance and lifestyle. Attitudes toward sexuality appeared to loosen, and women began to
openly protest the traditional roles of housewife and mother that society had assigned to them.
The generation of baby boomers that came of age in the 1960s and 1970s thus believed fervently
in the ideals of a democratic society. They hoped to slay the dragons of unresponsive authority,
poverty, racism, and war. As such, their responses to political events at the time contributed
extensively to pop culture by creating new genres of music and lifestyles. How​ever, the
impatience of some activists with change, the use of violence, and the spread of self-destructive
behavior discredited their cause in the eyes of others, particularly older Americans.
The Vietnam War and its surrounding anti-war sentiments grew into a broad political
movement​ that funneled into the hippie movement in the 1960s. This movement informed and
helped shape the vigorous and polarizing debate, primarily in the ​United States​, during the
second half of the 1960s and early 1970s on how to end the war. ​The hippie movement in
particular gained momentum because of the fact that there was TV coverage and the public was
able to actually see what was happening in Vietnam tugging at the hearts of Americans across
the country. ​Interestingly enough, in many ways, the hippies of the 1960s descended from an
earlier American counterculture: the Beat Generation. This group of young bohemians, most
famously including ​Jack Kerouac​ and Allen Ginsberg made a name for themselves in the 1950s
with their rejection of prevailing social norms, including capitalism, consumerism and
materialism. Similarly, hippies embraced Eastern religions and experimented with drugs and a
looser form of sexuality.​ ​In addition, ​the hippie slogan, “Make Love, Not War” became a
prominent phrase in the 1960s counterculture that was created by those against America’s
involvement in the Vietnam War.
In June of 1972 a group of spies with ties to President Nixon was caught while attempting
to place listening devices in the office of the Democratic National Committee in Washington's
Watergate building. After a lengthy investigation, which Nixon attempted to undermine by
refusing to turn over tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office, Congress determined to
impeach Nixon for obstruction of justice and abuse of power. ​After the Watergate scandal, many
people withdrew from politics altogether. They turned instead to pop culture–easy to do in such a
trend-laden, fad-happy decade. They listened to 8-track tapes of Jackson Browne, Olivia
Newton-John, Donna Summer and Marvin Gaye. They made latch-hook rugs and macramé, took
up racquetball and yoga, read “I’m OK, You’re OK” and “The Joy of Sex,” went to
wife-swapping parties and smoked even more pot than they had in the 1960s. In general, by the
end of the decade, many young people were using their hard-fought freedom to simply do as they
pleased: to wear what they wanted, to grow their hair long, to have sex, to do drugs. Their
liberation, in other words, while intensely personal, was heavily looked down upon by older
generations as being too wild and inappropriate.
During the 1970s, however, the struggle for gay and lesbian rights in the form of identity
politics intensified. As a reuslt, the genre of ​d​isco​ originated in ​Black​ ​queer​ communities to offer
a form of salvation from social turmoil during the 1970s in the ​Bronx​ and other parts of ​New
York​. It was agreed by many members prominent in the Disco scene that the music was about
love but the question regarding its political import received mixed responses. Although the songs
themselves may not have explicitly made political claims, it's important to note that disco, for
many, was a "form of escape" and noted a "dissolve of restrictions on black/gay people". The
spirit of the 60s as well as the experience of ​Vietnam​ and black/gay liberation spurred the
almost-frenzied energy pertinent in these disco music. Not only did disco allow marginalized
individuals an opportunity to express their sexuality and appreciate one another's diversity, they
had the ability to influence popular music in later generations. Although once mutually
exclusive, disco allowed for the coming together of black music and pop; this shows how disco
music not only led to a social appreciation for diversity, but offered a platform on which Black
artists could succeed.

Washington's election by unanimous vote of the Electoral College in 1789 underscored

the popular belief that political parties were not needed. The Con​stitution itself did not mention
political parties, and the Framers assumed none would arise. They were soon proven wrong. The
debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in 1787 and 1788 were the first indication that a
two-party system would emerge as a core feature of American politics. The most recent party
system, the sixth party system, ​is characterized by an increase in the use of technology and an
electoral shift from the electoral coalitions of the Fifth Party System during the New Deal: the
Republican Party​ became the dominant party in the South, rural areas, and suburbs while the
Democratic Party​ increasingly started to assemble a coalition of African-Americans, Latinos and
white urban progressives. However, the party system did not change much as a whole as the
sixth party system began as a two-party and continues to be one today.
With the Democratic party providing support for​ the 1960s ​Civil Rights movement​,
Richard Nixon​ devised the so-called "​Southern Strategy​", using opposition to it to win the ​1968
elections​ for himself and other Republican candidates in the ​South​, ending a century of
Democratic dominance in the region. Nixon also won the ​1972 re-elections​ in landslide.​Ronald
Reagan​ then produced a major ​realignment​ with his ​1980​ and ​1984​ landslide elections. The
Democrats had control of Congress with two breaks since 1932. The Republican Party took
control of the Senate in 1980 and both houses in 1994. It built a strong base in the white South,
while losing the Northeastern base of the liberal and moderate Republicans.Almost fifty years
after it had begun, the realignment of the two political parties resulted in the flipping of
post-Civil War allegiances, with urban areas and the Northeast now solidly Democratic, and the
South and rural areas overwhelmingly voting Republican. The result today is a political system
that provides Republicans with considerable advantages in rural areas and most parts of the Deep
South. Democrats dominate urban politics and those parts of the South, known as the Black Belt,
where the majority of residents are African American.
Changes in political issues and technology thus drove the transition from the fifth to the
sixth party system. Democrats came out against the “separate but equal” system of racial
discrimination in southern states and in favor of programs designed to ensure equal opportunity
for minority citizens. Furthermore, while Republicans opposed expanding the role of
government, Democrats argued in favor of expanding the federal government to provide health
care funding, antipoverty programs, education, and public works. At the same time, both
Republican and Democratic party organizations transitioned into parties in service, providing
recruiting, training, and campaigning for their party’s congressional and presidential candidates.