미국 제30차 연방의회(1847년 3월 4일-1849년 3월 3일) 선거와 제커리 테일러 대통령

양재열(Yang Jae-Yul) 계명사학회 2007 계명사학 Vol.18 No.-

This Theme aims to study the Zachary Taylor boom of 1847 in the light of the extended elections for the 30th United States Congress. It demonstrates the shift in historical emphases which close study of other congressional elections in the 1840's may reveal. Only when viewed in the perspective of the sequential nature of those elections, the Taylor boom can be seen for what it essentially was, at least in its inception. It is an answer to the pressing, temporary need of the Whig party for a candidate whose name could win support in the crucial congressional elections in the South in 1847. The Taylor candidacy of presidential election may possibly be representative of a number of historical problems of these years. The dark horse is war hero, not Henry Clay. but Zachary Taylor. It emphasizes the desirability of renewed research within the framework of a correct appreciation of the congressional election process. The Whig party opposed the Mexican war. the Democratic party want to 'All Mexico land', the South good opportunity in extend the slavery system. Mexican War. diplomatic problems with Spain, Great Britain, economic problem were expressed new era. National issues, internal conflicts in Democratic party and sectional conflicts are made Taylor president and Whig party majority party.

美國의 第29次 議會(1845-1847) 議員의 地域主義 性向

楊在烈(Yang Jae-Yul) 계명사학회 1992 계명사학 Vol.3 No.-

멕시코 전쟁(1846-1848) 시기의 의회

양재열(Yang Jae-Yul) 계명사학회 2000 계명사학 Vol.11 No.-

1840년대 미국의 운하건설을 둘러싼 정치적 갈등

양재열 ( Jae Yul Yang ) 한국미국사학회 2010 미국사연구 Vol.31 No.-

1840년대 미국의 운하 건설을 둘러싼 문제는 크게 경제적 문제와 정치적 문제로 나누어 질 수 있다. 정치 문제는 주로 정부의 보조금 지불의 법적인 문제와 주와 연방의 역학관계 그리고 파벌의 이해관계였다. 지금까지 학자들의 통상적인 해석은 휘그당은 운하 개발을 지지하고 민주당은 반대한다는 것이다. 한편 수정주의 학자들은 북부와 서부는 찬성하고 남부는 반대라는 주장을 하였다. 경제적 문제는 운하 건설이 19세기 초·중반의 산업혁명에서 나타나는 교통혁명의 한 과정으로 이해하는 것이다. 교통혁명이 유료도로 및 운하나 철도건설을 둘러싼 투기의 과정이자, 운하 건설과정에서 나타난 토목·건축의 기술발전과 기업가의 토대가 된다는 것이다. 당시 운하 건설은 기업인들의 경제적 이익을 노리고 만든 회사와 보조금을 준 정부가 만든 합작회사에서 주도하였다. 합작회사에 보조금을 주기 위해 연방의회 의원들이 법안을 만들고 통과시켰다. 또한 운하로 인한 직간접의 경제적 이익을 기대한 선거구민의 바람이기도 하였다. 많은 의원들은 운하에 대한 지원을 촉구하고, 그것을 실행에 옮겼다. 선거구로 운하를 건설하기 위해 누구보다도 애를 썼으며, 그것이 실행되지 않으면 운하건설을 반대하는 경향이 있었다. 연방의회 투표 결과를 보면, 서부의 운하법안에는 접경주 중에 보다 북부에 위치하고 노예제를 반대한 서부 출신은 찬성했지만, 남부에 가까운 소위 ‘접경주’ 출신은 거의 반대하였다. 한편 북부 출신 의원들도 투표에 모두 찬성한 것도 아니고, 운하가 통과하는 선거구 출신 의원들은 찬성하지만 그렇지 않으면 반대했다. 결국 연방의회 의원들의 공식적인 의사당 발언이나 연설과 달리 운하개발 법안에 나타난 의원들의 투표결과는 당론도 아니고 지역주의도 아닌 지방주의 속성이 강한 것이었다. This Study is to investigate political conflicts between West and Northern Canals in the United states in 1840’s. Especially, it may focused on American Government’s positions to construction of Canals. This study is to compare the Sectional and Political Parties Variables. In American History, 19th Century was constructed much Canals - it may call ‘The Canal Era.’ The transportation increased and overpassed trades Mississippi river and Great Lakes, and Atlantic Ocean. To attempt to understand the Canal Era we must consider the thousands of miles of rivers that were constructed and operated over 1840’s by people. They used their governments and organized companies to build a canal network that often served them well until depression struck or the railroad passed by their Canals. These Canals depended upon the will of the electorate and the interested group in power. Whether they were public or private, canals were always dependent in some degree upon the democratic political process. Political leaders - United States Senate or congressman - often tied their fortunes to Canals. The Canals were the work of men who were almost devoted to their interests. Most important thing was such that the canals were operated in a regional or sectional and national system in U.S. Congress. In United States Congress and State Congress, Congress men voted Canal Bills by sectionalism and regionalism most interested variable. The voting behavior in 29th Congress were not only parties opinion but sectionalism and regionalism. But most important factor in voting behavior of congress men was regionalism.

1850년 타협에 나타난 지역적인 갈등 : 제31차 연방의회 상원의원을 중심으로 The Senate in the 31st U.S. Congress

양재열 ( Jae Yul Yang ) 한국미국사학회 2006 미국사연구 Vol.24 No.-

19세기 중반 미국 연방의회와 자작농지법(Homestead Act)

양재열(Yang Jae-Yul) 계명사학회 2005 계명사학 Vol.16 No.-

This theses aim to study the Sectionalism and the Slavocracy in mid 19th century U. S. Congress. According to traditional interpretations, the failure of the Homestead act of 1848-1854 in U. S. Congress was caused largely by southern senators who, being united primarily by their desire to extend slavery and land selfish voted to deny public land to labor and yeoman. Although the new political historians verified the error and false of traditional historians, I investigate the latter view standing. New techniques of roll call analysis now avaliable are show that this important land act was united by the sectionalism. Political historians usually analyze the key votes on one or two issues. A legislator's response to a given roll-calls indicates only whether he was for or against to a given votes. It does not show how much he favored or opposed these same legislative measures. Although some senators and congressmen are nay and yea to acts under almost any circumstances, others changed their vote if the measure is slightly amended. I used the Louis Guttman scale and tries to investigate the whole votes in 1848-1854. Also I used 3-4 variables to study in congress voting behavior. and may used senators and congressmen's speaking on floor. Then may we concluded in an general way about these voting behaviors. Southern Members could united in their attitudes to homestead acts almost negative attitudes. Despite the new political historians argued about southern unification, nevertheless could not proved the durable myth-southern political unite. The reasons for the defeat of the homestead acts 1848-1854 are complex and more sectional conflicts. But whatever reasons are interesting in civil war, and 1862 pass of homestead. it is clear that the sectional conflicts and emergency situation like the civil war could accomplish the labor and yeoman desire- homestead law.

VLS 방법으로 성장한 GaN 나노와이어의 특성

양재열 ( Jae Yeol Yang ),오병성 ( Byungsung O ) 충남대학교 기초과학연구원 2019 충남과학연구지 Vol.36 No.1

GaN nanowires have been grown on Ni/GaN epilayer/sapphire substrate by vapor-liquid-solid method with chemical vapor deposition equipment, The substrate temperature was controlled from 600oC to 900oC. The surface morphology was investigated by field-emission scanning electron microscopy. It was found that the nanowires grown around 700oC showed the high quality GaN nanowires with the triangular cross section. X-ray diffraction revealed that the structure of the GaN nanowires have wurzite structure. The temperature-dependent photoluminescence showed the excitonic peaks and the quenching effect was observed.

논문(論文) : 에이브러햄 링컨 대통령과 공화당 급진파간의 갈등: 1864년 대선을 중심으로

양재열 ( Jae Yul Yang ) 대구사학회 2015 대구사학 Vol.119 No.-

1864년 대통령 재선은 에이브러햄 링컨의 새로운 과제였다. 1864년 중반까지의 전황, 노예제, 재건, 경제정책 등이 재선에 불리했고, 민주당뿐만 아니라 공화당의 수많은 대선 후보자가 있었다. 공화당 급진파가 가장 대선에 적극적이었고, 나름대로 준비를 하고 있었다. 결국 1864년 중, 후반기 연승과 정책적인 변화는 링컨으로 하여금 재선에 성공할 수 있었다. 재선운동에 링컨은 엽관제, 공무원 찬조금 모금, 민간인에 대한 선거운동 자금의 모금 등을 통해 재선에 성공했다. 공화당 급진파들은 1864년 6월 이후 다양한 이해관계, 파벌 갈등과 선거구의 문제 등으로 민주당처럼 지리멸렬 상태가 되어 갔다. 급진파들이 어떤 부류였고, 누구였나는 잘 알 수 없다. 많은 연구자들이 다양한 연구를 했지만 여전히 미해결이다. 본래 정치적 파벌이란 이해관계에 따라 이합집산을 거듭하기 때문에 1861년부터 1877년까지(링컨이 죽고 나서도 12년이나)존재했던 19세기 중반의 공화당 급진파에 대한 연구가 어려운 것은 당연하다. 급진파는 오하이오 주 출신과 비오하이오 주 출신의 다양한 인물의 집합체라고 보고, 필자는 1864년 대선 즈음에 급진파의 수와 인물을 알아보니, 약간 다른 수자(10명)와 인물들이 있었다. 그러나 급진파의 연구 대상 시기를 13년(1860-1873)으로 살펴볼 것인지, 2년(1863-1865)을 시기로 볼 것인지 몇 달(1864년 11월 전후)을 볼 것인가의 차이 때문에 확정하기는 불가능하다. 링컨의 재선은 미국사에서 그 역사적 의미가 깊다. 1832년 앤드류 잭슨 이후 30년만의 재선이자 그랜트 대통령을 제외하고는 남북전쟁 이후에 19세기 말까지 재선된 대통령이 없기 때문이다. 역사적 의미에서도 그는 대통령의 재선에 대한 기존의 생각을 바꾸고 19세기 중반의 정치적 관행을 민주적 행태로 바꾼 대통령이었다. 1836년에서 1887년까지의 ‘정치국가’시대에는 대통령과 연방의회 의원 등은 단임으로 끝내는 것이 관행이다 시피 했다. 그러나 이 관행을 링컨이 끊고, 재선에 성공했다. 링컨의 재선은 공화당 급진파의 입장에서는 악몽이었지만, 1865년 4월 링컨의 암살 후 급진파가 주도하게 되었다. 링컨의 재임기 4년보다 급진파가 주도한 기간이 더 길었지만(13년간 : 1665년-1877년), 미국 역사상의 영향력은 링컨이 훨씬 크다. 링컨은 노예제 폐지, 자작농지법, 전국통화법(지폐통용법), 고율관세와 같은 전후 미국의 산업혁명을 추진할 토대를 세웠던 대통령이었다. 그것은 모두 재선으로 인한 대통령 권력과 위상 재고와 상승 덕분이었다. Abraham Lincoln, 16th president, has been re-elected of the United States by a popular Majority. The election passed off peaceably and without the necessity of military interference; and it now becomes citizens of all parties to yield a willing and cheerful obedience to the authorities thus constituted by the popular suffrages. Under U.S. constitutional Government, such obedience is absolutely requisite to the permanent safety and prosperity of the Republic. But Lincoln``s reelection was hard task to him. Because of Radical Republicans, i.e. Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, William Blair, Salmon P. Chase and Benjamin Wade were obstacle to re-election of presidential election to Lincoln. Lincoln’s nomination was opposed by a radical Republicans, which the President clearly wanted seated despite its opposition to them. They rejected the only delegates from Mo. who were instructed and pledged for Lincoln, and admitted the destructive, who were pledged against Lincoln, and, in fact, voted against him. The conservative was chosen in a manner more legitimate and regular than the destructive Radicals. In American historical context, The re-election of Lincoln was impressive. In 1836-1877(so called, the Political Nation) the Presidential and congressional term were short. President Lincoln was powerful president in Antebellum and PostBelum american history. That was the results of reelection of 16th President Abraham Lincoln. (yeungnam university / yangjaey@ynu.ac.kr)

잭슨시대의 투표형태 : 북부지역을 중심으로

양재열(Yang Jae Yul) 대구사학회 1989 대구사학 Vol.36 No.1

N/A

논문(論文) : 에이브러햄 링컨대통령의 정치적 정의: 노예해방령과 수정헌법 13조를 중심으로

양재열 ( Jae Yul Yang ) 대구사학회 2014 대구사학 Vol.116 No.-

On the mount of the Civil War, on January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln Proclaimed Emancipation of black Slavery. However, what completed the long journey to secure the personal liberty and civil rights of blacks was the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Less than two years after the national personal liberty law failed, Lincoln sought to establish the legal system that should forever safeguard liberty by moving to constitutionalize Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. On January 3, 1865, Republican Radical House of Representatives, James Ashley proposed the original draft of the Thirteenth Amendment whose passage put an end to the longstanding national disputes over the personal liberty laws of the North and signified the realization of the radicalism embodied in the personal liberty laws: Peculiar system in Slavery end. By launching Slavery legislation and even by succeeding in passing it at every critical moment, furthermore, they even revolutionized the meaning of the Civil War, which was not to restore the Union but to make a radical and fundamental change to the Constitution and race relations(Slavery). This was also possible only because Abraham Lincoln and Republican radicals were in the vanguard of the antislavery struggle to repudiate the federal Fugitive Slave Law and developed radical abolition of slavery systemIndeed, the 13th Amendment was a radical change to the Constitution and political Justice of Lincoln. Lincoln was political unjustice and he is professional politician because He spoiled vote tickets Democratic Representatives. The Civil War was ``Lincoln`s War`` because Reconstruciton of America was half completed by President Lincoln. After the War, united States of America was accomplished Industrial Revolution and democratic nation to late 19th century. (Yeungnam University / yangjaey@daum.net)