Essay

His own cabinet had parted ways as Thomas Jefferson increasingly pulled away from the economic policies proposed by Alexander Hamilton, Washington in which supported most of them. In all, these controversies at the end of Washington’s public career, remind us of difficulties in his earlier military career in the 1750’s. Things were difficult even for the most outstanding of the Founding Fathers proving that they couldn’t go through life without difficulties. As admirable and essential as Washington was to the creation of the New United States, with qualities of a leader he had remained a person who could not appeal to everyone all of the time. Most fascinating of all, was that some of Washington’s most confidential qualities that made him so effective and efficient are also the ones that make Washington today unpopular. But Washington took a personal reserve and didn’t let the words of the other people cloud his

When Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, after an intense realignment of the majority of office holders from Federalist to Anti-Federalist in the “Revolution of 1800”, there were many policies headed by former Treasurer Alexander Hamilton that were still in place. Instead of doing what would have been expected of him by his peers, and taking steps

In the books The Quartet and Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Ellis and Joyce Appleby discuss their thoughts on two important moments in American history and how they believe them to be revolutionary. The Quartet describes the political situation of the United States immediately following the American Revolution and how it made the transformation from a confederation into a republic. To do this, it follows the actions of four prominent men – George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison – as they work toward their goal of bringing about a new national government and discusses nationalism, issues such as economics and expansion, and arguments about personal, state, and federal powers. He argues that the debate over the Constitution was between “nationalists” and “confederationists”, that the second Revolution was a by-product of the first in that it took the systems of the newly-independent states and reworked them into a coherent national collective, and that without this change, the United States couldn’t have become a modern model of government.

David O. Stewart, by profession, is a lawyer with a resume that includes everything from arguing appeals at the Supreme Court level to serving as a law court to the acclaimed Junior Powell. But in writing The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution (specifically, I read the First Simon & Schuster trade paperback edition May 2008, copyrighted in 2007), he uses that experience in law to prove himself a gifted storyteller. Two hundred sixty-four pages long, this United States history nonfiction book does indeed have the substance to engage the reader throughout. It has special features that include two appendices featuring the elector system and the actual constitution of 1787, author’s notes, suggested further reading, acknowledgments and an index (which escalate the total length of the book to three hundred forty-nine pages long).

John Adams (1735-1826) has the historically unfortunate position of being president between two American icons, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. His presidency is often overlooked by scholars and even occasionally viewed as an undeserving president who won the office out of early American political maneuvering (McCullough 2001, 29). Nonetheless, he led the young nation during the end of the French Revolution and the emergence of Napoleon Bonaparte, a globally tumultuous period. The nation, and the world, has changed dramatically since the end of the eighteenth century. However, the domestic and foreign concerns that Adams had to manage and attempt to resolve are still relevant to current circumstances. Even though Adams only served one term over 200 years ago, through an analysis of his background, personality, presidential leadership and managerial style, and his interactions with Congress and the American people, a twenty-first century incoming president is able to learn from Adams’ mistakes and triumphs.

In the late 1700s, the United States had began to split into two factions: Federalists and Antifederalists. Factions are groups of citizens united by a common interest. The reasoning behind the differing views of how the government works across the world was best said by Locke “Men are equal in a natural sense, but society establishes many dimensions that are unequal”. (Barbour and Wright, 2017). In the states, Federalists wanted a strong central government while anti-federalists wanted a weak one. “The Georgians, for example, wanted a strong central authority to provide military protection for their huge, underpopulated state against the Creek Confederacy; Jerseymen and Connecticuters wanted to escape from economic bondage to New York; the Virginians hoped to establish a system which would give that great state its rightful place in the councils of the republic” (Roche, 800). The one thing they agreed on was having George Washington as president. George Washington tried to be a neutral leader of the United States and suggested for the states to stay together rather than divide into factions. “Thomas Jefferson is credited as stating: “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on””(Jamison, 2016).

In 1787-1788 federalist essays came to life thanks to James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton under the alias of “Publius”. This paper delves into the motivations of James Madison and how classical republicanism aided in the argument for the ratification.

At the beginning of this time period, in 1820, the United States government was trying to figure out its identity. Both the Senate and House of Representatives were trying to regulate the executive office. John Quincy Adams addressed this issue in a personal diary while serving as Secretary of State to James Monroe, stating “One of the most remarkable features of what I am witnessing every day is the perpetual struggle in both the House of Congress to control the Executive ー to make it dependent upon the subservient to them” (Doc 1). Following the Panic

The arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency during the ratifying debates that followed the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 were persuasive, but distinctly at odds. Both sides, however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not a President should even exist, and if so, what powers he should be granted. I will briefly examine the presidential powers that were primarily awarded under Article II of the new Constitution. I will then explore the opposing arguments that arose during the ratifying debates concerning those granted powers. I do so in the interest of offering a

Name: Leah Freeman Date: 10/20/17 Chapter #:11   APUSH Chapter Summary Form Political Party Republican Republican President/Vice-President Thomas Jefferson James Madison Term(s)/Dates in Office 2 terms (1800-1808) 1 term (1808-1812)    2. The main theme of Chapter 11 is Politics and Power (POL) because the idea of central power was a widely disputed issue that was big for this chapter.

This insight is an important perspective into the burgeoning United States because all colonists fundamentally saw their respected states as for where they pledged their allegiance which was demonstrated plainly when Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and referred to his country as Virginia. Holton went on to point out how there were revolts against the Native Americans and how they sought to persuade the Privy Council that they should nullify the King’s Proclamation. These revolts further touched off an initiative where political leaders realized the need for independence from

Among the Founding Fathers, the man who presided over the Constitutional Convention most clearly embodies the classic concept of the soldier-statesman. Just as George Washington was the architect of victory in the Revolution, so too, as the first President, he was the key figure in establishing essential political precedents to ensure the success of the new republic. Even to his contemporaries, Washington seemed larger than life. Possessed of an extraordinary strength of character and a wealth of public virtues, he exhibited an integrity, self-discipline, and devotion to duty that made him the natural leader in the task of nation building.

Short afterwards, Hamilton begins to address some concerns that the public has expressed towards the adoption of a new Constitution. The most formidable opponent of the Constitution, as mentioned by Hamilton, are the “interest[s] of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument and consequences of the offices they hold under the state establishments” (Hamilton 723-24). Hamilton does not try to avoid the discussion of how those in power will perceive the adoption of a new Constitution, but rather directly cites their apprehensions in order to make the point that “the perverted ambition of another class of men…will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire…than from its union under one government” (Hamilton 724). His statement highlights the key difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, being that the Confederation created a system in which the nation was divided into states and the Constitution would create a more unified government (“Comparison of Constitution and Articles of Confederation.”). Hamilton uses the concerns of the people to emphasize that the Constitution inherently does not create an environment in which a great transition of power would occur, thus debunking the fears of those who possess public power.

Since the late 1700’s the United States of America has experience a multitude of leaders under a federal republic government. The system of