After attaining liberty from a country reigning with a Confederate government, our now free country was saturated with post-war debt and with no adequate method of collecting taxes to make any kind of financial growth, in addition the people of the new land were no longer protected by a large well-equipped army provided by the previous government. Subsequently, citizens in Pennsylvania, and various other territories, made known of their frustrations with post-revolution anticipations and economic woes. In an attempt to establish their own government, there were conflicts that came about over the issue of representation, slavery, and the idealism of true freedom. In my opinion representation was one of the larger obstacles to be passed in
No sooner had the Quaker petition been placed on the table of the House than a new petition arrived from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and was illustriously signed by one of the most prominent figures of the time, Benjamin Franklin. Franklin strongly campaigned for the emancipation of slavery until the very end and even went on to publish a parody of the contradictions of slavery in the United States. This new petition, along with Franklin’s resounding anti-slavery stance, brought forth an array of heated congressional debates from both Northern and Southern delegates, but was ultimately diffused by James Madison’s sly political savvy and the passage of three resolutions. Conclusively, the question of slavery was left undetermined and vague to aid in prolonging secession and to douse all governmental strategies for the liberation of slaves.
After the colonies gained independence, the founding fathers soon found that becoming a new independent nation was going to be a difficult task. The biggest task was deciding on the division of power in the government. This issue divided the people into two groups, the federalists and the Jeffersonian republicans. Alexander Hamilton led the federalists and Thomas Jefferson led the republicans. These two important men in history would later show how the challenges of becoming a new nation. In this essay I will be analyzing the ideas of Linda K. Kerber’s “The Fears of the Federalists,” to Drew R. McCoy’s “The Fears of the Jeffersonian Republicans.” Furthermore, comparisons will be made about both essays to gain a better understanding of the struggles of government in early America.
This book tells the story of the Philadelphia convention, in the summer of 1787. Throughout, Stewart uses descriptive language to portray the delegates, both remembered —such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton— and forgotten —such as James Wilson and George Mason— in the turmoil of creating the United States constitution. It illustrates both the great conflicts and high-stake compromises that those delegates faced, all ultimately dominated by one inelegantly polarizing issue: slavery. With calculated endorsement by influential delegates such as Franklin and Washington, who
More than any other event, the American Civil War went far in defining a United States that had been imperfectly and incompletely shaped by its first 70 years. For seven decades, the presence of slavery in a republic founded on principles of human freedom increasingly confused the political system and unraveled the social fabric. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). Although slavery in the South had given rise to antislavery movements in the North as early as the American Revolution, a fresh vigor characterized the abolition movement in the 1830s. Arguments over the western territories clouded the country into a series of disruptive crises. Each was settled with an unsatisfying compromise that left most Southerners feeling materially cheated and many Northerners morally embarrassed. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). Efforts to organize the Midwest region called the Nebraska Territory in 1854, led to the ill-conceived Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was yet another attempt designed to secure Southern support for the organization of what by prior agreement would have been a free territory. Kansas and Nebraska were created from the region under the principal of popular sovereignty, which was to say that each territory would decide for itself whether to admit or prohibit slavery. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). That plan
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).
With the creation of the Articles remained the lack of a strong central authority to resolve disputes between the states. To organize the states for the collective good, including the organization of a militia, was crucial to the development of the Constitutional Convention (Hamilton et al., 2008). The aftermath of Shay’s Rebellion reinforced the fears of national leaders about the dangers of ineffective state governments and of popular democracy out of control. In the climate of economic turmoil and repressions, the Philadelphian convention was conned to prescribe solutions to the Articles of Confederation. Although the initial thought was instructing delegates to propose revisions for the Articles of Confederation, instead, they wrote an entirely new constitution instead (Hamilton et al., 2008)
The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the
The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to
One of the last call that the opponents made before the civil war was the principle of popular sovereignty in which the people state that government exist to serve them and help them to move as a nation, over the U.S. history this sovereignty led to riots and fight between people from the same states which wanted to abolish slavery against the ones that wanted to keep
As territorial expansion continued, the inability of the Articles of Confederation to control even a small state like Rhode Island narrowed their chances to control the entire new nation. Rhode Island had the option “to reject the recommendation of Congress” (Doc A), seemingly giving all states the right to ignore Congress’ commands. The other way around, when discussing the American army, the Congress had “the inability… to pay their demands” (Doc C). Without the ability to fulfil a citizen’s requests, the states were left to control themselves independently. Additionally, the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation meant “that the better kind of people… will be led by the insecurity of property, the loss of confidence in their rulers, and the want of public faith and rectitude” (Doc G). The Articles of Confederation couldn’t hold any power in the states, couldn’t fulfil states’ requests, and people would lose confidence in the government’s ability to maintain the society. This absence of government connection to both the states and the people forced the farming class towards what was known as Shays’ Rebellion. Due to a lack of central government, each state could tax the crop exchange between states, as well as issue their own currency. Farmers of western Massachusetts were tired of the state lacking these important aspects, and rebelled despite the rebellion’s imminent downfall. Although seemingly unsuccessful, the rebellion proved the faults in the Articles of Confederation. Civic virtue, which was supposed to drive the new nation, was insufficient. Finally, the split between the Articles of Confederation and the states directly influenced the split in political parties. While the Federalists believed the strong central government would help secure
As one of the first revolts following the Revolutionary War, the Whiskey Insurrection (1791-1794) was one of the first instances of insurgence against the new American federal government. After the U.S. Congress passed an act that placed an excise tax on distilled spirits in 1791, protesters emerged in the western Pennsylvania counties of Allegheny, Washington, Westmoreland, and Fayette. Opposition towards the excise tax gradually became more hostile, with the attacks physical attacks on tax collector, primarily on the residence of tax collector John Neville, as the main turning points. While it was mainly contained in western Pennsylvania and surrounding areas, this event bore a greater significance that the Washington administration knew would dictate future perceptions of the federal government’s authority. This paper will seek to investigate the significance of the Whiskey Rebellion in the establishment and execution of federal power during the infant years of the United States.
One time the confederation asked certain states to provide 8 million dollars for the national government and the states only sent them 420,000 dollars and since the Confederation government could not impose their laws they had to accept the little money that was offered. Most of the time states did not support the government and since there was no law to force them to help, the government budget had very little money. The states were too lethargic to create a strong national government. Therefore, Congress had to rely on printing paper money which would eventually lessen the dollar value. Seven years of combat had bankrupted the new nation. Many farmers found themselves in accumulating debts and taxes. “In fact, during the 1780s, most Americans paid three times as much in taxes as they had under the British tyranny” (Shi 206). The patriots who had fought for their independence to get away from the powerful British government were now facing the same problem in the new nation which is the increase in taxes. At first the people objected to “no taxation without representation” in the British government and now they are objecting “taxation with representation” in their own new nation (Shi 206). Many farmers had lost their lands since most of them could not afford it anymore and some farmers were imprisoned if they were not capable of paying off their debt. Those who served in the war were never paid for their services. Many
At no point in the history of the world had there been a government set by and for the people that it governed. 13 Colonies set out to do the impossible, to set up a democracy, but in the Spring of 1861 that impossibility was tested. At the cost of over 600,000 people, millions of dollars in resources, and the destruction to infrastructure for both the North and the South, that democracy stood. The rest of the world saw this as a failure of something that should had of never even started, a government where all citizens had a voice. After such devastation, reform and reconstruction was required in local, state, and federal governments to ensure that all was for not. Along with a new government, new innovations and different types of leaders were necessary to move the Country forward. One such leader was Cornelius Vanderbilt. The events that led up to the Civil War gave way to an innovation that would connect the United States like never before, this innovation was the railroad.
America is a country that allows people freedom and equality. In the Declaration of Independence, it states that “all men are created equal” and most people agreed with that. However, there were a few people who thought that slaves were not part of the equality factor. Those people, who were mostly slave owners, saw the African Americans as property and did not see them as equals. Since there was such a big difference in views, it created many tensions between the people. Some people wanted to get rid of slavery and give them freedom and equality, some wanted to get rid of slavery but not make slaves equal to other people, and others wanted to keep slavery as it is. Mostly, there was a disagreement between the South and the North and since there is a difference in other factors such as political and economic, these things began to create tensions and drive them farther apart. During 1783-1859, there were numerous cultural, political, and religious tensions and differences between the United States North and South which led to the unforgettable American Civil War. For this essay, I will be using six sources to support my thesis.