The Birth Of Republic By Edmund Morgan

The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the

The author wrote this book to summarize the Revolution Era with a brief description of the pre-revolution; with some analytical arguments and opinions incorporated within the book. Morgan takes into prospective the actual motives behind the founding fathers' decision during the Revolution, which he claims to have been driven by their personal benefits. This shows as slavery was not eliminated even though a fundamental basis of the revolution was human equality. Morgan aimed to make an easily accessible outline of the Revolution Era, backed with several documents which critical to the outline; such as, The Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation. He also devoted several pages outlining important dates mentioned throughout the book.

The United States would lose its name and stand divided if the Constitution did not bring the thirteen colonies into one body. Within this governing body, fears arise from the difficulty of controlling power in a central government, while still trying to keep unity between the states. Understanding that the United States was formed based on the people’s irritation with the corruption of the control of power in England, the Constitution reassured the people that their freedoms were going to be kept, but it required their trust. The founders of the United States Constitution established a just government through encompassing equal representation, with the people as the foundation, and protecting the injustices that could arise with the misuse of power.

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.

Anglicization of the Britain’s American colonies was a big event for the course of not only American or British history, but world history. The colonists adopting many British ways and becoming very patriotic towards the “mother country” had a large effect on the events that unfolded in the late 18th century. While it is true that the American colonists were incredibly British during the beginning to the mid-18th century, the colonies had been around long enough to develop their own culture and way of doing things. The series of events and acts that were imposed on the colonists post French and Indian War got the ball rolling on what came to be known as the American Revolution. The colonists were so fed up with the way in which the British were tightening their hold on the colonies to the point where they were driven to rebellion. The combination of British and underlying American ideals in the pre-revolution era were a necessarily pre-requisite and important component of what would become the American Revolution.

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).

Some of the founding fathers have been firm believers in the ideas posed in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. The one idea that can be seen quite clearly is the complete dissenting stance taken by Locke on the thought of monarchy in civil government. “Absolute monarchy,

In his text, The Republic, Plato leads us through an elaborate thought experiment in which he creates the ideal city. Throughout The Republic Plato constructs the laws and societal structures of what he deems will lead to a high functioning society. He names this city Kallipolis. A cornerstone of Kallipolis’ structure is Plato’s principle of specialization. The Principle of Specialization argues that each member of society must do the job in which he is best suited. Plato explains “The result, then, is that more plentiful and better-quality goods are more easily produced if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of the others.” (Plato, 370c) Therefore,

In offering alternative interpretations of the origins of the Constitution, the author accomplishes his secondary purpose, to make the reader challenge what they know about the framing of the Constitution. Holton details the rebellion of the “Unruly Americans” against the state and national governments, using Adonijah Mathews as an ultimate example of the “common man.” Mathews’ views are presented in order to contrast the views of James Madison, whom it seems the author

The democratization of American society that started in 1820s has led to a significant change of relations between government and people. These changes include growing equality of opportunities for white men and possibility for people to influence political processes taking place in the US. While people gained new rights and chances to start another life, government was, on the one hand, set under the growing pressure of society, and on the other hand, could be constructed by people.

President James Garfield’s tragic death is brought to new life in the book The Destiny of the Republic. Author Candice Millard shows readers just how that very incident brought one nation together. This being in the middle of the Gilded Age, at times it looked like the nation had everything under its belt but in reality, people didn’t see the corrupt happenings at that time. Through poverty, war, a surprising turn in events, to downright failure in medicine, President Garfield’s life was a downward spiral and he wasn’t even aware. As much as Garfield was unaware of that, Americans at the time were unaware that they were slowly beginning to unite over the ignorance of both Doctor Bliss and Charles Guiteau. Millard didn’t just write a book of a detailed and historic biography, she wrote somewhat effortlessly of the personal yet challenging circumstances Garfield and his family were in and simply told a story.

Leading up to the American Revolution, were a chain of events that created a spark in the colonists to obtain independence from Great Britain. The American Revolution could not be tied to one single event but instead by the feelings and determination brought on by this chain of disgraceful actions. Gordon S. Wood explains what he believes caused the rebellion of the American colonists from Great Britain and how those causes help explain the outcomes of the revolution in his essay, “Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution.” Wood argues that the colonists were motivated to rebel against the British monarchy due to their need to preserve their liberties and through this revolution a radical change in government and American life occurred.

In The Birth of The Republic 1763-89, Edmund Morgan claims that the colonists’ growing sense of human equality along with increasing self desires, especially land, caused the declaration of independence, successfully winning the war and coming together as one nation in the end. While his claims are not radical, his interpretations of the actions colonists took from the Stamp Act to the formation of The Articles of Confederation, created an effective and well supported idea that America was created in the search for equality and the continuous strive effective the outcomes of the war.

In the Republic, Plato narrates a dialogue about justice and what it means between Socrates and some of his peers. Socrates argues with three of them about what is justice and is it to be just. Socrates begins his dialogue with Cephalus, then shifts the conversation to Polemarchus and then has Thrasymachus finish the debate. Each of them gave different perspectives to what justice means and what it is to be just. In this paper I will show how each one of their definition is unique yet can also be seen to be quite similar. I will also suggest which one of the definition I like to be right, if any.

The Articles of Confederation, a written agreement that ensured each state’s sovereignty, freedom and independence, led America to victory over the British centralized government. During the late eighteenth century, the empowered government terrified the Americans, hence the thirteen colonies decided to spread governance powers equally to all functional states. The states had absolute dominance over the Congress due to the Articles of Confederation. While the localized power of states seemed to be promising, the system posed great threat to the major components of a democratic government, which are coercion, revenue, and legitimacy (Lecture 1 - The Roots of Government). The system of localized power did not ensure legitimacy, which referred to people’s recognition of national government. Congress’s lack of power to control each state’s actions caused great chaos. Eventually, national government’s lack of power and inability to unify the states exposed multiple flaws in the Articles of Confederation; consequently, a new supreme law, the Constitution was established by the founding fathers. The new supreme law successfully altered the imbalanced system into a novel democratic government.