Were The Founding Fathers Justified?

Stephan contemplated before he sat down, pulling the chair out slowly, dreading the family's nightly dinner conversation, what Great Britain was doing wrong. First they moved away to the new land, then Britain gave them grief. The proclamation of 1763, when King George told the colonists not to move westward, and the Indians not to move east, there was almost a hand drawn line. The colonists were not very happy, next year, came the sugar act in 1764. The taxes were high on cloth, sugar, coffee, and wine for the colonists, and the naval officers searched ships carefully to stop smuggling. The colonists were, again, not happy. Now, a year later, was another act, the stamp act, and I bet you can guess, the colonists were not very happy.

When asked if the Founding Fathers were democratic reformers, the likely response is that yes, they were, because they believed in democracy and strove to create a nation that would be successfully governed by the people. Although this answer may be correct, the debate between historians on this subject shows that the motives of the Founding Fathers cannot be so easily discerned. According to historian Alfred F. Young, the Founding Fathers were not democratic reformers because they were elites and did not represent the interests of the general public, because they admired the British model of a strong national government that protected the wealthy from the people, and because they only included democratic accommodations to ensure that the people

I believe the Founding Fathers were justified in rebelling against the British Government and declaring war. It all started prior to the French and Indian war (1756-1763), the colonists possessed substantial self-reliance and liberty. Following the conflict, the British Empire strongly challenged the self-reliance and liberty, and also resolved that the colonists directly pay taxes into the imperial chest to help reduce the huge debt from the war.

In Issue Seven in the book Taking Sides, John P. Roche and Howard Zinn provide their views about whether or not the founding Fathers were democratic reformers. Between these two arguments, the no case that Howard Zinn represents is more convincing because it provides more evidence. John P. Roche contends that the founding Fathers were absolutely and fully democratic reformers and that they created a Constitution in order to benefit to the nation but at the same time was considered tolerable by the people. Howard Zinn gives more accompanying evidence as to why the founding Fathers were not democratic reformers but rather, a select

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.

This enraged the colonist and made them rethink their political views. The Proclamation of 1763 also had a significant effect on the attitudes of the colonials towards the British. After the war and the Treaty of Paris, the Proclamation of 1763 was one of the first documents issued to govern the colonies. This proclamation simply stated that no further settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains would be allowed. The colonists looked at the proclamation as putting an off limits sign on the Ohio River Valley which the whole war had started over. The Proclamation was actually misinterpreted by the colonist and Britain’s failure to clearly identify its intentions began the chain of events that led to the American Revolution. Each political step taken by the British after the French and Indian War drew Americans closer and closer to revolution.

After the war finished in 1763, the british government tightened its reins on the colonies politically. One political way they changed the relationship between colonies and the british government, was by enforcing the Proclamation of 1763 in order to prevent any further conflict between the Native Americans and the colonists. In Document B, the purpose of this document is meant to be viewed by the british government in order to see the chief of the Onondaga Nation expresses his frustration towards the settlers taking over their land and being able to know his point of view on the topic. Even though the king was probably only trying to settle this feud, the colonists didn’t see it this way. They believed that the government was trying to restrict their use on the land in order to better control the colonists. For example, in Document A, the purpose of this document is to show us the land owned by Britain, and if Britain owns all this land, it is easy to understand where the colonists are coming from. However, by Britain imposing this constant on the colonies, it began to shift the relationship between the colonists and the british government. It didn’t help that Britain was suddenly enforcing laws such as the navigation law that was created years before it was enforced. The british government didn’t enforce the navigation law in 1763 even though it was created in 1651.

List 4 principles found in the U.S. Constitution that have scriptural origins and cite the specific Bible verses upon which they are

“Give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry. I believe that the Colonists were justified in waging war and breaking away from Britain and the King. King George was making the Colonists pay very unfair taxes, he was trying to rule over them from all the way over in England, and he wouldn’t take the colonies legislators opinions into consideration. While some people may say that the Colonists were just unappreciative, that is not correct. They continued to stay with the King until the King turned on them and made them do things they didn’t want to do and shouldn’t have to do.

The British King and Parliament were depriving colonists of their natural rights, therefore justifying the colonists' actions of rebellion and independence.

b) Colonists were not allowed to settle anywhere across the appalachian mountains and the colonists saw the Proclamation of 1763 as the crown limiting their rights and abilities to settle and colonize the New World.

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” - Benjamin Franklin. This famous quote is said during the American Revolution, an event that created a new country, the United States of America, now one of the most powerful countries in the world. The American colonists, under the unfair and strict laws of the British government, fought and rebelled for their rights and liberty. But were the colonists justified in waging war with Britain? The answer is yes, the colonists were justified due to the unconstitutional acts made, the lack of representation in political affairs, and the cruel and unrightful punishments given by Great Britain.

Founding Fathers Essay The Founding Fathers did not stay true to Enlightenment ideas when first creating the United States. They ignored the ideas of the general will, natural rights, social contract, consent of governed, popular sovereignty, and reason. Many prominent American Enlightenment figures rejected the idea of true democracy when considering enumerating the Constitution. They feared such government would be ruled by tyrannical mobs as it was demonstrated before in Ancient Greece.

The colonists were debating whether or not to retaliate. They decided that the British treatment was too aggressive, and that they wouldn't put up with it any longer.

After the British finally left the colonist known later as Americans, They had a lot of things to correct because finally, they were on their own. That's why Americans wrote the constitution in 1787. It has been over two hundred years since the paper was ratified. And even though there were American how really gratify, others just were afraid that the new changes didn’t work very well. So we wonder if they made a good choice by ratifying the constitution. If it was really necessary or not to do so. People like George Washington thought that there were some errors to correct. He had clear that were a lot of social crisis and that the constitution may help us to right those problems.