Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Despite these great divisions between Federalists and Republicans, the war ended with a great sense of national unity. Culture developed and the wonders of America was celebrated in many ways, including finance. This resulting nationalism was much more powerful than the political and regional divisions.
were against the war. The Democrat-Republicans supported an agricultural economy, as opposed to the Federalist industrial economy. This caused the parties to be disunited on the issue of taking Canada
(which would be one of the spoils of the war). Federalists feared that if Canada was taken, then the agricultural economy would increase too rapidly and the United States would fail. These two parties had a close to equal support within the states, thus causing the population to be divided.
The War of 1812 highlighted the political and regional divisions within the nation since the declaration of war was voted on in the House and Senate in June of 1812, splitting Americans through the dispute of whether to go to war or not. Through insisting, militant war hawks, the declaration of war was proposed and voted on in 1812. The close results of the poll revealed national disunity, since Representatives from the northern and middle states preferred not to go to fight because impressment was wrong and that a free sea was essential to their economy, while the western and southern states opposed; this showed the divisions between regions debating the war. Eventually, defiant New Englanders supported the British, also a factor of national disunity that divided the states. Furthermore, the dispute between Federalists and Republicans heightened due to the fact that Federalists opposed the acquisition of
During the War of 1812, the country was divided politically and regionally by their ideals about the war. The “war hawks” from the West and the South had expansionist theories and sought control over the northern and western lands of the
Federalist New England condemned the war, and even funded the British. They perceived that if Canada was acquired then the voting strength of Jeffersonian Republicans would be increased. They did not agree fighting along side the "anti-christ of that age" Napoleon. They also felt that impressment was wrong. One could go as far to say that America, through fighting this war, were fighting New England and Old England (Taylor, 230)
The Frontier was not the only place of division. New England, a shipping epicenter wanted to fight for a free sea and damned the War of 1812. But many people, evidently, still wanted to crush Great Britain and finish them off in the America's once and for all.
On one hand, Federalists populated much of the northern or New England states, whereas on the other hand, Democratic Republicans lived in much of the South and Southwestern states.
The twos' beliefs were also extremely different. Federalists believed that war would substantially worsen political divisions and relations with their rivals, the "Jeffersonians", as shown in their willingness to help the British by supplying materials to prevent war. However, Democratic-Republicans were pro-war, for it would help in their increase of power by, say, gaining land in Canada.
Not only were they divided through political beliefs, but also regional differences, which created a perfect concoction for CONFLICT!
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Also consequently war had arosed resentments upon on certain group. New England damned the war for a free sea, as it would cut down their profitable shipping business. And impressment was an exaggerated wrong: New England shippers and manufacturers were still raking in money, taking the profit. A war with Britain would definitely leave many of the planters, merchants with extensive idle inventories of product. The Federalist also had great apprehension towards the war. At the time, the Federalist was a dying party, partly because their lose in the power of government. And Jeffersonia Republican would increase the voting strength, particularly because most Canadian were common workers, not aristocrats who trying in vain to keep the Federalist as an assertive party in America politics. Because these apprehensions toward the war, the citizens were unable to unite and join together to support the war on around them.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Thomas Jefferson remained a huge part of American disunity: accentuating his many mistakes in American fate. His inexperience in leading a country into democracy formed many negative ideas about America, such as Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807. This law forbade the export of all goods from the United States, whether in American or in foreign ships. Jefferson underestimated the power of Great Britain and overestimated its dependence on American exports. The Republicans hurt the commerce of New England, which they were ironically trying to protect. The Federalists were entirely secluded from all American and European affairs, appropriately the ones who think Jefferson mad. However, Federalists are building their own faction at this time of turmoil, and increases the level of disunity between both parties. They gained new converts, and its leaders hurled nullification of the embargo into Washington. The discredited Federalists in 1804 had polled only 14 electoral votes out of 176; in 1808, the embargo year, the figure rose to 47 out of 175. This event generally strengthened tensions between America and Britain, but at the same time, added heat between internal policy.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Hamilton's main goal was to correct the enormous debt imposed on the nation because of the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton seeking additional revenue to the national government aksi secure and excise tax on domestice iteams. This action was strongly opposed, this is what caused the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania which directly caused many people to condem teh federalists shows of force and this caused a great deal of anti federalist feelings. Another major disagreement was about Hamilton's idea of creating a national bank modeled after the bank of England. This bank eould would printy paper money and provide a stable national currency. Jefferson, a strict believer in following the constitution strictly believed that a national bank would be unconstitutional. Jefferson believed that these financial powers belonged to the states because they had not been outlined inthe constitution as a federal responsiblity.
The success of Hamilton's centralized revenue raising policies caused resentment nd an eventual organized opposition. This is how these differing ideas led to the formation of political parties, and their differences were outlined even greater through the years when issues such as foreign policy came into play.
The French Revolution further stimulated the development of political parties. Federalists feared what was happening in the Reign of Terror in France, while Jeffersonians felt that, however terrible it was, it was a necessary price to pay. Even more furthering the split was the Neutrality Proclamtion from the once-allied France. Many Jeffersonians were outraged by this act, especially with Washington's inability in consulting Congress. However, most Federalists felt this position was necessary. Adding more to the nation's political gap was John Jay's Treaty with Britain, which essentially gave Britain the right to make future maritime seizures and impressments and bound the United States to pay debts from pre-Revolutionary times. Jeffersonians reacted extremely negatively to this believing this treaty to be a straightfoward surrender to England and an unequal mix of conditions involving Federalists being repremanded and Jeffersonian South forced to repay debts.
The factors that contributed to the development of political parties in the
Although the national bank was installed this disagreement led to the creation of two political parties, and two opposing ideas.
What factor contributed to the development of political parties in teh United States during teh 1790's?
Hamilton’s financial regulation in funding, assumption, exercise tax, the bank had contributed to the development of the political parties in United States during 1790s. Although his political philosophy rested, in the true colonialist fashion, on the notion of the “the public good” and the superiority of a government derived its power from consent of the governed: the essence of the republicanism. His economic plan had provoked the worst fears of many anti-federalists as it stressed on a strong centralize government. In his argument with Jefferson, he believed that government should empower to collects taxes and regulate trade. Implicitly, he also invoke that government should be proactive in the military affairs, have the power to supersede the lower government (as at the state level). The most confrontations came above Hamiliton proposal of assumption, where he urged the congress to “fund” the entire nation debt “at par” and assumed completely the debts incurred by states during the recent war. Divide seems unreasonable and unjust because for state like Virginia had paid off much of their debt, would burden the same as Masachusetts which was heavily in debt. Moreover, the proposal contended to overly restricted the power of the states, and that internal taxation required by the assumption would arise the social liabilities. At the time, the failure of Hamilton economic system gave the republican an ample opportunity to launch the compaign designto bring down the Secretary. Because some of his unjustified decision, a split occurred between, and within the political power.
As soon as he was appointed Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton began his hard work in shaping national economics. He strove to use the debt as as unifying figure and developed customs duties and excise taxes, the latter affecting most importantly whiskey trade. These economic plans were not only a way to stabilize the nation and allow for more prosperity but actually a way to shape politics. The policies imposed hinged on constitutional allowance which was hotly debated, especially between Hamilton himself and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State.
Jefferson argued that the Hamiltonian policy infringed on the Constitution and imposed upon state's rights which Hamilton loosely interpreted the Constitution in order to justify the legality of his ideas. The economic policies put forth by Hamilton and the dissenting opinion of Jefferson became nationally understood viewpoints.
What was before a personal battle between the two cabinet-members became a political rivalry. Since the debate was so deeply rooted in the fundamental understanding and working of the new state, formal political allegiances began to form in Congress thus creating political parties.
The development of political parties in the U.S. was due to the argument between Hamilton and Jefferson on the issue of commerce. Hamilton proposed for a national treasury, to be a private institution modeled after the Bank of England, to have the federal government as a major stockholder, to circulate cash to stimulate businesses, to store excess money, and to print money that was worth something. This was opposed by Jefferson, who thought that banks should be a state controlled aspect. Hamilton won, and Washington reluctantly signed the bank measure into law; the Bank of the Untied States was created by Congress in 1791, and was chartered for 20 years. Hamilton’s policies (national bank, suppression of Whiskey Rebellion, excise tax) had seemed to encroach on states’ rights. As resentment grew, what was once a personal rivalry between Hamilton and Jefferson gradually evolved into two political parties.
The factors that contributed to the development of political parties in the United States during the 1790’s were largely due to Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s financial successes, such as The Bank of the United States and public credit, that Thomas Jefferson disputed against, building oppositional organizations that eventually evolved into two distinct parties.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Articles of Confederation, although a significant step towards a strong federal Constitution, were, in itself, a very weak structure of central government. However they were an effective form of government in the sense of catering to the newly indepedent states' wants and needs. These Articles did not give Congress much power and lacked the ability of national control of commerce regulations and taxation. Despite these failures, the Articles were very useful in beginning to unite the states. These former colonies had just fought a war against a strict and harsh government. What they wanted least was to fall under another strict and harsh government. The Republic under the Articles was loosely regulated, but very content. They kept alive the unity of the states and provided a new movement for a stronger federation.
However the Articles only loosely linked the thirteen states together. There was no executive power, because they wanted to avoid someone such as Gorge III from gaining power at all cost. There were many insufficient things about the government one was that every state had one vote no matter how many people lived in it. The amount of taxes states were expected to pay did not take in consideration how much land the state consisted of, which caused many complaints. It also did not give the central government much power or protection at all, which made it mostly ineffective. But the Articles had to be free and very open, in order to make all the states agree, even then it took four years to get Maryland to agree to it. In any case the Articles of Confederation were an important and necessary step, because they laid the foundation for a republic by “outlining the general powers that were to be exercised by the central government”(p. 173).
The Articles of Confederation were a poor form of actually governing. The 2/3 vote factor made every initiative very hard to pass. In fact, the Articles of Confederation did not allow for very much governance at all. States had their own constitutions and economic laws. The economic policy differences in all of the states was a large example of the ineffectiveness of the Articles. Since all tariff systems and values were different, inter-state trade was incredibly difficult and the congress put in place by the Articles of Confederation had no say or power to correct or aid in these problems, thus showing that the document was nearly useless in true governance of anything.
The Articles of Confederation were the early brimstones of the legislative, executive and judicial bodies of the
The Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1796, were adopted in order to establish a single-chamber national Congress elected by state legislatures and establish states’ rights; though the Articles balanced power within states, the individual power each state had was the downfall of the Confederation due to the difficulty of uniform agreement and lack of economic power. The Articles of Confederation served as an effective form of government for the new nation because it included a congress that represented each colony, linked each state together for joint action dealing with foreign affairs. Also, the Articles protected the potential for an oppressive central government through the balance of power between states and was, for its time, a landmark in government and a step towards the present Constitution by outlining general powers and strengthening union. However, the downfall of the Articles was caused by the difficulty of uniform agreement and lack of economic control. The amending process was a struggle because unanimity was a requirement where each state had a single vote. Furthermore, it had no power to regulate commerce and could not enforce a tax-collection program, which proved to be a problem due to the varying tariffs and navigation laws each state was free to establish. Overall, the Articles of Confederation were an effective form of government for the new nation by its balance of power throughout the states, yet lacked unanimity and economic control.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Although the Articles of Confederation was largely ineffective with the governing of the thirteen colonies it did pave the way for the acceptence of a stronger central government and ratification of the new constitution. The Articles also clearly outlined the powers that should be exercised by the central government such as making treaties. Overall the Articles showed the need for a strong able central government. This means that although the Articles of Confederation itself did not effectivley govern the colonies, it led to a more effective system of government.
The Articles of Confederation were adopted with the purpose that all 13 states could deal with common problems: namely foreign affairs. The Articles of Confederation enforced a Congress that although was weak, at the time was effective because the states were not ready to be subjected to another parties jurisdiction. However because each state did not yield their power to a sovereign federal government they could not deal with their local affairs. Also, all bills of importance required at least two thirds of the vote. However Bailey says, "this unanimity was almost impossible". Therefore because the amending process could not work, Congress later replaced the Articles of Confederation with the constitution.
Also the Articles of Confederation's weak congress and "feeble national government in PA" gave each state pretty much complete control over their own affairs. In time however the states needed "a complete recast federal government to leave them free to control their local affairs".
So even though the Articles held the states together and created a unified front in foreign affairs, it was not the strongest form of government. But without this stepping stone the transition from the revolutionary, autonomous and chaotic colonists to the constitution would never have happened.
Yet they were largely a failure when it came to building a centralized war-making government. The Articles allowed Congress to make important decisions, but the latter had no power to enforce them, and there was also a requirement for unanimous approval before any change in the Articles was to be made. Congress was also denied the power of taxation, for it could only request money from the states and not impose it as law. Most of the time, the states didn’t pay in full, which left the confederation short of needed resources. The war had left the states and Congress in debt, further complicating the matter in finances.
However, the Articles of Confederation proved to be a vital part of what was to be the ratified constitution: it allowed politicians and congressmen to see what kind of power the constitution needed and what kind of power was needed to enforce that Constitution.
In the end, the Articles were largely ineffective yet provided a stepping stone for the things to come.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Articles were adopted as the first "constitution" of America. It linked the 13 states together for joint action in dealing with common problems. However, the Articles were very weak and provided only a "firm league of friendship." Congress had no power to regulate commerce, and had to ask the colonies if they could donate money. The government could not command or act directly on the individual states and citizens, and it could not even "protect itself from gross indignities." Even though the Articles of Confederation had many defects and flaws, it was a significant stepping stone to the present constitution. It kept the states together and outlined powers exercised by the government. It was a landmark, in those days, and was a model of what a confederation ought to be.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Also, the statement that "rebellion is a great crime - unless it succeeds." is a perfect description of any kind of rebellion, because it reiterates the point that history is written by the victors. Continuing with this logic, any rebellion involves some sort of battle, which would resolve with a winner and a loser. Obviously, the winner will
As for the statment "rebbelion is a crime unless it is sucsessfull" nothing could be more true. Through out history as groups of people rise up either there rebelion is crushed making them simply a minor glitch in histroy or the rebellion is sucsessfull and thus they are glorified as the founders of a new idea. This is supported by events in history such as the civil war, the confederate states were treated like criminals because they lost yet if they had won then it is very likely that they would now be there own country.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
My personal opinion is that people who work together as a unified team, who are competing against another group of people who work together as a team, are opposing teams that always have some kind of rivalry; therefore, those teams vary in opinion. It might be justifiable to the rebel colonists to protect their own moral and social freedom, since they are indeed rebels, against an "evil" corporative government that thinks they are the one true god to everyone under origin of their own country. It might not be justifiable to Britain because the government political issues occur there in addition to Parliament trying to keep chaos from erupting in America. The colonists who, out of arrogance, harm the sea, and the natural environment in my personal opinion is not just; but the colonists, who, out of animal instinct, bring about a rebellion that is contradictory to an "orderly" law.
Rebellion is a great crime - unless it succeeds
People's perspectives and opinions change when power arises over another, or when people think that some people do not appreciate this certain "perfect" society or idea. If rebellions fail, the government shall abolish all for revolutions against it, and shall put hate on the people who deny law; when it's permanent, the law shall say that the people against it and all ideas of it shall perish forever. If rebellions succeed, a new group of people shall take over power, and all rules will be according to them. After succession in power, all who used to hail to the government and law shall now hail to the leaders of the revolution. People would take into consideration that a new governmental law now existed over another. My personal opinion is that this phrase is not also opinionated, but a fact.
The colonist felt that the British had too much control over them. When the British taxed them, they ignored the taxes,hurt the tax collectors, smuggled illegal goods, and destroyed private property. Britain tried to punish the colonists by taking away their freedoms and governments, again the colonist rebelled. The British sent their men to crush the rebellions, which had little effect but to make them stronger and more violent. If the colonist had lost the American Revolution, they would have been punished severely, many would. be killed or tortured, people would have little or no rights, and colonists would be little more than slaves in their own homes; but the colonist did win the war. Which means that they succeeded in their rebellion so there was no price to pay for their crimes. Rebellion would have been a great crime if the colonist had lost and remained under British control, but since they won it was a remarkable act in the pursuit of freedom.
Is it justifiable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal?
It is not always justifiable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal because some lawful measures are true and just while others might be tyrannical and senseless. Violence is also not the best way to approach a change in a place because that is truly unjustifiable. Rebellion was a great crime and it shouldn’t be used to make the authority take notice. Once rebellion succeeds, there comes a chaos about following actions and questions follow about who would control and change the laws that were rebelled about. For example, during the American Revolution and especially in the beginning of it, the colonists were rebelling against the crown by tarring and feathering British officials, destroying British cargo, and humiliating the British troops stationed in the colonies. Mob action in this case helped the colonists achieve independence because not only were they persistent but also great in numbers, which made lives of the British in the colonies much more difficult. This rebellion succeeded and it became just and controlled. During the Revolution however,
Actions of people who oppose lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal are justifiable through ethics and the perspectives they take, yet may not cause successful results. The mob against something may be right, but as long as the lawful measure is prolonged, then it will always be viewed as the accepted standard. This is applicable to the American Revolution because, although the colonists wanted independence and lacked British recognition, rebellion was not fully accepted, such as the case with the loyalists and patriots. Although the rebellion caused harm and casualties to people, the American Revolution was a success and was justified through the majority of feelings of the colonists and should not be considered a crime; the British seemed to treat the Americans as assets to the economy of the crown rather than granting their wishes, leading to their demise.
As one can see, the situation was a paradox with all parties just as much in the moral right as in the moral wrong so there is no way to define whether or not the American mob action was justifiable.
The statement "rebellion is a great crime unless it succeeds" is very correct but not surprisingly so. Rebellion will always be crime under the regime against which it is rebelling and could be viewed as criminal by a third party but if it is successful, it creates new laws. And if it continues then posterity will see it as lawful and NOT criminal because of a previously instituted notion.
No one wishes to believe their society the product of a crime so that notion is not considered whatsoever.
Is it justifyable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal?
Yes, because if a lot of people is against it, then the lawful measures aren't going to work very well anyways. Also, the lawful measures probably are harmful if many people disagree with it, because they are in some way affected negatively by it; that's the reason why they don't like it.
Comment critically on the following proposition in light of the American Revolution: rebellion is a great crime--unless it succeeds
The rebellion of the Americans can be viewed either as treason or a brave attempt at justice, depending on how you define America. If you define colonial America as a part of Britain, and that there are still strong ties between them, then rebellion would be treason. However, if you view America as a different and separate nation, just controlled by another, then it would be a brave attempt at justice. Since Britain was basically exploiting the colonies for revenue, the American people had good reason to rebel; therefore there were weak ties between mother and daughter country, which leads to the conclusion that the rebellion wasn't a crime but rather justifyable.