The Challenges Ahead for the New Nation after the Constitution

The Signing of the Constitution

Slavery in America

America circa 1790s

After the battles of the Revolution had been fought, after the struggle of creating a government was lessening, and after the Constitution was written, there were still many unanswered questions and challenges ahead for the new nation.   The nation had succeeded thus far in establishing a good system of government with mostly fair rights for men (white property male landowners, that is), and a new vision of equality that inspired oppressed peoples around the world to revolt as well.  Leaders such as Alexander Hamilton, who created an excellent program for the Treasury, and Benjamin Franklin, who made too many contributions to America to name, instilled ideals about equality of opportunity that  left an indelible mark on our nation and the world.  However, many issues were still unresolved.  Foremost, there lay the great pending question of what to do about slavery. 

              During the process of writing the Constitution, dissension arose about whether slaves 'counted' as people or not when deciding taxes.  The result was the grossly unjust "Great Compromise", which declared that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.  The more anti-slavery Founding Fathers compromised even further with their Southern opponents and stated that the government could not stop the slave trade for twenty years forward.  And in fact, in the Constitution, the word "slavery" was omitted, as if  the writers were indeed ashamed of the wrongness of it.  Slavery was a topic that would have rather been avoided because the practice of it contradicted the ideas of equality that were spoken of so strongly by leaders who in fact had slaves of their own.  Although the compromise saved the Southern states from seceding from the nation, would it have been a better decision to abolish slavery in the first place?  As we  know, much controversy ensued and Abraham Lincoln faced these consequences during his presidency as he struggled to heal a divided nation. 

     Another unanswered question regarded the rights and placement of the indigenous people of America.  The Constitution did not address their citizenship or any rights with clarity.  The ordinances especially created encounters with Indians and displaced the more peaceful relationship that had been in place before.  More unfairness and persecution followed for the tribes.  Numerous tribes were driven from their homelands on the Trail of Tears, along with many other unfair acts inflicted upon them by the U.S. Government. 

       And yet another challenge for the new nation was the problem of national stability and staying true to the ideals of the Constitution.  For instance, John Adam's signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts

created a huge controversy as the Acts not only made immigration difficult and furthered discrimination against people who were akin to the enemy, such as French Roman Catholics,  but also made it illegal to write anything that  denounced the government or reflected 'treasonous' sentiments.   These Acts were declared to be unconstitutional by Adams' vice president Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans using the Tenth Amendment.   The disagreement between the Republicans and Federalists over this matter divided the nation.  Matters such as these made the Republicans fear that America was becoming reminiscent of Britain, which was exactly what they had tried to avoid.  Britain had created advantages for people of better birth, economic or social, and these protesters demanded that opportunity should be equal and thus no ethnic group should have more value than another.   Challenging it was for the government to strike a balance between the ideals of the Federalists and the Republicans. 

So, as the new nation struggled to face these challenges, which challenge do you think was the greatest or the most valid?  What do you think should have been done beforehand so that these challenges would not have such a taxing cost on the American people? (i.e. what do you believe could have been done to prevent the conflicts of the future?) What strategies would you suggest to the leaders of America as they moved forwards towards these challenges?

Hamilton: The Shaping of America

Before the beginning of the Revolutionary War, parties of individuals with common interests and goals ran the government according to what suited their parties’ needs. The colonists saw how this corrupted the government and after separating themselves from the English in the war, strove for this to never occur within their own government. But as we have seen time and time again, History is doomed to repeat itself, and the first party system formed with the re-emergence of differing views of what America should be. From the Federalist side, led predominantly by Alexander Hamilton, came the idea of a self-supporting, industrialized America fueled by the strength of a strong economy and the wealthy upper class, Hamilton’s intended audience for his message. The Republicans on the other hand wanted a society based on equality of opportunity for all men, but also for our society to be based off of the effort of the workingman. The Republicans saw Hamilton’s views as a return to the ways of old, back when Parliament was looking for financial gain from the colonies. But was this really so bad?

Let’s imagine a situation. George Washington, instead of naming Hamilton to be his Secretary of the Treasury, he names Madison. Washington, assuming his position of political indifference, allows Madison to implement his ideas for the nation. Madison creates a series of bills, plans and taxes that will eventually lead to the nation becoming a country fueled by agriculture and based off of the workingman mentality that the Republican Party advocated. Imagine the America that we live in today, except instead of being based off of the Federalist mentality of economic power and self-industry, it’s based off of the early Republican idea of the workingman’s paradise.

                                                          (A little outdated, but you get the point)

Going back to the original point, what was so wrong with Hamilton’s goal of economic power and self-sufficiency of goods by giving the wealthy a reason to support the party that gave fruition to these ideas? The wealthy had power and wealth, things that Hamilton and the Federalist Party needed in order for their goals for the nation to succeed. What was so wrong with giving them a reason to support these ideas by giving them a stake in the government? Why do people support candidates nowadays? Is it because they agree with their idea’s and standpoints completely and entirely? Maybe, but most likely the candidate that they support has some sort of plan, idea or action that will benefit the voter in some way or another. That is how advertising works and fund raising works: You give the intended audience a reason to care.

Without Hamilton’s vision for the country, would America be the economic superpower and semi-self sufficient country that we are today? So, do you think that the Republican Parties claims that the Federalist Party tending to the will of the wealthy in order to attain a government that was returning to the ways of old, was in fact wrong? Feel free to share your ideas.

Balance: The Low Carb Donut

Everyone at MKA knows of the Step team. At any event, be it the Gathering or a sport event, it is an eagerly anticipated and watched group. Why? Simple. It is a group of people working together in unison. Everything they do as a group is balanced. They balance on one foot and tap their other shoe together. They split into two groups, four, and then back again having already choreographed and compromised. Their performance is an exhibit of when something is in balance, or unison. In our day to day lives you hardly ever see that. Whether that is a comment on our eye sight or our society, I’ll leave that up to you to decide.

On the radio it isn’t uncommon to hear advertisements say “America Runs on Dunkin’ (Donuts)” in a nice little jingle that gets stuck in one’s head. Some might agree, but personally I prefer, ‘America Runs on Balance’. It has less of a ring to it, but it has more truth -- simply look to the history of the Constitution if you disagree.

In the beginning, there was fear. Fear set apart those who preferred to wait and watch American events and those, like George Washington, who finally made the Decision to join the Constitutional Convention. George Washington’s fear after Shay’s Rebellion was that “mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own Government” and that what America’s “trans-Atlantic foe has predicted” would come true (Letter from George Washington to Henry Lee, October 31, 1786). Only after the fear had set in did the Constitutional Convention get started, and for that matter, only after a national celebrity, George Washington, admitted his fear. The fear was like a match starting off a stick of dynamite. After the dynamite blew up half a hill, one could start to see the diamonds hidden in the rough. In this case, the diamonds were the Constitution and the dynamite was any and all compromises of the Convention.

Similar to modern times, the successes of the Constitutional Convention was defined by its compromises. The Constitutional Convention started off in unison on two things: George Washington would chair the convention and that everything concerning the meetings would be closed to the public. Then, ironically for this piece, they quickly agreed that each delegation would have a single vote and even the major events wouldn’t require a unanimous vote, merely a majority. Since humans are different and will always disagree, this immediately balanced unanimity with productivity. After this there was the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. The Virginia Plan was all about balancing the powers, starting off by saying that “a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive and Judiciary” (Brinkley, pg 144). This part was quickly approved. The problem occurred on how states would be represented in the new government. The New Jersey Plan suggested that there should be only one house with equal representation for every state despite the size of the state. The New Jersey Plan was rejected, but it brought rise to a compromise. The compromise said that members of the upper house could be elected by the state governments. One of the major debates of the Convention was over slavery. The slave-dependent states wanted slaves to count as population and property, but the slave-independent states wanted slaves to count only for property purposes (and therefore for taxes). After a lot of debate and the Convention was almost dissolved, again the Convention jumped over a hurdle by created a compromise by balancing the two extreme opinions. They did this by counting slaves as three fifths of a free person and of a piece of property. A compromise between powers was also reached by banning the government from stopping the slave trade, or as a result, even talking about it for twenty years.

This, finally in the long list of major compromises, brought the conversation to the balance of power and limitations. If the scale of power wasn’t level on average, then America would collapse. If the scale of power was level, then it would be a testament to the world. The Convention agreed that the purpose of the Constitution was to create the Supreme law, but not the Supreme man. The people would give power to the constitution which would then give power to the government, which, in turn, would give power to the people via the social contract of Locke and Hobbes. To cement this, every branch of government had “checks and balances” which kept any one branch from having too much power and thus becoming tyrannical. The Constitutional Convention originally wanted to limit power so that there wouldn’t be too little liberty, but men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton feared too much liberty. After the Sheys’ Rebellion, like a number of the people who joined the Convention after the Rebellion, began to fear what happened when the liberty itself of the people was unchecked. To solve this issue, the president was set to be elected by an electoral college and thus made the government not of the people, but of the chosen people.

These compromises and balances of power, people and beliefs are what keeps America on the thick and narrow. When things get unbalanced, people notice. Due to the nature of human kind, the masses never agree on what they notice, merely that something was messed up. When someone on the step team hesitates or messes up, people notice. A sort of feeling circulates around the flood of bodies as one neighbor whispers inaudibly to the next and then continues to fixedly watch the performance. For one second, the unison was broken. For one second the balance was uneven. For that one second, they were again watching the human nature they see in their day to day life. Today, when congress doesn’t work together and certain parties are at vicious odds apposed to complementary sides of a scale, the nation notices and complains.

The interpretation of the Constitution is constantly changing. For example, during the Founding Fathers’ times, guns were a necessity of life for hunting. For a large majority of the nation, if one didn’t have farm animals, trapping or a gun was the only way to get a supply of meat. Today, hunting is more of a culture than a necessity. In America, one can simply go to the grocery store if they were simply hungry. Over time, society has changed. In this debate in particular, their are two extreme views on this right in the Bill of Rights. Some think people should view the constitution strictly as to what the Founding Fathers wrote or view the constitution liberally in what the Founding Fathers meant and bending how it applies to new times (and social demands) as needed. Why is it that we even have this debate, to read the vague constitution strictly or liberally? Why is it that we today, as an American community, do not trust ourselves to grapple with the constitution and change it as needed now, instead of looking back to the founding fathers of then? What is it they have that we don’t? Simply, the Founding Fathers were human and we are human and thus both parties are flawed. We are flawed; our ideas are flawed; and our actions are flawed. Eventually all of the flaws even out, but as humans we question flaws and thus we question everything, whether or not we should. We look back to the Founding Fathers because the difference between them and us it that they had experienced recent tyranny, had more compromise (in their system) and had an absolute need and conviction to create the Constitution. If modern Americans were trying to redo the constitution, they would not be able to get the same protection against tyranny because they had not experienced the same dilemmas. The Founding Fathers created the Constitution with the intent of keeping America free from tyranny in the future generations, but is it possible for any man to truly prepare for the future? If there is any tool that can be used to create a valid plan for the future, it is compromise. And if there's compromise, there thus will be balance. Last time I checked, donuts aren't nearly as useful.


Elephant Picture

Logic Behind the AoC

Where the Americans right to worry about having a strong central government?

America wrote the Articles of Confederation to provide a weak central government. This was an understandable move, considering their previous experiences with strong central governments like those of Britain and France: France got into a war with Britain that many colonists got stuck in the middle of, and Britain caused enough anger among the Americans to result in a revolution. After all the trouble strong governments that the people had no say in, go the people into, it makes sense they would want to try something else. There is logic to their worry about making another governmental position that could become too strong to be checked. All the same, I am not sure that it was a truly necessary action.
While it was logical, yes, to fear a strong government, they did not need to go as far as they did: to handi-cap their leading body. Government is defined, among other things, as A) a form or system of rule by which a community of some sort is governed, and B) direction; control; management; rule. The government makes the laws, enforces the laws, and generally deals with the system. It is meant to protect the people and the greater interests of the people, as defined in the social contract. The Americans were worried about giving a loaded gun to a crooked cop. But they went too far in the other direction: if you give a policeman a bubblegun, he won't be able to stop much crime. An ineffective government is just that- ineffective

The Americans should have, instead of weakening the government, left the government with moderate power and worked on weeding out the 'crooked cops': perhaps by adding requirements on who can run for what office, how. 


What do you think? Were the Americans right to react as they did, to prevent a strong government? Were their actions logical?

AoC
water gun

Was America Justified in Starting a Revoultion.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/uploaded_images/slave_irons-745469.jpg

It is without doubt that the American Revolution was a great time in our country's history. Without it America would not be able to stand as the pillar of freedom and opportunity that it stands as today. But there was one blotch that stained the valiant effort that the colonists put on by taking on the British empire. Whilst the colonists were calling for freedom, they were in fact the owners and traders of slaves themselves. So this brings me to the question that I want to raise for this blog post, were the colonists justified in starting a revolution whilst they were oppressing and enslaving so many people.
In my opinion, they were not. The revolution was a time for freedom and a time where the idea of quality of life was very important. The main complaint of the Americans was that they felt oppressed and unable to have a say in how they were governed. Patrick Henry went as far as to say that the colonists were slaves of England and needed to break free through war. Thomas Jefferson wrote to the king of England in the Declaration of Independence that the colonists were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html). He further stated that America was defecting from Britain because the King had failed to provide the colonists with these rights. I feel that America had no place demanding these rights when they were, as Alan Brinkley put it, "fighting both to secure freedom for themselves and to preserve slavery for others". (Brinkley, 127)
So, what do you guys think? Do you agree with me or feel that America, even though it enslaved other people, could demand freedom for themselves. Leave a comment below telling me your opinions.

Alternatives to Revolution

Patrick Henry- http://www.familyfoundationblog.com/2009/12/30/we-leave-you-with-patrick-henry/

When we were younger, we learned that the American Revolution was a huge and unequivocal triumph. The process of breaking away from the oppressive rule of Britain to become independent was viewed as a courageous act that allowed the colonies to eventually evolve into the great nation that we live in today. Now, with a more mature point of view, we are able to examine the revolution in a more objective way, understanding the intentions of both the colonists and the British. As we discussed in class, it was interesting to hear that some students agreed with the actions of the colonies, while other students were more sympathetic to the endeavors of the British government. The opinion that the colonies were “whiny” and “immature” was also presented. As we continue to explore the reasons behind the American Revolution, we should consider the innumerable other paths that history could have taken.
Patrick Henry, one of the founding fathers and a strong advocate of the revolution, made a famous speech in 1776. In this speech, he speaks of the revolt, saying, “In vain, after all these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer any room for hope.” (MP, 99). Patrick Henry reveals that he is of the belief that the rebellion has already been set in motion and that it is unstoppable. His viewpoint makes it seem like revolution is inevitable, but was it really? Radical Possibilities of American Revolution states that, “There was little evidence of those social conditions we often associate with revolution.” For example, Gordon S. Wood cites that the colonies did not have “mass poverty…seething social discontent…[or] grinding oppression”, which were often conditions necessary to ignite revolution (MP, 110). In fact, he says, “For most white Americans there was greater prosperity than anywhere else in the world.” In comparison to most other pre-revolutionary societies, white colonial settlers enjoyed relative prosperity, access to resources, and social freedoms. So, what caused various colonial discontents to transform into a large-scale revolution?
No one can say exactly when the American Revolution began. Certainly a series of smaller events helped to initiate it, such as Britain’s announcement of various taxes on the colonies, and the colonists’ rebellious Boston Tea Party. Was there a specific moment of no return? Perhaps if the “shots heard around the world” hadn’t been fired, we would still be English. At this stage in our education, we are better prepared to formulate a more informed and impartial opinion of the revolution. There are three key questions for us to consider after tonight’s reading. First, at what point in time was it too late for either party to turn back from war? Second, did the colonists and/or the British have any other, less violent, alternatives to the revolution? Lastly, what would have happened if Britain and the colonies had been able to negotiate reconciliation, and the British government had continued to rule the colonies?

A new reading revolution

So I had this thought over the weekend, and thought I would throw it out, and see if anyone wanted to respond. We read about the reading revolution during the last unit, and its effects on society and ideas. Is the internet producing a new reading revolution, by changing the way people read, and therefore think? And if so, what effects will it have? Will they be as far reaching as the Enlightenment?

Some relevant links:

• The author Nicholas Carr has written extensively on the way the internet is changing the way we read, most famously in an article called "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and most recently in a book called The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. Nicholas Carr's blog/website is here, and you can read some reviews/summaries of his book here, here, and here.
• "Ten Reading Revolutions Before E-Books"
• A critique of the reading revolution idea

Dr. K