Period 3: 1754-1800
Engraving of Shays' Rebellion
This illustration shows a rebel circa 1787 brawling with a Massachusetts government supporter during what is known as Shays' Rebellion. This image effectively captures the difficulties faced by the emerging nation during this time period. Defeating Britain in a battle for independence only remedied America's mildest problems. After the war, debates over the nature of government fueled the political discourse in America as social unrest stirred. The Articles of Confederation proved to be unstable after the events depicted in this image, and it was determined that a new constitution was necessary. Nonetheless, not even this could end the new nation's woes. Another rebellion, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, soon took hold in Western Pennsylvania. Small farmers were, once again, protesting excessive and unjust taxation. In politics, disputes over the United States Constitution resulted in the creation of two new parties: the Federalists, those who supported ratification, and the Anti-Federalists, those who opposed ratification. George Washington proceeded to warn the public on the dangers of political parties as "potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government." However, after the Constitution was ratified, political divisions remained with the founding of the Democratic-Republican party in addition to the Federalists. These political parties feuded constantly. At one point, a fight broke out on the floor of the House of Representatives between Federalist Roger Griswold and Democrat-Republican Matthew Lyon. More important was the ideological battle between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. In essence, these deep-rooted political divisions and disputes over the role of government encapsulated the period between 1754 and 1800.
Primary Sources: Who Rules?
Hamilton vs Jefferson
Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States (1791)
|
Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States (1791)
|
Excerpt:
It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. And for the sake of accuracy it shall be mentioned, that there is another class of powers, which may be properly denominated resting powers… ...that as a power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied as any other thing, it may as well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatever.... The proposed bank is to consist of an association of persons, for the purpose of creating a joint capital, to be employed chiefly and essentially in loans. So far the object is not only lawful, but it is the mere exercise of a right which the law allows to every individual… Accordingly it is affirmed that it has a relation, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes, to that of borrowing money, to that of regulating trade between the States, and to those of raising and maintaining fleets and armies… ...and in the last place it will be argued, that it is clearly within the provision which authorizes the making of all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the United States, as the same has been practiced upon by the government… For the simplest and most precise idea of a bank is, a deposit of coin, or other property, as a fund for circulating credit upon it, which is to answer the purpose of money… To deny the power of the government to add these ingredients to the plan, would be to refine away all government… http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp
|
Excerpt:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution… To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts... It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase… http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
|
Notes from the Constitutional Convention (1787)
Excerpt:
Mr. HAMILTON. (Alexander Hamilton, NY) All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy http://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/HIST342/ConstitutionalConvention.htm
|
The "Tree of Liberty" Letter (1787)
From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith Excerpt:
...can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably [sic] conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, [and] always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century [and] a half without a rebellion? [and] what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots [and] tyrants. It is it's natural manure http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#105
|
Analysis:
This era is undoubtedly one of conflicting visions of the future. These sources exemplify the differing viewpoints on a fundamental political argument of this time based on the question, "Who rules?". The different answers to this question spurred feuds and arguments among America's political leadership, which ultimately led to the eventual creation of the Democrat-Republican party which opposed the Federalists after the Constitution's ratification. Alexander Hamilton, a premier leader of the Federalists, aimed to maintain power in the aristocracy in order to create a wealthy nation with a complex industrial economy. Thomas Jefferson's goal was to create a radical democracy constituted of small land owners operating in a dominantly agrarian economy. These opposite goals led them to answer the question of "who rules?" differently, and are shown in several ways, including their reaction to Shays' Rebellion and the establishment of a federal bank.
Hamilton and Jefferson's opposing responses to Shays' rebellion in 1787 aptly exhibits their contradicting views on the nature of government. Jefferson responded to Shay's rebellion, an uprising against perceived economic inequality, by encouraging the rebels "take arms". He famously wrote that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants", meaning that popular revolt is necessary for the preservation of freedom. Jefferson's response is a result of his opinion that government must be limited, democratic, and representative of the yeoman farmer. However, Jefferson was not in the United States to participate in the drafting of the new constitution, Hamilton was. While Jefferson reacted with pleasure from France, Hamilton and the rest of the elites looked on in horror. After the rebellion, it was decided that a new more powerful federal government was required in order to ensure stability. Hamilton and the majority of the Constitutional Convention were harshly critical of democracy and saw it as a folly not a solution. Hamilton notably said that "The people...seldom judge or determine right" and warned of the "imprudence of democracy". Thus, he concluded that power ought to be concentrated in the wealthy elites, what Madison described as the "opulent minority". To achieve this goal, Hamilton and the convention decided that the Senate would uphold these interests. The motive behind creating a strong aristocracy and a reciprocally strong federal government is primarily economic. Hamilton and the Federalists, envisioned an economy with factories and banks that would bring great wealth to the country, while Jefferson wanted to preserve the liberty of the small farmer. It can be said that today we live in a world more characteristic of Hamilton's vision.
Differences between Jefferson and Hamilton--the Democrat-Republicans and the Federalists--can also be seen through their contrasting attitudes toward a national bank. In order to create an advanced economy, Hamilton thought it necessary to do several things among which were creating a national bank. In Hamilton's view, the federal bank would create a national currency, loan money to the government, and serve as a place for the government to deposit money. All of this was in line with Hamilton's goal of creating and funding a national debt. Yet, Jefferson argued that "The incorporation of a bank...[is] not...delegated to the United States, by the Constitution." This part of Jefferson's argument called in to question the extent of the Federal governments power, which would later be brought up by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions after the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.Jefferson contended that the government was exercising power to granted to it by the Constitution by creating a national bank. Hamilton's response was that denying "the power of the government to add these ingredients to the plan, would be to refine away all government…". He means that inhibiting the right of the government to create a national bank undermines the governments legitimacy as a whole. More importantly, both arguments revolve around disparate interpretations of the necessary and proper clause that is part of Article I of the Constitution. This part of the Constitution allowed Congress to make laws that were not originally part of the enumerated powers. Arguments of this nature continue to prevail in our modern political discourse.
American politics between 1754 and 1800 was rife with disagreement, much like it is today. However, the competing visions for the future expressed throughout these documents profoundly shaped modern society. The Constitution created in 1787 remains the chief document of the United States to this day, and different interpretations of its many nuances continue to create jarring discord.
Hamilton and Jefferson's opposing responses to Shays' rebellion in 1787 aptly exhibits their contradicting views on the nature of government. Jefferson responded to Shay's rebellion, an uprising against perceived economic inequality, by encouraging the rebels "take arms". He famously wrote that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants", meaning that popular revolt is necessary for the preservation of freedom. Jefferson's response is a result of his opinion that government must be limited, democratic, and representative of the yeoman farmer. However, Jefferson was not in the United States to participate in the drafting of the new constitution, Hamilton was. While Jefferson reacted with pleasure from France, Hamilton and the rest of the elites looked on in horror. After the rebellion, it was decided that a new more powerful federal government was required in order to ensure stability. Hamilton and the majority of the Constitutional Convention were harshly critical of democracy and saw it as a folly not a solution. Hamilton notably said that "The people...seldom judge or determine right" and warned of the "imprudence of democracy". Thus, he concluded that power ought to be concentrated in the wealthy elites, what Madison described as the "opulent minority". To achieve this goal, Hamilton and the convention decided that the Senate would uphold these interests. The motive behind creating a strong aristocracy and a reciprocally strong federal government is primarily economic. Hamilton and the Federalists, envisioned an economy with factories and banks that would bring great wealth to the country, while Jefferson wanted to preserve the liberty of the small farmer. It can be said that today we live in a world more characteristic of Hamilton's vision.
Differences between Jefferson and Hamilton--the Democrat-Republicans and the Federalists--can also be seen through their contrasting attitudes toward a national bank. In order to create an advanced economy, Hamilton thought it necessary to do several things among which were creating a national bank. In Hamilton's view, the federal bank would create a national currency, loan money to the government, and serve as a place for the government to deposit money. All of this was in line with Hamilton's goal of creating and funding a national debt. Yet, Jefferson argued that "The incorporation of a bank...[is] not...delegated to the United States, by the Constitution." This part of Jefferson's argument called in to question the extent of the Federal governments power, which would later be brought up by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions after the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.Jefferson contended that the government was exercising power to granted to it by the Constitution by creating a national bank. Hamilton's response was that denying "the power of the government to add these ingredients to the plan, would be to refine away all government…". He means that inhibiting the right of the government to create a national bank undermines the governments legitimacy as a whole. More importantly, both arguments revolve around disparate interpretations of the necessary and proper clause that is part of Article I of the Constitution. This part of the Constitution allowed Congress to make laws that were not originally part of the enumerated powers. Arguments of this nature continue to prevail in our modern political discourse.
American politics between 1754 and 1800 was rife with disagreement, much like it is today. However, the competing visions for the future expressed throughout these documents profoundly shaped modern society. The Constitution created in 1787 remains the chief document of the United States to this day, and different interpretations of its many nuances continue to create jarring discord.
Synthesis Article
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798-1801) vs PATRIOT Act (2001-2015)
A striking motif in American history is the suppression of civil liberties. It finds its roots in the year 1798 when the Alien and Sedition Acts were signed into law. The Alien and Sedition Acts made it more difficult for immigrants to become citizens, allowed the executive branch to deport immigrants who were deemed dangerous, and made it illegal to make false statements aimed at criticizing the federal governments. A clear and obvious contradiction to the liberties expressed in the Bill of Rights, they were largely released out of fear in response to the perceived threat of the French Revolution and the start of the Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war with France. Likewise, George W. Bush signed the PATRIOT Act in 2001 as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the imminent "War on Terror". Both were seen as essential to ensuring public safety and suppressing dangerous foreign elements. Although the provisions in the two acts are not identical, the PATRIOT Act is also said to contradict liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, in particular the fourth amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seizures.
However, the PATRIOT Act did not receive the same degree of criticism as the Alien and Sedition Acts did. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by a Federalist president, John Adams, and were harshly criticized by the Democrat-Republicans as part of Thomas Jefferson's campaign for the executive office. When Jefferson was elected in 1800, he promptly repealed three of the acts. However, during the 2008 election, the Democratic party displayed no outward indignation toward the PATRIOT Act as the Democrat-Republicans had done during Jefferson's election. On the contrary, upon becoming president, Barack Obama actually extended the three key provisions of the PATRIOT Act in the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011. |
|
Change and Continuity
The most evident change in politics from period 2 to period 3 is the American Revolution, which resulted in the independence of Britain's thirteen East-Coast North American colonies. However, the implications of this change are important to analyze. The War was said to be fought for independence, but independence for whom?
The Declaration of Independence described the natural rights of man as being "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness". These Enlightenment ideals challenged the existing notions of the time and were the first to become manifested in a government after the Revolutionary War. However, after the war, little changed for Indians, blacks, and poor whites. The role of women as "Republican mothers" took hold, but this only served to strengthen the role of women serving exclusively as housewives. Virtually all of the "Founding fathers" agreed that slavery ought to be kept in tact, and through the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution of the United States, the place of Indians in society continued to remain ambiguous. As for poor whites, the same problems of inequality and lack of acknowledgement that led to Bacons' Rebellion in 1676 invariably caused Shays' rebellion in 1786 and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791. The right to vote remained confined to white property owning males. This trend continued because power remained concentrated with economic elites, except these elites were born in America instead of Britain.
So what, then, changed? The most clear development is the establishment of a federal government. In period 3, the once separate colonies unified in order to defeat Great Britain. The Articles of Confederation served as the new nation's first constitution and largely took hold as a desire to return to the salutary neglect from period 2, but after the events of Shays' rebellion, the Confederation was repealed in favor of a more powerful central government. The conclusion was that democracy ought to be checked and limited, and a melding of classical liberal and republican ideals led to the ratification of a new Constitution in 1789. This domestic federal government was a new development from period 2. Nevertheless, it did little to change the lives of the majority of people as highlighted in the prior paragraph.
The Declaration of Independence described the natural rights of man as being "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness". These Enlightenment ideals challenged the existing notions of the time and were the first to become manifested in a government after the Revolutionary War. However, after the war, little changed for Indians, blacks, and poor whites. The role of women as "Republican mothers" took hold, but this only served to strengthen the role of women serving exclusively as housewives. Virtually all of the "Founding fathers" agreed that slavery ought to be kept in tact, and through the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution of the United States, the place of Indians in society continued to remain ambiguous. As for poor whites, the same problems of inequality and lack of acknowledgement that led to Bacons' Rebellion in 1676 invariably caused Shays' rebellion in 1786 and the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791. The right to vote remained confined to white property owning males. This trend continued because power remained concentrated with economic elites, except these elites were born in America instead of Britain.
So what, then, changed? The most clear development is the establishment of a federal government. In period 3, the once separate colonies unified in order to defeat Great Britain. The Articles of Confederation served as the new nation's first constitution and largely took hold as a desire to return to the salutary neglect from period 2, but after the events of Shays' rebellion, the Confederation was repealed in favor of a more powerful central government. The conclusion was that democracy ought to be checked and limited, and a melding of classical liberal and republican ideals led to the ratification of a new Constitution in 1789. This domestic federal government was a new development from period 2. Nevertheless, it did little to change the lives of the majority of people as highlighted in the prior paragraph.