At the end of the Civil War the United States went through a period of incredible economic growth. This period is often referred to as the Industrial Era where capitalist industries went through extreme expansion by great increases in production of many commodities such as steel, petroleum, coal, and wheat and corn due to advancements in agricultural machinery. There were many groups with dissimilar views on how this new industrial America. There were multiple trade unions which fought for the rights of workers and asked for government aid for the people in poverty in America. In spite of these groups there were many capitalist corporations that supported the horrid theory of Social Darwinism that implied the government shouldn’t be involved in the capitalist system and should not give aid to those who were in need. The only groups that actually posed any threat to overthrowing the wretched system were radicals like Eugene Debs who realized the truth that capitalism was in fact exploitive and would do anything in order to get achieve capital and profits. The efforts of trade union movement to reform the horrible and corrupt capitalist system were futile because in their efforts to reform the system they allowed capitalism’s continued existence and under the logic of there is no good capitalism they completely failed because in their attempt to reform the system it only ended up furthering the system through not confronting Social Darwinism directly, not realizing the futileness of the American Dream under a capitalist system, and attempting to go through the government to create a slightly less unkind system of capitalism which ultimately failed and only furthered the system for it is impossible to solve within the system.
Social Darwinism is one of the most controversial ways to look at the world. Social Darwinism is a tool of capitalism to justify their exploitation of humans and resources which will lead to ecological destruction and genocide and was responsible for American slavery. By the efforts of the trade unions to make a faintly less offensive form of capitalism they only furthered the system because capitalism will always feed off of slight “improvements” to the system and use them for its own advantage to further please the people at the top of the system in their drive for profits and accumulation. The multiple trade unions failed to stop the horrible philosophy of Social Darwinism because it is too deeply rooted in capitalists justification for horrible acts like American slavery, a system directly caused by a drive for profits because slave labor was economically beneficial. The attempts of slave union groups to work with capitalism only led to the furthering of the Social Darwinism favoring the protection of the rich and wealthy and only increasing the rapid accumulation a select few profit from.
Capitalism also profited from the ludicrous idea of the “American Dream.” This dream simply stated that with hard work and self determination in America anyone can reach the top. This theory foolhardy and was and is a tool of capitalism to keep its workers in check and avoid any possible way to destroy the system. The trade unions tried to bring more rights to workers by making simple renovations to capitalism and were not successful in addressing capitalism directly which actually ended up making capitalism more powerful. The American Dream helped capitalism by spreading the lie that with hard work anyone could do whatever they wanted. This is very conveniently worded for capitalists. If a worker asks why his life has not gotten any better in his 12 hour work day the capitalist profiteers may tell him make it a 14 hour work week and you may get somewhere. The fact of the matter is capitalism favors only a select few and requires everyone else to be at the bottom of the system in poverty working hard for these select few. The stupidity of the American Dream is tremendous for it is unattainable in the capitalist system.
Trade unions failed to realize that going through the federal government was futile. One of the horrible traits of corporations in a capitalist economic system is that they also take control of the political system. It only makes sense then that trade unions would fail to accomplish anything by going through the government for it would be too deeply rooted in capitalist corporations. An example of how the corporations held control of the American government is the many protective tariffs the United States government implemented that protected these corporations and the fact they left large corporations untaxed. This shows how Social Darwinism is only used for capitalists when it comes to helping the poor. They look the other way when the government helps them, but quickly say it violates the theory of Social Darwinism when the government does anything helping the poor. Trade unions failed to realize the stranglehold capitalism had on them and the government and that it was pointless to make minor reforms.
To conclude, the trade union movement was not successful in during the post-Civil War era because it did not confront the capitalist system that began to grow rapidly. The only possible way to destroy the corrupt capitalist system was a full on rejection a few individuals such as Eugene Debs supported. A horrible evil that is a tremendous part of the capitalist system was Social Darwinism which was not confronted by a failure to destroy the capitalist system. Trade unions also didn’t realize that the American Dream was a tool of the capitalist system in order to make their laborers work harder in their drive for profits. Trade unions made another mistake by thinking that they could use the government to help solve their problems, which was a failure because the corporations had far too much influence on the government, which actually contradicted their whole Social Darwinist argument because they were greatly involved with the American government. The only way capitalism can be destroyed is by all out rejection of the system because reforming the system can only result in complete failure by furthering the system.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
To What Extent did the Compact Theory cause the Civil War?
Well I didn't plagerize on this essay, but from know on I will just read ahead of time and write the essay without outside materials.
During the early nineteenth century, the early years of the American government, there were large conflicts as to how strong the federal government would be in relation to the states’ government. A strong federal group in the early American democracy was the Hamiltonians. Followers of this group consisted of federalists who were strong advocates for the Contract Theory, where the people not the states held power over the government. In opposition to the Contract Theory was the Jeffersonians. The Jeffersonians advocated for the Compact Theory, which felt that the states held power over the federal government and should be allowed to declare any laws of the federal government null and void if they felt they were unconstitutional. Over history there were a multitude of efforts by both the Compact and Contract Theorists to implement their beliefs into the youthful American government. The Compact Theory would later be applied in the Civil War by the states’ feeling they had the right to secede from the federal government. The Civil war was remarkably caused by the efforts of the Compact Theorists through multiple labors for the implementation of states’ rights, most notably, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, John C. Calhoun’s protests of the “Tariff of Abominations” with the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, and South Carolina’s response to the tariff of 1832, altogether ultimately leading to secession.
One of the first great states’ rights efforts by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both Compact Theorists, were the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions passed in 1798. These two resolutions helped bring up the idea of nullification, a huge component of the Compact Theory, by individual states refusing to comply with federal laws, specifically, the Alien and Sedition Acts. These resolutions were an enormous breakthrough for states’ rights advocates because it assisted the idea the states could declare certain federal laws null and void. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, although were not directly made to affect the Civil War, were a large factor in inciting the Civil War because they helped bring into play the Compact Theory which would later bring the secession of Southern states.
A tremendous states’ rights advocate was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. The federal government had passed a protective tariff for Northern industries, known as the “Tariff of Abominations” in the South, which consequently harmed the South’s economy. In response to this, in 1828, Calhoun secretly wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest which fought for the idea of nullification. It openly implied that the states should ignore the tariff within the states’ limits. This protest was a great continuation of the principles of the Compact Theory. This would, in due course, assist in the secession of multiple states from the Union because they felt that it was their right as states to apply slavery and the federal government should have no position in denying it, after all there was nothing in the constitution that said slavery should be illegal.
In 1832 Congress passed another protective tariff. This tariff enraged South Carolinians. Behind their leader John C. Calhoun they declared that the tariff, essentially, did not apply to South Carolina. President Andrew Jackson, who furious about the nullification of South Carolina’s decision to simply ignore the tariff threatened invasion of South Carolina. Calhoun, noticing his awkward position, resigned from his position of Vice President. Later, next year, Congress reduced the tariff. This event, however, was a great movement in the idea of nullification and secession and was a step towards the South seceding from the Union causing the catastrophic event of the Civil War.
In conclusion, the Civil War was caused by multiple efforts of states’ rightists for the implementation of the Compact Theory. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were one of the first steps made by the Compact Theorists to nullify laws made by the federal government. Another very important effort made by the states’ rightists was the South Carolina Exposition and Protest passed by John C. Calhoun to give states’ the right to ignore the tariff of abominations. Lastly, the efforts by John C. Calhoun and South Carolina to declare the tariff of 1832 null and void were a tremendous step towards Southern secession. The Civil War was caused by the idea that the states’ should be allowed to ignore federal laws they saw unconstitutional, which ended up including slavery for there actually was nothing in the Constitution that forbade slavery.
During the early nineteenth century, the early years of the American government, there were large conflicts as to how strong the federal government would be in relation to the states’ government. A strong federal group in the early American democracy was the Hamiltonians. Followers of this group consisted of federalists who were strong advocates for the Contract Theory, where the people not the states held power over the government. In opposition to the Contract Theory was the Jeffersonians. The Jeffersonians advocated for the Compact Theory, which felt that the states held power over the federal government and should be allowed to declare any laws of the federal government null and void if they felt they were unconstitutional. Over history there were a multitude of efforts by both the Compact and Contract Theorists to implement their beliefs into the youthful American government. The Compact Theory would later be applied in the Civil War by the states’ feeling they had the right to secede from the federal government. The Civil war was remarkably caused by the efforts of the Compact Theorists through multiple labors for the implementation of states’ rights, most notably, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, John C. Calhoun’s protests of the “Tariff of Abominations” with the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, and South Carolina’s response to the tariff of 1832, altogether ultimately leading to secession.
One of the first great states’ rights efforts by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both Compact Theorists, were the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions passed in 1798. These two resolutions helped bring up the idea of nullification, a huge component of the Compact Theory, by individual states refusing to comply with federal laws, specifically, the Alien and Sedition Acts. These resolutions were an enormous breakthrough for states’ rights advocates because it assisted the idea the states could declare certain federal laws null and void. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, although were not directly made to affect the Civil War, were a large factor in inciting the Civil War because they helped bring into play the Compact Theory which would later bring the secession of Southern states.
A tremendous states’ rights advocate was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. The federal government had passed a protective tariff for Northern industries, known as the “Tariff of Abominations” in the South, which consequently harmed the South’s economy. In response to this, in 1828, Calhoun secretly wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest which fought for the idea of nullification. It openly implied that the states should ignore the tariff within the states’ limits. This protest was a great continuation of the principles of the Compact Theory. This would, in due course, assist in the secession of multiple states from the Union because they felt that it was their right as states to apply slavery and the federal government should have no position in denying it, after all there was nothing in the constitution that said slavery should be illegal.
In 1832 Congress passed another protective tariff. This tariff enraged South Carolinians. Behind their leader John C. Calhoun they declared that the tariff, essentially, did not apply to South Carolina. President Andrew Jackson, who furious about the nullification of South Carolina’s decision to simply ignore the tariff threatened invasion of South Carolina. Calhoun, noticing his awkward position, resigned from his position of Vice President. Later, next year, Congress reduced the tariff. This event, however, was a great movement in the idea of nullification and secession and was a step towards the South seceding from the Union causing the catastrophic event of the Civil War.
In conclusion, the Civil War was caused by multiple efforts of states’ rightists for the implementation of the Compact Theory. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were one of the first steps made by the Compact Theorists to nullify laws made by the federal government. Another very important effort made by the states’ rightists was the South Carolina Exposition and Protest passed by John C. Calhoun to give states’ the right to ignore the tariff of abominations. Lastly, the efforts by John C. Calhoun and South Carolina to declare the tariff of 1832 null and void were a tremendous step towards Southern secession. The Civil War was caused by the idea that the states’ should be allowed to ignore federal laws they saw unconstitutional, which ended up including slavery for there actually was nothing in the Constitution that forbade slavery.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Grassroots Movements in the Age of Reform
During the 1830s and 1840s a tremendous amount of religious revival swept throughout America. This period is known as the Second Great Awakening. Much like the First Great Awakening there were multiple ministers and preachers who spoke on the horrors of hell. The Second Great Awakening did not have much affect in the South because of the abolitionist movements that went hand and hand with the Awakening. This period was important to the extreme because of its huge involvement with women and being the inspiration behind reform movements during the Age of Reform where a multitude of reform movements were instituted. The grassroots movements were exceedingly successful in achieving their goals when involving women’s rights, abolition, public education, and prison reform through the Seneca Falls convention organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the efforts of Theodore Weld and James Birney, the struggles of Horace Mann and Noah Webster, and the endeavors of Dorthea Dix.
Women’s rights were a great part of the grassroots movement of the Age of Reform, partly due to the fact that so many women were involved in the Second Great Awakening. The women were extremely successful in women’s rights reform. Women fought wholeheartedly for women’s property rights. During the Seneca Falls convention women insisted upon enfranchisement by putting forth their “Declaration of Rights Sentiments.” Women would later also became a large part of the abolitionist movement.
Theodore Weld and James Birney were huge supporters for abolition of slavery. Weld and Birney were both a large part of the achievements of the abolitionist movements during the Age of Reform. The difference between these two individuals and other abolitionists was that they were for gradual abolition rather than a radical and far more dangerous route of abolition of slavery. This was the correct path to take because others like John Brown simply lead reckless revolutions and raids killing large quantities of people. Weld and Birney both did much petitioning to Congress to end the abolition of slavery and were enormous civil rights advocates. One of Theodore Weld’s best accomplishments was setting up a school in New Jersey that accepted all people regardless of race or sex.
During the Age of Reform, education was a remarkable issue. Some of the most notable leaders in education reform were Noah Webster and Horace Mann. Noah Webster played a hefty function in education reform. Noah Webster, sometimes called the “Schoolmaster of the Republic,” was able to advance school textbooks. Webster spent 20 years laboring on his commonly know dictionary, Webster’s Dictionary, which was a magnificent step in modernizing the American linguistics. Horace Mann spent a lot of his time vocalizing the necessity of longer school terms, a more extended set of courses, and higher pay for instructors.
Prison reform was a gigantic subject all through the Age of Reform. Dorthea Dix was one most outstanding leaders of prison reform. Dix was able to help make the distinction between the mentally ill and the willfully obstinate. Dorthea Dix also campaigned to people in the Massachusetts legislature. She preached on the horrid treatment of the mentally ill and the atrocious state prison cells were. Her persistence created improved conditions in jail cells greatly contributing to prison reform.
To conclude, the grassroots movements in the Age of Reform were successful in achieving their goals. Women’s rights improvements were made during the Seneca Falls convention. Theodore Weld and James Birney were both contributed to the abolitionist movement through strong advocating for emancipation and civil rights. Education reform was made possible by Noah Webster and Horace Mann through the improvements in textbooks and advocating for an increase in teacher pay and school curriculum. Lastly, due largely to the labors of Dorthea Dix prison reform was made possible by the improvement of jail cell conditions.
Women’s rights were a great part of the grassroots movement of the Age of Reform, partly due to the fact that so many women were involved in the Second Great Awakening. The women were extremely successful in women’s rights reform. Women fought wholeheartedly for women’s property rights. During the Seneca Falls convention women insisted upon enfranchisement by putting forth their “Declaration of Rights Sentiments.” Women would later also became a large part of the abolitionist movement.
Theodore Weld and James Birney were huge supporters for abolition of slavery. Weld and Birney were both a large part of the achievements of the abolitionist movements during the Age of Reform. The difference between these two individuals and other abolitionists was that they were for gradual abolition rather than a radical and far more dangerous route of abolition of slavery. This was the correct path to take because others like John Brown simply lead reckless revolutions and raids killing large quantities of people. Weld and Birney both did much petitioning to Congress to end the abolition of slavery and were enormous civil rights advocates. One of Theodore Weld’s best accomplishments was setting up a school in New Jersey that accepted all people regardless of race or sex.
During the Age of Reform, education was a remarkable issue. Some of the most notable leaders in education reform were Noah Webster and Horace Mann. Noah Webster played a hefty function in education reform. Noah Webster, sometimes called the “Schoolmaster of the Republic,” was able to advance school textbooks. Webster spent 20 years laboring on his commonly know dictionary, Webster’s Dictionary, which was a magnificent step in modernizing the American linguistics. Horace Mann spent a lot of his time vocalizing the necessity of longer school terms, a more extended set of courses, and higher pay for instructors.
Prison reform was a gigantic subject all through the Age of Reform. Dorthea Dix was one most outstanding leaders of prison reform. Dix was able to help make the distinction between the mentally ill and the willfully obstinate. Dorthea Dix also campaigned to people in the Massachusetts legislature. She preached on the horrid treatment of the mentally ill and the atrocious state prison cells were. Her persistence created improved conditions in jail cells greatly contributing to prison reform.
To conclude, the grassroots movements in the Age of Reform were successful in achieving their goals. Women’s rights improvements were made during the Seneca Falls convention. Theodore Weld and James Birney were both contributed to the abolitionist movement through strong advocating for emancipation and civil rights. Education reform was made possible by Noah Webster and Horace Mann through the improvements in textbooks and advocating for an increase in teacher pay and school curriculum. Lastly, due largely to the labors of Dorthea Dix prison reform was made possible by the improvement of jail cell conditions.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
America’s Hunger for Land through Nationalism and War
In the late 1700s and early 1800s the United States was stuck in between the conflicting powers of France and Britain. These two sides were heavily at war with one another and both disliked the idea of American trade with the other one. Both groups had instituted decrees that prevented the United States from trading with other nations. This included the Orders of Council which was put into effect by Britain which essentially prevented any neutral nations from trading with Frances as well as its allies. France responded to this in 1807 with the Milan Decree proclaiming that all ships that obeyed the Orders of Council would be seized by France. This was tremendously devastating to America’s economic system and due to extreme provocation resulted in the War of 1812, giving up all American hope for neutrality. America’s nationalism played a remarkable role in the formulation and application of the United States’ foreign policy in the early nineteenth century economically, politically, and imperialistically through the national unity created with hatred for Britain, the nationalism created by political leaders when declaring war on other nations, and the quests to acquire new land from additional nations.
The American economic structure during the French revolution was in ruin. This would ultimately cause a wave of nationalism. In the eyes of many American’s Britain was responsible for their economic situation. This was because of the numerous American merchant ships being denied trade by Britain to other nations, and the crews of the ships often being seized and impressed into service. Nationalism is often created when a nation has a common enemy, in this case, Britain. Due to the fact that many Americans were infuriated because of the devastating economy Americans united all with a common goal to strike back at Britain. This would lead to the War of 1812 which greatly increased nationalism in America against their common enemy, Britain. American nationalism also helped the economy due to new lands acquired by war with other nations, thereby giving America more farmland.
America also greatly altered politically when it came to foreign policy due to nationalism. It began to greatly increase an individual’s political favor to support war. This was because war united a country together against a common foe. The main foe was Britain in the war of 1812 and later Mexico during the Mexican-American war. Great examples of political leaders using war and nationalism to their advantage are James Monroe and James Polk. Monroe, for instance, based his foreign policy positions on the idea of American hegemony, or that the United States was dominant over the rest of the world, which in turn led to nationalism, all uniting under common belief that Americans were superior to the rest of the world and that they deserved other peoples land. James Polk also received political support during the Mexican-American war, because it once again unified America against a common ally, Mexicans.
Nationalists, over time, have tended to demonstrate imperialistic ideals. In the process of less than 100 years, from 1783-1853 America more than tripled its size. This was based on a nationalistic and imperialistic foreign policy entailing that the United States should unify together to bring the rest of the world under their control. This was also partially based on the idea that the United States had a superior and democratic system and it was obligated to share it with the rest of the world. Nationalists sought to make America’s foreign policy an imperial one. In this nationalists grandly succeeded due to the great expanse of newly acquired territories by the United States.
To conclude, American foreign policy was grandly altered due to nationalist ideals. The United States was significantly changed economically by the increase in nationalism. Politicians also changed their foreign policies because of the advantages of nationalism offered. The United States became extremely imperialistic because of nationalism as well, illustrating how nationalism and imperialism have often gone hand and hand historically. In general, nationalism played a large role in the formulation and function of American foreign policy in the early 1800s.
The American economic structure during the French revolution was in ruin. This would ultimately cause a wave of nationalism. In the eyes of many American’s Britain was responsible for their economic situation. This was because of the numerous American merchant ships being denied trade by Britain to other nations, and the crews of the ships often being seized and impressed into service. Nationalism is often created when a nation has a common enemy, in this case, Britain. Due to the fact that many Americans were infuriated because of the devastating economy Americans united all with a common goal to strike back at Britain. This would lead to the War of 1812 which greatly increased nationalism in America against their common enemy, Britain. American nationalism also helped the economy due to new lands acquired by war with other nations, thereby giving America more farmland.
America also greatly altered politically when it came to foreign policy due to nationalism. It began to greatly increase an individual’s political favor to support war. This was because war united a country together against a common foe. The main foe was Britain in the war of 1812 and later Mexico during the Mexican-American war. Great examples of political leaders using war and nationalism to their advantage are James Monroe and James Polk. Monroe, for instance, based his foreign policy positions on the idea of American hegemony, or that the United States was dominant over the rest of the world, which in turn led to nationalism, all uniting under common belief that Americans were superior to the rest of the world and that they deserved other peoples land. James Polk also received political support during the Mexican-American war, because it once again unified America against a common ally, Mexicans.
Nationalists, over time, have tended to demonstrate imperialistic ideals. In the process of less than 100 years, from 1783-1853 America more than tripled its size. This was based on a nationalistic and imperialistic foreign policy entailing that the United States should unify together to bring the rest of the world under their control. This was also partially based on the idea that the United States had a superior and democratic system and it was obligated to share it with the rest of the world. Nationalists sought to make America’s foreign policy an imperial one. In this nationalists grandly succeeded due to the great expanse of newly acquired territories by the United States.
To conclude, American foreign policy was grandly altered due to nationalist ideals. The United States was significantly changed economically by the increase in nationalism. Politicians also changed their foreign policies because of the advantages of nationalism offered. The United States became extremely imperialistic because of nationalism as well, illustrating how nationalism and imperialism have often gone hand and hand historically. In general, nationalism played a large role in the formulation and function of American foreign policy in the early 1800s.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Articles of Confederation, Inadequate to a Youthful Nation
When the American Revolution was over, America required a new form of government. This new government became the Articles of Confederation. The Articles had first been introduced by Richard Henry Lee in the Second Continental Congress. The Articles of Confederation, essentially, were America’s first constitution. It was soon to be replaced by the Constitution due to failures to address issues. The Articles, however, did not last very long and had already been attempted to be revised two times before the Constitution had been put into effect. The Articles of Confederation were not able to address problems facing the new American nation due to and inadequate features of the government under the Articles, domestic affairs issues, foreign affairs problems, through Congress lacking the authority to impose taxes, giving the states too much power, and having to rely on troops for military support.
There were multiple inadequate features of the Articles of Confederation. One of the worst features was the fact that Congress could not impose taxes. This made it difficult for the new nation to get money. One of the biggest flaws which greatly contributed to the factor of why the Articles were replaced was the fact that it required a unanimous approval from all states to amend it. This made it difficult to change which is why it was substituted rather than simply revised. There was also only one vote in Congress for each state which greatly favored the smaller states.
The Articles of Confederation also were unable to deal with domestic issues. This was because it simply gave the states too much supremacy. Under this new legal system there was little to no central power in the federal government. This was due to the fact that many politicians and civilians feared a strong central government because of their experiences with the monarchy of Great Britain. The Articles did not do a good job of uniting the colonies together. They did not attend to the major disorder between the colonies which is one of the many reasons they were done away with.
The Articles of Confederation did not address certain foreign affairs issues. One of these was that their only way to acquire troops involved receiving them from the states themselves. This made it difficult to protect the new nation from enemies. The Articles did little to address America’s conflicts with, former wartime ally, Spain, which wished to stop Westward expansion. This caused conflicts between both Spain and Native Americans in the West and areas around the Mississippi.
In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation were not able to attend to problems opposite the youthful nation of America. The Articles were unable to do this because they were not able to concentrate on inadequate features of this new variety of government because it did not allow Congress to impose taxes. It was powerless compared to the states. Lastly, the Articles of Confederation did not deal with foreign affairs issues the new nation faced when it came to conflicts with Spain and Native Americans. Overall, the Articles of Confederation were a very weak form of government and were not capable for governing a young nation.
There were multiple inadequate features of the Articles of Confederation. One of the worst features was the fact that Congress could not impose taxes. This made it difficult for the new nation to get money. One of the biggest flaws which greatly contributed to the factor of why the Articles were replaced was the fact that it required a unanimous approval from all states to amend it. This made it difficult to change which is why it was substituted rather than simply revised. There was also only one vote in Congress for each state which greatly favored the smaller states.
The Articles of Confederation also were unable to deal with domestic issues. This was because it simply gave the states too much supremacy. Under this new legal system there was little to no central power in the federal government. This was due to the fact that many politicians and civilians feared a strong central government because of their experiences with the monarchy of Great Britain. The Articles did not do a good job of uniting the colonies together. They did not attend to the major disorder between the colonies which is one of the many reasons they were done away with.
The Articles of Confederation did not address certain foreign affairs issues. One of these was that their only way to acquire troops involved receiving them from the states themselves. This made it difficult to protect the new nation from enemies. The Articles did little to address America’s conflicts with, former wartime ally, Spain, which wished to stop Westward expansion. This caused conflicts between both Spain and Native Americans in the West and areas around the Mississippi.
In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation were not able to attend to problems opposite the youthful nation of America. The Articles were unable to do this because they were not able to concentrate on inadequate features of this new variety of government because it did not allow Congress to impose taxes. It was powerless compared to the states. Lastly, the Articles of Confederation did not deal with foreign affairs issues the new nation faced when it came to conflicts with Spain and Native Americans. Overall, the Articles of Confederation were a very weak form of government and were not capable for governing a young nation.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Conservatives, Moderates, and Radicals
Conservatives, moderates, and radicals all greatly shaped the first and second Continental Congresses. There were three groups of people that all had different views on how to deal the England, the “mother country.” These three groups were the radicals, moderates, and conservatives. Conservatives believed that they should not separate from England at all, but were not very happy about some of England’s idea of what role the colonies should play. Moderates judged that the bond they shared with Great Britain could easily be amended. Lastly, Radicals, the most persuasive of the three groups, essentially deemed that the English colonies should either break away from Britain or make Britain comply with their demands. Conservatives, moderates, and radicals all shaped the first and second Continental Congresses, but the Radicals were far more persuasive and in the end their ideals dominated because of the still present fact that their beliefs were put through.
The conservatives believed that the English settlements needed to remain part of Great Britain and not split apart and declare independence. There were some a few delegates in 1774 at the first continental congress that supported conservative ideals. These included: John Jay (from New York) and Joseph Galloway (from Pennsylvania). Even the conservatives did not completely have faith in British control. Galloway, for example, believed that the colonies should stay with Britain, but would have some political authority being able to veto some Acts Great Britain put forth. However, Galloway’s beliefs were not accepted by all, giving the radicals leeway for support for their beliefs.
Moderates felt that Great Britain and England could both stride to fix their relationship. One of the most famous moderates was the first president of the United States, George Washington. The moderate group was basically a place for middle ground between the two other groups radicals and conservatives. Moderates, however, did believe that the colonies should remain a part of Britain. The radicals were the only group that was fully for colonial independence.
The radicals were easily the most successful group of the three. Many famous people were a part of this faction including: John Adams and Patrick Henry. Radicals believed that the colonies had to either declare independence or make Britain give in to their demands. The radicals were extremely successful when it came to enforcing their morals. The main evidence of this is that the United States today is separate from the British rule. The radicals were the most persuasive and influential group in the first and second Continental Congresses because America did declare independence. Thereby the radicals were able to persuade enough people that their ideals were correct that their ethics were followed.
In conclusion, the three major factions of the first and second Continental Congresses were dominated by the radical faction. The chief evidence of this is that their beliefs were followed by the majority of the American public as apposed to the conservatives and moderates whose standards were not put through. The conservatives and moderates were not able to hold enough ground against the radicals to gain enough support for their principles to be pursued. Overall, the radicals were the most dominant group of the first and second Continental Congresses through their great effort to declare independence which was eventually successful.
The conservatives believed that the English settlements needed to remain part of Great Britain and not split apart and declare independence. There were some a few delegates in 1774 at the first continental congress that supported conservative ideals. These included: John Jay (from New York) and Joseph Galloway (from Pennsylvania). Even the conservatives did not completely have faith in British control. Galloway, for example, believed that the colonies should stay with Britain, but would have some political authority being able to veto some Acts Great Britain put forth. However, Galloway’s beliefs were not accepted by all, giving the radicals leeway for support for their beliefs.
Moderates felt that Great Britain and England could both stride to fix their relationship. One of the most famous moderates was the first president of the United States, George Washington. The moderate group was basically a place for middle ground between the two other groups radicals and conservatives. Moderates, however, did believe that the colonies should remain a part of Britain. The radicals were the only group that was fully for colonial independence.
The radicals were easily the most successful group of the three. Many famous people were a part of this faction including: John Adams and Patrick Henry. Radicals believed that the colonies had to either declare independence or make Britain give in to their demands. The radicals were extremely successful when it came to enforcing their morals. The main evidence of this is that the United States today is separate from the British rule. The radicals were the most persuasive and influential group in the first and second Continental Congresses because America did declare independence. Thereby the radicals were able to persuade enough people that their ideals were correct that their ethics were followed.
In conclusion, the three major factions of the first and second Continental Congresses were dominated by the radical faction. The chief evidence of this is that their beliefs were followed by the majority of the American public as apposed to the conservatives and moderates whose standards were not put through. The conservatives and moderates were not able to hold enough ground against the radicals to gain enough support for their principles to be pursued. Overall, the radicals were the most dominant group of the first and second Continental Congresses through their great effort to declare independence which was eventually successful.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Disagreements between the First Settlers
The role of religion in the English colonies greatly varied from settlement to settlement. Some English settlements had religiously based governments. Other settlements were created as religious havens for persecuted Christian denominations. Many of these colonies differed from one other regarding actual religious beliefs dominant in their populations. The English colonies were thus dissimilar from one another both in terms of religious beliefs of their citizens and regarding how religion should be used in the government.
A prime example of a colony that had a religiously based government was Massachusetts Bay. This colony had a theocratic form government in which the church controlled the government. Another example would be Plymouth, the first colony in New England. Plymouth based its government completely on religious principles. Its “constitution,” the Mayflower Compact, made repeated mention of God. In addition, Plymouth’s leader and later governor, William Bradford held a religious vision for Plymouth, that it would be a colony with a direct covenant with God which would be an example for others to follow. Bradford’s sermon on the Mayflower expressed this vision, citing Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount “Ye are the light of the world. A city upon a hill cannot be hid” (Matthew 5:14, King James Version). This sermon indicated that they, the Plymouth Puritans, were the light of the world.
There were quite a few English settlements that were founded as havens for persecuted religions. Maryland, for example, was created as a haven for Catholics by Lord Baltimore, who gave his territory freedom of religion for all Christian denominations. He did this because he was Catholic and he knew that Catholics would be a minority in his colony and would be discriminated against unless there was freedom of religion. Additionally, Roger Williams guaranteed religious freedom in his settlement, Rhode Island, as well. He did this because he thought that there should be separation between Church and state. Furthermore, the colony of Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn as a haven for Quakers who were persecuted in other English territories.
Lastly, the English colonies differed from one another regarding the actual religious beliefs of their citizens. Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay, for example, although both believed in the Church being the ultimate power in government had populations with sharply divergent religious beliefs. One group (Plymouth) held separatist religious convictions, and thus did not want to be a part of the Church of England. The colonists in Massachusetts Bay, in contrast, believed that they should not separate from the Church of England. Maryland and Pennsylvania had both been started as havens for persecuted religions, but both were for different religions. William Penn created his colony for Quakers, while in contrast Lord Baltimore made his for Catholics. Maryland, meanwhile, basically established freedom for all Christian groups—this religious freedom, however, was not extended to Jews (who were tolerated in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania).
To conclude, all the colonies differed from one another when it came to religion. They diverged when it came to actual religious beliefs and on what role religion should play in the government. All the colonies had a strong religious presence, yet almost every colony disagreed in some way with other colonies when it came to religion. Overall, the colonies did not agree with one other when it came to what role religion should play in their settlements.
A prime example of a colony that had a religiously based government was Massachusetts Bay. This colony had a theocratic form government in which the church controlled the government. Another example would be Plymouth, the first colony in New England. Plymouth based its government completely on religious principles. Its “constitution,” the Mayflower Compact, made repeated mention of God. In addition, Plymouth’s leader and later governor, William Bradford held a religious vision for Plymouth, that it would be a colony with a direct covenant with God which would be an example for others to follow. Bradford’s sermon on the Mayflower expressed this vision, citing Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount “Ye are the light of the world. A city upon a hill cannot be hid” (Matthew 5:14, King James Version). This sermon indicated that they, the Plymouth Puritans, were the light of the world.
There were quite a few English settlements that were founded as havens for persecuted religions. Maryland, for example, was created as a haven for Catholics by Lord Baltimore, who gave his territory freedom of religion for all Christian denominations. He did this because he was Catholic and he knew that Catholics would be a minority in his colony and would be discriminated against unless there was freedom of religion. Additionally, Roger Williams guaranteed religious freedom in his settlement, Rhode Island, as well. He did this because he thought that there should be separation between Church and state. Furthermore, the colony of Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn as a haven for Quakers who were persecuted in other English territories.
Lastly, the English colonies differed from one another regarding the actual religious beliefs of their citizens. Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay, for example, although both believed in the Church being the ultimate power in government had populations with sharply divergent religious beliefs. One group (Plymouth) held separatist religious convictions, and thus did not want to be a part of the Church of England. The colonists in Massachusetts Bay, in contrast, believed that they should not separate from the Church of England. Maryland and Pennsylvania had both been started as havens for persecuted religions, but both were for different religions. William Penn created his colony for Quakers, while in contrast Lord Baltimore made his for Catholics. Maryland, meanwhile, basically established freedom for all Christian groups—this religious freedom, however, was not extended to Jews (who were tolerated in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania).
To conclude, all the colonies differed from one another when it came to religion. They diverged when it came to actual religious beliefs and on what role religion should play in the government. All the colonies had a strong religious presence, yet almost every colony disagreed in some way with other colonies when it came to religion. Overall, the colonies did not agree with one other when it came to what role religion should play in their settlements.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Differences in the English colonies in terms of government, population, and origin
The English colonies in the New World differ from one another in multiple ways. Specifically, three main differences among the colonies stand out. First of all, the colonies tended to be dissimilar in their governmental structures. The colonies also had differences in their population. Lastly, the colonies were also disparate in their origins. Overall, the colonies greatly differed from each other.
One of the most significant differences among the colonies was government. Multiple colonies, such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony, developed a theocracy, making the Church the dominant power politically, thereby controlling the government. Other colonies, like Connecticut, did not develop a theocracy. Instead, Connecticut early on became the first colony to compose a constitution. Another excellent example of the differences between colonies regarding government is that, while New York had a very limited democracy (being controlled by the Duke of York), its neighbor Pennsylvania was far more democratic. Even colonies very close together differed from each other how to run a government.
Colonies grandly differed from one another in terms of their population size. One notable fact is that the northern colonies tended to have more urbanized areas, due to large amounts of trade and commerce. The southern colonies, in contrast, were more spread out, with extensive farmland for plantations. Colonies such as New York and Massachusetts had larger populations than colonies like South Carolina and Georgia. On the whole northern colonies tended to have denser populations than southern colonies which were more spread out of wide areas of space.
The English colonies originated for a wide variety of reasons. Some colonies were founded for religious purposes, such as Maryland and Pennsylvania. Others were founded for economic reasons. As a result, colonies like New York which served as trade centers quickly became urbanized. The Carolinas, meanwhile, were founded by proprietors. One that differs from almost all the other colonies is Georgia, which was founded as a buffer colony to protect some of the more important colonies from Spanish invaders.
To conclude, the English colonies had significant differences among them. The colonies differed from one another based on government. They also had varied population sizes. Finally, they were dissimilar when it came to origin. Overall, the English colonies in the New World were different in many ways.
One of the most significant differences among the colonies was government. Multiple colonies, such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony, developed a theocracy, making the Church the dominant power politically, thereby controlling the government. Other colonies, like Connecticut, did not develop a theocracy. Instead, Connecticut early on became the first colony to compose a constitution. Another excellent example of the differences between colonies regarding government is that, while New York had a very limited democracy (being controlled by the Duke of York), its neighbor Pennsylvania was far more democratic. Even colonies very close together differed from each other how to run a government.
Colonies grandly differed from one another in terms of their population size. One notable fact is that the northern colonies tended to have more urbanized areas, due to large amounts of trade and commerce. The southern colonies, in contrast, were more spread out, with extensive farmland for plantations. Colonies such as New York and Massachusetts had larger populations than colonies like South Carolina and Georgia. On the whole northern colonies tended to have denser populations than southern colonies which were more spread out of wide areas of space.
The English colonies originated for a wide variety of reasons. Some colonies were founded for religious purposes, such as Maryland and Pennsylvania. Others were founded for economic reasons. As a result, colonies like New York which served as trade centers quickly became urbanized. The Carolinas, meanwhile, were founded by proprietors. One that differs from almost all the other colonies is Georgia, which was founded as a buffer colony to protect some of the more important colonies from Spanish invaders.
To conclude, the English colonies had significant differences among them. The colonies differed from one another based on government. They also had varied population sizes. Finally, they were dissimilar when it came to origin. Overall, the English colonies in the New World were different in many ways.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
My Words to Describe Math
I am astounded by the greatness of the study of mathematics. I feel mathematics are very direct and straightforwad. There is a certain joy I experience when solving an exceptionally long equation after much toiling over the answer. Everytime I learn a new subject I am overcomed with pleasure at conquering a concept that earlier I would have stuttered upon. After only about an hour of work with math I feel rejuvinated. Overall, math has been a great joy in my life that I have the privelage of reveling in everyday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)