Thinking Historically: Controversies During And After U.S Independence - Essay Example

?Running Head: CONTROVERSIES DURING AND AFTER U.S INDEPENDENCE Thinking Historically: Writing Papers Based on Primary Sources of Institution] Introduction Just like in many other countries, the independence struggles in the United States of America were marred with a lot of difficulties and controversies. The struggles were not only between the thirteen colonies that had united prior to and during the independence struggles and Great Britain but also among the colonies and their leaders. Controversies therefore surrounded both the pre- and post-independent U.S, with its prominent persons holding opposing or conflicting ideas on several core aspects of life in that period. Nonetheless, the core source of the struggle for independence was the disagreement about the manner in which Great Britain treated the colonies. In fact, the harsh treatment meted on the colonies was the stark opposite of how the colonies expected to be treated (Henretta & Brody, 2009). Unfortunately, the British felt that the treatment was supposed to benefit the King and the British parliament regardless of what others thought of it, making the cruel treatment of the colonies the number one cause of conflict between the colonies and the British. Interestingly, not all the controversies and conflicts surrounding U.S independence were between the colonies and Great Britain, there were controversies among prominent U.S citizens on how to go about issues central to their independence. Among the major aspects of life in the thirteen colonies that were marred by controversies were geographic considerations, colonial legislatures, reconciliation, bill of rights, neglect and enlightenment (Henretta & Brody, 2009). Thomas Paine, Charles Inglis, Alexander Hamilton, Brutus, Patrick Henry and James Madison are some of the prominent citizens of the thirteen colonies who were at the helm of shaping the policies of the pre- and post-independent United States. Visibly, these gentlemen had divergent opinions on the various aspects of life anticipated in independent U.S. This paper therefore explores the controversial ideas that arose from the drive for independence and its aftermath in addition to discussing the evolution of the American political debates from resistance through Revolution to the Constitutional consolidation of nationhood. The American Independence The first and the major issue that courted most controversies was whether America really needed to be independent from Great Britain. Two prominent personalities who were pitted against each other on the issue of independence for America were Thomas Paine and Charles Inglis. While Thomas Paine was of the Opinion that America needed to be independent from Great Britain, Charles Inglis felt that America needed to reconcile with the British to be a more prosperous and stable country. In his work published on February 14, 1776, Paine lamented that people could no longer differentiate government and society. According to Paine, while the society was supposed to be based on peoples’ wants, the government was produced by the wickedness that was inherent in the people in authority. Paine therefore insisted that the colonial government had denied them the chance to promote their happiness; instead, negatively restraining their happiness and promoting distinctions in the society (Dudley & Chalberg, 1996). Further, Paine stated that the colonial government was a necessary evil since its practices made the citizens to suffer to a similar extent as those without government. Regrettably, Paine felt that the citizens furnished the means by which they suffered under the British colonial rule. In gaining independence from the British, Paine foresaw an independent America with a just idea and design of government in which citizens would form the first people of the country, for the benefit and stability of the immediate and future generations. In this independence, characterised by liberty and equality, the society, rather than an individual would be the first thought in the heart of every citizen. Besides every man’s strength being equal to his wants, peoples’ minds would not be fit for unremitting loneliness, prompting them to seek company, relief, and assistance from other free citizens (Dudley & Chalberg, 1996). In this environment, the laws and the government of the colonial master would not be required and would be rendered futile. Having an opposing idea to Paine’s was Charles Inglis who felt that America needed to reconcile with Great Britain. This was Inglis’ stance despite the fact that he foresaw quite a number of constitutional challenges and barriers in the proposed reconciliation and future connections with Great Britain. However, he said the advantages such reconciliation would cause by far exceeded the challenges expected. Inglis thus compared the advantages and the disadvantages of reconciling with Great Britain so that people could best understand the benefits of such a move. The first reason Inglis gave for reconciliation was that it would bring the Revolution War to an end thus reducing the bloodshed, the weeping voices and saving the many lives that may have been lost. Second, by reconciling with Great Britain, Americans would ensure that peace prevails. According to Inglis, Americans would only know the value of peace once they allowed it to exist amongst them by reconciling with the British. Inglis cited the uneasiness and anxiety that marked the lives of people in the British colonies in the short period during which the Revolutionary War had been going on. Therefore, a restoration of peace by reconciliation would be a blessing to the colonies. Improved agriculture, commerce and industry would be the other benefits of reconciliation between the colonies and Great Britain (Dudley & Chalberg, 1996). As Inglis observed, the Revolutionary War had caused these sectors to suffer and sink not only in the Americas but also in Britain. In addition, the powerful English naval system would protect traders from America, thus improving trade and security. The other benefits of reconciling with the British according to Inglis would be efficient supply of goods, population flow into America and the same rapid expansion and progress as earlier observed in America (Dudley & Chalberg, 1996). The Size of the Republic The size of the independent republic was the other controversial issue that emerged during U.S’s independence. Those interested in this issue such as James Madison, Centinel and Brutus not only considered the needs and the interests of the then generation but also the future generations in their arguments. While others such as Brutus insisted that the republic needed to be small and uniform to survive, James Madison and other like-minded persons asserted that a large and diverse republic would be in the best interest of all generations. When the Constitution was about to be tabled for the citizens to either reject or accept, Brutus wrote to the citizens of New York City, requesting them to act not only in their interest but also the interest of the generations to come. In this regard, Brutus hoped that the proposition to convert the American continent into a state would promote human dignity, expand human knowledge and virtue and lead to the realization of a golden age. Otherwise, he believed that such an expanded country and government may have led to the subversion of freedom, absolutism and tyrannical aristocracy (Dudley & Chalberg, 1996). Most contentious in the proposed Constitution was thus the confederation government in which the thirteen United States were to become one republic under one legislature, judiciary and executive. Brutus, Centinel and others of their ilk felt that the thirteen states should have remained confederated republics, under a supreme federal head for specific national purposes only. Brutus attacked the immense powers vested on the Congress, which rendered the state laws rather ineffective. In other words, he felt that the state governments had no interventions between the Congress and the citizens that would allow the said states to implement the powers vested on them. That the laws of every state could be nullified and rendered ineffectual whenever they become inconsistent with the U.S Constitution was a rather unfortunate weakness of creating such a large republic under one constitution. Brutus also argued against the power of the federal legislature to raise armies during both peace and war, thereby destroying citizen liberties. Additionally, Brutus opposed the immense powers of the Supreme Court over inferior courts that the Congress may establish to handle certain cases. Finally, Brutus and Centinel felt that such a large federal government would lose the control of its people, become tyrannical and abuse its powers. Differing with the views of Brutus and Centinel were federalists James Madison and Alexander Hamilton who opined that a viable republic could be large and diverse. According to Madison, the will of the majority would eventually prevail in a large federation, empowering the majority to use the power of their votes elect representatives that would champion their interests. Nonetheless, Madison added that the interests of the majority would also be accounted for and appreciated by the necessary policies. Importantly, a large federal government would multiply the diversity of the republic and the interests therein. This scenario would break the dangerous majority factions that may want to monopolize government policies. In addition, with the aid of policies of separation of powers and the use of checks and balances, the government would control the many factions of the extended republic. The Inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution The other issue that pitted federalist and anti-federalists in the days of U.S independence was about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution. In June 16, 1788, Patrick Henry demanded and got a bill of rights included in the U.S Constitution, an achievement obtained amid great resistance from those who opposed such an inclusion. According to Henry, it had become evident in the sentiments the citizens had given on the importance of a bill of rights, which would hold certain great rights inviolable and sacred. Full, adequate and abundant representation was not enough to protect U.S citizens. More was needed to protect these unchallengeable rights that the citizens cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured. In fact, to most citizens, these rights and privileges were so invaluable that they could not abandon and had to be assured and protected. The core function that a bill of rights would perform for Americans would be to defend them against state governments that would be bereaved of powers without a bill of rights to check, limit and control its operations and citizens. The bill of rights would not only protect the citizens against state governments but also against the Congress, which the Constitution gave full and exclusive powers (Dudley & Chalberg, 1996). The bills of rights would therefore arm the citizens against naked exposure to an armed and powerful Congress. Henry thus considered it an absurdity not to include the bills of rights in the Constitution. Opposing the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution was Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in the Federalist Paper, no. 84 in 1788 that although the New York Constitution had no bill of rights, it contained clauses that supported the preservation and protection of the particular privileges and rights a bill of rights would contain. Hamilton also felt that the content of the bill of rights did not make it a necessary inclusion in the Constitution. In fact, he said the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution would be a dangerous step (Dudley & Chalberg, 1996). The reason given in this regard was that exceptions would be given to powers that were not established in the first place. Hamilton further argued that it would be an action in futility to declare that certain things should not be done when there were no powers to undertake such actions. For an illustration, it would be unrealistic to state that the liberty of the press should not be infringed on while there are no powers to impose restrictions on the press. Conclusion The road to independence for the United State was difficult and controversial not only in the physical but also in the intellectual sense as federalists and anti-federalist debated on several touchy issues regarding the new republic. The need for independence, reconciliation, the size of the federation and the inclusion of the bill of rights are some of the controversial issues that pitted federalists and anti-federalists against each other before, during and after independence. References Dudley, W., and Chalberg, J. C. (1996). Opposing viewpoints in American history, first edition. Greenhaven Press. Henretta, J. A., and Brody, D. (2009). America: a concise history, 4th edition. Bedford/St. Martin's. Read More