Founding a Nation 1783-1789 - Assignment Example

Ch. 7, Founding a Nation (1783-1789 How did the limited central government created by the Articles of Confederation reflect the issues behind theRevolution and fears for individual liberties? As a result of the hardship and burden that England had placed upon the colonies, the initial government that was established under the Articles of Confederation was necessarily weak and designed to exhibit a system that was protected against all possible abuses of power that had been manifested within the colonies during colonial rule. The inherent fear among the crafters of the articles of Confederation was concentric upon the concern that a powerful individual, or group of individuals, would effectively re-create the domineering and undemocratic system of governance that had existed as a colony of England. Said the author of the textbook, “The individual states were left free to determine the boundaries of liberty” (Foner 301). Ultimately, even though it is quite understandable why these stakeholders were so preeminently fearful of the dangers that an overly powerful system of government might have, their caution was responsible for creating an unfeasible and ultimately inoperable government; as the Articles of Confederation created a system that was so weak that it could not even govern itself. 2. What events and ideas led to the belief in 1786 and 1787 that the Articles of Confederation were not working well? The first event that can definitively be pointed to as evidence of the fact that the Articles of Confederation were beginning to break down is with respect to the Annapolis convention 1786. This particular convention was called as a means of seeking to engage state representatives as to how interstate conflict could be reduced. However, the only agreement that could be made was with respect to each of these states sending further representatives in 1787 to Philadelphia and what would come to be known as the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. Even though these representatives are only authorized to make amendments to the articles of Confederation, a fact that crafting entirely new constitution that would come to replace it. Ultimately, this new constitution, and a desire to create it, was born out of the understanding, by a plurality of the representatives, that the Articles of Confederation were merely to weak to discourage conflict that was already being exhibited between the states. Said the text, “In general, pro-constitution sentiment flourished in the cities as well as the rural countryside of the nation” (Foner 278). Although this might not seem as something that is noteworthy, it helps to reveal the fact that the beliefs of the populace were aligned more towards the federalists in terms of defining how the republic should be defined. 3. What were the major arguments in support of the Constitution given by the Federalists? The major arguments that the Federalists used as a means leveraging further support for a centralized government were contingent upon the understanding that the individual states were not competent or able to make the types of decisions that were required of a functional government. For instance, the Federalists pointed to the fact that the individual states had been undependable with respect to raising revenue or providing soldiers for the Continental Army. With this in mind, the Federalists pointed to the fact that a central government need to have coercive powers in order to engage its component states as a means of performing their due diligence and ensuring that the Republic was able to function without breakdowns such as has been exhibited throughout the Revolutionary war period. Referencing the anti-federalists, the text notes the following: “They included state politicians fearful of seeing their influence diminish, among them such revolutionary heroes as Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry” (Foner 275). 4. What were the major arguments against the Constitution put forth by the Anti-Federalists? Naturally, this level of argumentation was resisted powerfully by anti-Federalist who necessarily feared that a return to a monarchical system is one that was counter to the ideals of democracy and freedom that were to be exhibited if such a path were in fact taken. Seeing the centralization of power within the branches of government as the road towards autocracy, the anti-federalists were strongly opposed. Moreover, they pointed to the belief that even though the Articles of Confederation were weak; they were merely a new form of government that must be given time to operate effectively. What few individuals now realize is the fact that the anti-federalists were not opposed to compromise; as it was this very act of compromise that allowed for the Constitutional Convention to provide the United States with a functional republic that still exists up until the current era. One of the most vociferous arguments the antifederalists put forward was with respect to the following belief – outlined in the text: “Anti-Federalists repeatedly predicted that the new government would fall under the sway of merchants, creditors, and others hostile to the interests of ordinary Americans” (Foner 275). Ch.14, A New Birth of Freedom: The Civil War (1861-1865) 262 1. Describe how President Lincoln’s war aims evolved between 1861 and 1863, changing from simply preserving the Union to also ending slavery. Abraham Lincoln’s initial aims with respect to the Civil War were only inclusive of restoring the union. However, by the late 1860s and 1863, Abraham Lincoln came to understand that the issue of slavery and abolishing the practice itself would actually facilitate his ability to win the Civil War. As a direct result of the understanding that seeking to align the slave owning states against those that did not would effectively increase the manpower, resources, and moral winning the Civil War might not be possible without abolishing slavery in seeking to define how the Union could be rebuilt. A further development that could be seen as a result of the Battle of Gettysburg had to do with the fact that it was clear the South no longer possessed the resources or personnel to effectively invade the North; as such, Lincoln predicated his approach to winning the war and further aims for the republic on the belief that the South would be fighting a war of attrition. Said the text, “The ambitions of the Union began to shift as victory came to be assured and as the South was unable to defeat the North during the most severe months of fighting leading up to Gettysburg” (Foner 550). 2. How did the actions of slaves themselves, as well as northern military strategy and the Emancipation Proclamation, combine to end slavery? The Emancipation Proclamation had a profound impact upon the way in which the Civil War was fought. By having the dual moral imperative to restore the Union and to end the practice of slavery, more and more stakeholders within the North and throughout the West lent their support to the war effort. Furthermore, former slaves that were within the North, as well as some within the South were able to join the war effort and effectively increase the industrial and military strength of the North by providing an influx of fresh manpower. The moral focus on ending slavery provided the former slaves with a reason to fight for their freedom; alongside the moral imperative to preserve the union. Said the text, “The desire to play an active role in securing their own shared future encouraged many recently freed or runaway slaves to actively participate in the Northern war effort; a fact that provided the North with yet another advantage as compared to the South” (Foner 563). Finally, in terms of Northern military strategy, it came to be recognized by Lincoln, and Northern generals, that both the North and the South were essentially fighting defense engagements for the most part. As such, generals such as Sherman and Grant were commissioned to continually engage with the North’s superior numbers and force the South into ceding further and further ground; making way for the full scale occupation and capitulation that would take place in 1865. 3. How did federal policies undertaken during the Civil War transform the United States into a stronger nation-state—economically, politically, and ideologically? The main way that the United States came to be stronger is with respect to the fact that it was able to rid itself of the moral disease of slavery. For decades, this unsavory practice at impacted upon the level and extent to which the United States could develop industrially and democratically. Although the steps to end slavery were merely the beginning, they helped to usher in a period of increased humanitarianism and considerations for the rights of all citizens within the United States. Furthermore, one could argue that the federal policies undertaken during the Civil War helped to transform the United States into a stronger nation politically and ideologically due to the fact that these actions helped to spawn the civil rights movement. Further, the political divide that existed prior to the Civil War was less as a result of the war itself. Although this might seem as something that is incongruent, the fact of the matter is that individual states, and groups states for that matter, came to the appreciation of the fact that they cannot merely secede from the union at a whim. Finally, the federal policies undertaken during the Civil War helped create more economically powerful United States due to the fact that the practice of slavery itself was abolished. Whereas the south argued that the practice of slavery was ultimately what allowed it to continue to be economically viable and productive, and agrarian-based economy was what was holding the United States back from developing industrially. Said the text, “The powers of industry, already stronger in the North than in the South, developed as the war progressed; so much so that it can be noted that the war further improved the infrastructure and industrial power of the North by an order of magnitude” (Foner 571). Ch.15, What is Freedom?: Reconstruction (1865-1877) 280 1. The women’s movement split into two separate national organizations in part because the 15th Amendment did not give women the vote. Explain why the two groups split. Although it might seem as somewhat strange, the split that occurred and created two separate national organizations that promoted women’s rights within the United States can ultimately be linked to the Civil War and the issue of slavery. The schism that resulted created the following two organizations: the NWSA and the AWSA. As a result of the 15 Amendment and former male slaves gaining the right to vote, the NWSA was patently furious that this could be allowed prior to white women receiving the same privilege. By means of comparison, the AWSA, which included both male and female members, sought to continue the strong alliance that had been forged between African Americans and the Women’s Rights movement and chose to ignore this seeming provocation. 2. By what methods did southern whites seek to limit African-American civil rights and liberties? How did the federal government respond? Sadly, as a direct result of the way in which the Civil War included, many individuals throughout the South were bitter and frustrated with the results. As the entire class systems that have been developed for nearly 100 years came crashing down around them, stakeholders throughout the south sought to impose a new level of restrictions, short of slavery, that would continue to propagate racial segregation and distinct cultural differentials. Many of these came to be broadly referred to as Jim Crow laws. A further interest is the fact that even though these Jim Crow laws significantly curtailed civil liberties of African-Americans throughout the South, the federal government did little to discourage their application or use for nearly 100 years after they were first exhibited upon the conclusion of the Civil War. Whereas it is true and arguable that if the United States federal government has attempted to enforce equal protection and the integration of society after the Civil War a great potential further conflict could have existed, it would also Drastically increased the rate at which integration of society to have occurred and potentially moved the civil rights movement up by several decades. Said the author, “The inaction of the Reconstruction, at least in terms of advocating fairness, equality, and civil rights, did a great deal of harm to the rights of African Americans throughout the South” (Foner 580). 3. What national issues and attitudes combined to bring an end to Reconstruction by 1877? As throughout history, political and economic concerns oftentimes take precedent over the accomplishment of specific government programs. For instance, by 1877, Reconstruction had been ongoing for a period of fully 12 years. However, the fact of the matter was that there still remained a great deal of economic disparity exhibited throughout the South as compared to the rather industrially developed North. Yet, the crash of 1873 encourage individuals throughout society to reconsider the amount of resources allocated to Reconstruction and whether or not this was the most efficient use of government revenue within the current time. Furthermore, the successes and pervasive corruption that was exhibited within the Grant administration, partially denoted to societal stakeholders with regards to the Whiskey Ring, further decreased the belief that effective and efficient government could in fact take place and help to ameliorate the issues at hand. “Corruption within the Grant administration was so profound and severe that many scholars have labeled it as the “Gilded Age” of corruption and excess (Foner 589). Works Cited Foner, Eric. Give me liberty! : an American history. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Print. Read More