United States Political History - Coursework Example

In context of American history, war for Independence is the glorious page of it. As important supplementations of this event, key documents of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the U.S. Constitution (1787) appeared. By being the basic documents of contemporary USA, their role and content are often idealized in the same manner the war for Independence is. Nevertheless, the attentive analysis of their content reveals numerous issues that were not actually represented by them. And so, in a given essay the previous period of British rule is presented as a starting point of social and economic inequity that was followed by the long period of inadequate responses to these core issues of American society that did not end with the creation of Constitution. In the years before Revolution, the hard circumstances of British colonies was already evident. To start with, in conditions of inequality between classes and severe shortage of food Americans had felt the necessity to change the British rule of the colonies that had already lasted for 150 years. In fact, this issues could not be easily fixed by the metropolis as Great Britain was busy with its domestic problems and struggling in the context of European international relations. As Zinn noticed, Great Britain experienced continuous period of fighting in context of same economic issues of hard style of taxation and rising levels of poverty and unemployment (52). In addition to the internal level of dissatisfaction, the negative consequences of British war with France were also reflected on the attitude of Great Britain. In this context, involving in wars meant among all expensive revenues which after 1763 were decided in England to be restored from colonies (Zinn 60). Hence, the Stamp Act appeared in 1765 as a special document of increasing taxes for British colonies in case of North America (Zinn 61). Consequently, even the wealthiest parts of American society started to suffer from the strict British control. However, total impairment of living conditions in British colonies put the internal elite created by English rulers to be responsible for the situation. For instance, houses of Andrew Oliver and Thomas Hutchinson who were rich members of elite were destroyed by desperate crowd (Zinn 61). In the development of this situation, anti-Stamp Act demonstration appeared in 1967. Thus, the growing number of evidences that showed disapproval throughout the colonies encouraged British political leaders to involve military forces in fixing this problem. In particular, after 1768 there were two thousands soldiers in Boston (Zinn 66). Furthermore, the struggle between local poor population and foreign military forces ended by Boston Massacre as huge murder of grieve Bostonians (Zinn 67). In these circumstances, the willingness to get rid of Great Britain increased sharply. Then, the gathering of Boston Tea Party in 1773 forced several wealthy officials arranged from the metropolis to resign (Zinn 67). All these events together can be considered as willingness of different parts of Americans to break the British rule over the country. By 1776, numerous colonies declared their willingness to become independent from England (like Massachusetts and North Carolina). At this point, all the forces in America had a common attitude. Thus, this period of American history between 1765 and 1776 starting from the incompliance with the Stamp Act and ending by the appearance of public statements that protected independence of colonies shows the high level of opposition to the British cruel rule. And so, the fact of wide popular base in the event mentioned above and fuse of these demonstrations shows the strong emotional component that supported this willingness to become independent from Great Britain. However, the level of appreciation of the exact measures of revolutionary actions was not that high. In this context, opposition to riots existed in Virginia and Connecticut (Zinn 68). In addition, several thinkers did not approve radical measures of fixing the problem. In this case, the most powerful example of such an intellectual rather than physical opposition to British rule is presented by Tom Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense which appeared in 1776. In the text of this source, the distinguishing between society and government is presented. In his opinion, “society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government […] our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!” (Paine 4). And so, society is a natural act as people are composed in such a way they need someone to communicate with. But government is an artificial institution that is created in order to protect security and freedom in the society (Paine 6). In his analysis, Paine found monarchy “ridiculous” as “it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required” (7). In fact, monarchy is not considered as a favorable government in Common Sense, but in case of people’s suffering “they know the head from which their suffering springs” (Paine 6). In reality, this cannot be considered as truth as in an absolute monarchies rulers have enough power to convince their people that their problems were caused by bad executives not wrong central decision. Concerning aristocracy, it is also a hereditary which is controlled by people (Paine 6). Thus, the only way of appropriate representation of people’s will is presented in republican form of government. In fact, this sounds convincing as the rulers chosen by their ideas not by their birth, merits or money are more attractive even in the contemporary world. In context of fighting for independence, this widely popular writing created the clear argument of impossibility to believe in divine role of the British monarchy (Zinn 69). Moreover, Paine’s idea of single-chamber legislative drove a disapproval experienced be aristocrats presented, in particular, by John Adams (Zinn 69). But, the development of the process of growing dissatisfaction of British rule made this idea of popular control appreciated even by these people. In this case, the very right to protest, the evil of political tyranny, willingness of self-rule over local economy and defense forces were accepted by all the internal forces in British colonies (Zinn 72). Hence, British rule turned to be the best thing for America as it drove all these lands and different social groups within the borders of them to unite against it. However, revolutionary shift that appeared in North America was not widely supported to be turned into the war. As Zinn noticed, “while much of the white male population went into military service at one time or another during the war, only small fraction stayed” (77). Nevertheless, in order to gain independence from Great Britain North American colonies were inevitably forced to create an army. Here, the background process of widening the gap between rich and poor in American society was also evident. In fact, joining the army turned for poor Americans into the way to “rise in rank, acquire some money, [and] change their social status” (Zinn 78). Because of this necessity, the military force that protected independence of British colonies was that huge and contained all the social groups that existed in North America. As Zinn states it, “what looks like the democratization of the military forces in modern times shows up as something different: a way of forcing large numbers of reluctant people to associate themselves with the national cause, and by the end of the process believe in it” (Zinn 79). Consequently, as American army was not well-trained, it lost on the starting stage of the war in battles of Bucker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem Heights and the Deep South (Zinn 80). And so, the necessity of building an alliance with France well-known for its experienced military appeared. After Benjamin Franklin had negotiated on it, French navy blocked off the British forces from their resources and enabled the victory of American in the most important battle happened in Virginia in 1781 (Zinn 80). Thus, popular today enthusiastic look at American history as the whole revolutionary inspiration during the fighting for Independence is too idealized. In particular, with the help of French willingness to revenge British army American military managed to win this war. The fact that it was full of desperate people who wanted to get a better living conditions made modern learners of American history deal with the fact that independence was simply the only possible way to live better. But, the wartime analysis shows that even in a wartime period the situation did not become better. In context of re-appearing tensions between wealthy and desperate parts of American society, the inflation and different types of losses were clearly seen. In fact, the most part of white landholders (no matter how much land they owned) experienced less damage than slaves, indentured servants, and Indians (Zinn 80). In addition, the governmental rule in a wartime period was taken by Continental Congress which consisted of rich men from all the regions (Zinn 81). In these circumstances, most of the laws that were accepted by this body were beneficial for the small deeply interconnected group of people making the most part of the population suffer even more in conditions of war. In this context, Morris’s plan appeared presenting “more assurance to those who had loaded money to the Continental Congress, and gain the support of officers by voting half-pay for the life for those who stuck to the end” (Zinn 81). This can be considered as trying to save money that left while all the people in the country were preoccupied with wartime troubles of starving, cold, and unsafety. Moreover, they had no time to pay attention what politicians were actually doing. In future, the willingness to change this situation created the exclusive feature of the new nation: “finding itself possessed of enormous wealth, it could create the richest ruling class in history, and still have enough for the middle class to act a buffer between the rich and the dispossessed” (Zinn 84). So, the main beneficiaries of the end of British rule over North America were rich local elite who paid as much attention to the poor as officials which were chosen by England (Zinn 86). But, it became evident that in the conditions of Revolution previously unimportant in political sense groups of workers, sailors and town mechanics showed its ability to play the key role in changing the country (Zinn 85). As the main results of these events, progressive ideas were presented in Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. However, the modern background of human rights authority neglects the real sense of the words written there. For instance, the phrase “all the men are created equal” can be taken as too revolutionary statement in the context of eighteenth-century North America. However, it is evident that women were not included in its context. In Zinn’s opinion, “women were beyond consideration as worthy of inclusion” (73). Moreover, the phrase “We are people of the United States” taken from Constitution obviously did not refer to Indians, blacks or white servants (Zinn 84). In fact, it was evident for the members of epoch for whom it was articulated. And so, these phrases can be easily included in the historical background as mentioning “all” and “we” in them means women and slaves are completely invisible in political sense for Foundation Fathers. Moreover, in context of philosophical inspiration, the trace of John Locke’s ideas is evident (Zinn 74). So, the deep connection between England and USA is evident even in the circumstances of hatred felt by Americans. Nevertheless, putting ideas in such a way enabled the long life of Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution even in current authority of human rights (Zinn 73). In fact, the progressive idea of Declaration of Independence was supported by more than two-thirds of officials who got power under England (Zinn 74). Furthermore, the fifty-five men who created Constitution in 1787 were mostly wealthy lawyers with land, slaves and government bonds (Zinn 90). In addition, even though the text of Constitution cannot be considered as a personal benefit for the Founding Fathers, “one could not ignore the $150,000 fortune of Benjamin Franklin, the connections of Alexander Hamilton to wealthy interests through his father-in-law and brother-in-law, the great slave plantations of James Madison, the enormous landholdings of George Washington” (Zinn 91). Despite these facts, the ability of the Founding Fathers to create such flexible texts for the future generations and their willingness to include other people in text of Constitution cannot be objected. So, the words used by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were appreciated by the most part of the American population which means that intellectual wisdom of progressive thinkers and desires of powerful rising class of protesters were achieving the same goals in order to define their own destiny. Concerning the excluded parts of American society, the issue of black population rises. In fact, slave population experienced long period of suppression as they were a dangerous rebel force. While being a numerous part of the society (from one-quarter to the half of county’s population), black slaves were always a source of troubling (Zinn 82). In this context, white men were encouraged by money to accuse black population which inevitably led to racism (Zinn 57). At the same time, some black slaves served in militia to blame Indians at the same manner (Zinn 55). In the years of war for Independence between British and Americans, British guarantees to free black slaves was a significant argument in order to get some support within American society (Zinn 82). As a result, with the victory of colonial forces the conditions of both blacks and Indians were not good. In fact, they were not equal as all the others did as they could not govern the territory they lived in (Zinn 86). Consequently, as Beard noticed, slaves, indentured servants, women and men without property were not presented in Constitutional Convention (Zinn 91). Thus, after the war the debates over the destiny of independent America appeared among those who were taken in the consideration of the new Constitution. In this context, the strong need of central government that would lead the new country from wartime crisis was mixed with the fear experienced by powerful economic leaders of the new Revolution against them (Zinn 91). In fact, there were numerous examples of struggling between farmers and militia. This meant that the previous issues of the society were not foxed by the beautiful words of Constitution. Therefore, during the ratification process the supplemental articles appeared in order to make the text of Constitution clearer for public. They were written by James Maddison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay and titled the Federalist Papers. In these document, the importance of choice that America faced at that time was recognized. In the Federalist #1 there is mentioned that “the plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits” (Hamilton 6). Thus, the fear of changes is presented as the main obstacle for Constitution. Moreover, other weakness of people’s nature such as “angry and malignant passions” (Hamilton 7) appear in the text. The main counter-argument is defined in such a way: “the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole” (Hamilton 9). Consequently, the whole text of the Federalist Papers is centered on the idea of union’s preference. In Federalist #10, the issue of “factions” is raised. In this context, the patience in American society can be reached if no struggling between fractions in government appear (Zinn 96). To start with, faction is “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse or passion,.adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison 42). In practice, Madison refers to the groups of interest within the popular government. Due to his opinion, “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties” (Madison 41). As a result, “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” (Madison 41). In other words, the central part of critique towards fractions is caused by its tendency to absorb the opinion of minorities. In a comparison between democracy and republic, an issue of majority fraction can be solved by introducing “a large nation ranging over thirteen states” (Zinn 97). Consequently, the most appropriate way of governing is proposed by federal Constitution as it offers the balanced proportion between great national interest and local State responsibility (Madison 45). In fact, Madison’s arguments are built in order to prove that fraction is a creation which is lead mostly by irrational passions which are inappropriate in building a country. But, this is an inevitable element of people’s relations that cannot be eliminated by any other proposal as it lies deep in human nature. And so, the solution to this problem should be introduced rather by different branches of power than different levels of authority. In Federalist #39, the distinguishing between national, central, and federal government is demonstrated. Concerning central government, it is widely presented in European countries and had already showed its distance from ordinary people (Madison 169). So, the central part of the analysis is created in order to find elements of national and federal governments proposed by Constitution. In this context, establishing Constitution cannot be considered as purely national act. As Madison puts it, “the act of people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that is not the result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States” (Madison 171). In other words, the idea of union was the direct decision of the most part of the population or legislative bodies, but the common will of the whole country inspired by one and the same desire. In addition, as the people will be represented in the House of Representatives in the same proportion and on the same principle they are in their State legislature, the government is not national either (Madison 172). But, in certain elements it can be considered as national (like operation of powers) or partly national and partly federal (sources of governmental powers and mode of introducing amendments) (Madison 173). Hence, the internal composition of Constitution is demonstrated as complex and wise in order to save t1ahe union of thirteen states within the borders of one federation. In order to sum up, the long period of British rule showed the way inequality was operated in North America. The cruelty of militia and unhuman economic measures caused the high level of hatred experienced by Americans. As a result, the long period of war against Great Britain started. But, the concentration on external enemy did not fix the internal problems of social and economic inequity. Thus, the texts of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were incapable to solve these issues. And so, Federalist Papers appeared in order to explain these documents in new condition. But, it required two more centuries to finally understand the true meaning of that words. Works cited: Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia, 1776. Web. The Federalist Papers, The Electronic Classes Series Publication. Web. Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. Third edition. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited, 2003. Print. Read More