1. What were the various problems with the Articles of Confederation?

 

The Articles of Confederation was the first system of government in the new country of America. After the countless amount of issues born out of being owned by Great Britain, the expectations of the new system were as such: that power would be given through the people, that power would be expressed through a representative of the people, and that the representative was one of the needs and interests of the people. And while that sounds ideal, great almost, it doesn’t work out. The Articles as described in class, were pretty much bad/not good. Where the people were looking for the framework for an actual government, they seemed more like a firm league of friendship. The Articles, founded in 1778 lasted 10 years. Under this system there was no president or judiciary, any decision required a 9 out of 13 votes, so if it came down to 2/3rds there would be no decision made. The Articles allowed the declaration of war, conduct of foreign affairs, treaty creation, but could not tax. But hey two cool positives are that it won them the war and we also gained Ohio! And it was a tremendous disaster by the fact that it did not collect taxes, which was probably because the big debt from the war they had previously won.

No tax means no power, and inadvertently no money either. This became a bigger problem because the newfound America had borrowed money and weapons from the French, and since they were in debt they couldn’t pay the French back. The inability to tax left the founders hands tied; they couldn’t tax so they were unable to address their debt issue. And as the debt intensified, there was a rebellion in Massachusetts kicking off known as “Shays Rebellion.”

 

2. How did Shays Rebellion motivate “the founders” to hold a convention to resolve the problems of the Articles?

 

Shays Rebellion was the rebellion of the people (primarily farmers) against their government and more specifically, the affects of the Articles of Confederation. The huge debt problem affected everyone; farmers/civilians couldn’t pay mortgage, faced debt, and would land in jail.  Shays Rebellion occupied the jails, courts, etc. and while the origins of this movement started in Massachusetts, movements were being started all over the new country because Massachusetts wasn’t the only state facing issues.

At this moment the economic elite realized they needed to strengthen the central government in order to fight debt/put down the rebellion. And it is from this realization that the Constitution was born, the document that laid down the foundation for “freedom, liberty and rights.” But to whom were these rights attributed? It is important to note that the Constitutions original purpose was not about giving us our rights, but how to control the people. And we must divorce ourselves from the notion that the constitution gave us any rights. Eventually in late of May 1787 George Washington calls the convention into session w/ the purpose of figuring out how to strengthen the central government, revising or replacing the Articles of Confederation.

 

3. Considering the list of problems related to the Articles of Confederation, how would they have to change the distribution of power in government?

 

One of the main issues within the Articles of Confederation was that the system was strongly imbalanced. While the Articles wanted to stray from the wrongful government of their past leaders, they found themselves dealing with some of the same issues. The question they needed to answer was, “How do we balance power between the states and central government?” Under the Articles almost nothing got done because of the 9/13 requirement for decision-making, and there was no president or judiciary systems, so it was essentially a bunch of people sitting around in a crowded hall arguing while outside the people of America struggled.

After George Washington called the conference together in May of 1787, it took 5 days of going back and forth for the Virginia Delegation to rise up and pose the Virginia Plan, via James Madison. And although he was not the man to pitch the idea to the convention, he was the man who wrote it, and also had hypochondria. But anyway, the Virginia Plan proposed a division of the powers, “one branch, and one body.” The division would create the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Long story short, the idea was generally accepted. Only the legislative branch would be cut in two, the lower and upper house and would be represented by a population/number of people a state has. And while this worked out well for the large states, this created a challenge for the smaller states because little people meant little representation. This became such a heated debate in the convention that another plan was born out of New Jersey known of course as the New Jersey Plan. Everything stays the same except for the legislative branch, and the proposition was one single legislature and one single vote, no split whatsoever. This also became a heated debate because representation was a key value in this new government, so out of this debate came the Great Compromise, which proposed half senate (2 representatives/half population). The Virginia Plan was the general structure, the Great Compromise finalized that structure, and it has worked this way from 1787 to 2016.

           

4. How did each of the three branches of the proposed constitution limit democracy?

 

We live in a democratic republic and under the illusion of a democracy because of the very fact that each of the branches limits our democratic rights. It may even be right to say that the Articles of Confederation served as a more democratic system than the Constitution. The legislative branch sets a limit on our democracy because we do not have a direct say in who creates the laws. It was not until only 100 years ago that we were allowed to vote for our senators who were originally appointed by our state legislatures. During that time it was only the state legislatures whom we voted in, which contradicted our democratic rights. What good did it do for the people if they could only vote in the people who then decided those that would create the laws that we must abide? If you aren’t directly voting for the people making your laws, where is the representation? We only gained the correct representation a couple 100 years ago, which isn’t too far. We basically have no say in regards to our judicial branch, which has not changed at all since its creation. We do not vote for people in the Supreme Court, they are appointed by the president and stay for life. This is because the original founding fathers did NOT want the justices to reflect the people, which would be the case if we voted for them. And that has no democracy in it whatsoever. The executive branch has not changed much either since it’s installment. We do not elect the president; this duty was entrusted onto the Electoral College under the belief that the decision of who would lead the country was “too big a burden” for the people of this said country. Also the existence of super delegates where one person’s vote equals 1,000 votes, which means no solid representation.

 

5. How did the Constitution create a legal identity for African-American’s that enshrined inequality?

 

The men who drafted the Constitution were primarily (if not all) white upper class males who were Christian, owned land, and most importantly, owned slaves. If liberty is the theme that runs the entire thread of the Constitution, there was a matter of difference between theory and practice in reference to it, which in that time served as a pro-slave document.

The founding fathers had to ask themselves, if this Constitution promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, how do we justify slavery? How do we tell the people they all have rights while simultaneously owning slaves? Thus, the 3/5s Compromise was born. Southerners used slaves to represent people, to get votes, etc., but only counted them as 3/5s of a person implying their inequality to their white superior. This act of dehumanization was done so that people would not see African-Americans as their equals, or as Americans at all for that matter.

 

6. What promise did Federalists make to convince Anti-federalist’s to ratify the constitution?

 

When the convention in May of 1787 was called to order and conflict fell on the creation of the Constitution, the house was split into two sides: the Federalists, who supported the ratification of the Constitution. This group of people believed in a strong central government and favored commercial growth. And the Anti-Federalists (what a straight forward name), who clearly opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti’s feared that a strong central government would be an “instrument of tyranny,” and were obviously not over the breakup with the British. In order to convince the delegates opposed the Constitution (The Anti’s) to vote for it, three of the delegates, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a collection of 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers.” This document was strongly worded and ultimately persuasive explaining why a strong central government was necessary and as a whole not a threat to people’s liberty. Within the Federalist Papers was the Second Amendment, which gave the people the right to protect themselves by being as equally armed as the army is.

 

7. Who did the Bill of Rights attempt to protect individuals from? How can our knowledge of previous module sections help us understand why Ant-federalists felt the need for these protected rights?

 

The Bill of Rights, which were the first Ten Amendments of our Constitution were made as an attempt to protect the people from the government. Should things go south and the wrong people have say and choice, the people have the right to speak or not, believe in what they want, own a gun, and so forth. Our knowledge of previous module sections shows us that big government systems didn’t always treat the people right or give them proper representation. The fear of a central government system turning on it’s people and reeking havoc is completely understandable as history shows it has happened before. The Anti-Federalist group was supported by common people, small farmers who didn’t take place in the political process like the richer more active Federalists, and who would be most vulnerable to any laws that they did not agree to or have say over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What is the difference between the self-sufficient farmers of the 18^th century and commercial farmers of the 19^th century?

 

The main difference between the self-sufficient farmers of the 18^th century and commercial farmers of the 19^th century was the newfound characteristic, competition. The 19^th century is most widely noted as the time of the Market Revolution in the United States, a time of great economic transformation. “Americans no longer produced goods for self-sustaining needs but rather for sale to markets. Goods that were made at home to meet the basic needs of the family were now purchased at markets.” It was a time of great technological advancement in transportation, communication, and occupationally. It quickened the pace of economic growth, and pulled many people out of self-sufficient work.

Competition began to heavily influence the minds and work ethic of farmers, because once you make money you want more, and then more. It’s a vicious cycle. The new era presented great economic opportunity for these farmers, so where they used to just focus on feeding the family, now they are able to dream big and work hard to give themselves and their family the things they want and need.

2. What is the difference between 19^th century private freedoms during the market revolution and the 18^th century public freedoms during the revolutionary era?

 

From communal independence to private independence, while the revolutionary era tells the story of how we became an independent America, the Market Revolution tells the tale of what we did with the vast lands of opportunity ahead of us in our new country. The Market Revolution knit the country together through the national market. Before the Market Revolution, people were more isolated in their own regions, this era aided in the unity of our people through the shared experience of working in the market. We are able to trace the beginnings of American Nationalism, and profound changes American society from this time. New changes we see specifically were the spread of market relations, westward movement and increased Political Democracy.

New notions of freedom were economic opportunity, physical mobility, and popular participation in the political process. Make some money! Move around! Vote for social change! There was this whole new concept of “choice” that we gained, and we have kept it ever since. Before this era we were fighting for the very existence as a country of our own, and now that it had been won, people wanted to bathe in the beautiful life and opportunities that they had fought for.

 

3. How did the various communications and transportation technologies help in laying the foundation for the market revolution?

 

When we think about communication technology in the Market Era, we think about the telegraph. Created by Samuel F.B. Morse, the telegraph was essentially a wired text messenger. It used the system of Morse code, created by Morse himself, which was a system that used on-off tones/lights to transmit messages. This was a big deal because previous to the telegraph, people would have to literally deliver messages by voice or hand. Being in a different place while communicating with the same person was a foreign concept to anyone in the 1800’s and back. This was an even bigger deal in laying the foundation for the Market Revolution because the ability to communicate with someone from a far distance created the concept of a uniform market price/value. People’s ability to choose and the very existence of choice had just become 100 times stronger because you now have knowledge that “Hey, why am I buying corn for 10 dollars from Jimmy up North if Sam is selling it for 5 down south?” In 1830, the telegraph was refined, and by 1844 it is in commercial use and 50,000 miles of cable run around the country to connect it.

Before the steamboat, traveling on water was either by wind power or manpower. Travel and exploration was very limited because it cost a lot of money and was always dependent on the always changing weather or the strength of men. It wasn’t until 1807 that man named Robert Fulton created the steamboat and gave birth to a game changer in water travel. Fulton tested his boat called the Claremont on the Hudson River, and was able to go up against currents. This was huge because now people could go to and move to places like the deeper parts of the state and country because the water became an easily navigatable space. The spread of people meant the spread of markets, different terrains offered different opportunities in production. By the 1830’s (a little before our friend the telegraph hit the scene), steamboats became so big you could see about 200 people going up and down the Mississippi River. The steamboat offered the spread of market relations, westward movement, and saving some dang money! But for the steamboat to truly be successful, people needed canals. There was a necessity for longer canals for more boats to go down and more land to see, and the canal of all canals was the Erie Canal. The Erie Canal started being built in 1817, was finished by 1825, and was also in New York where the steamboat was being tested, and laid 363 miles ling. Farmers began to populate places along the canal; new cities emerged (Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo). People were moving further, creating communities, people could grow and sell to the big city (NYC) and were able to make some good money because the boats were able to ship their goods. By the 1830’s, there were 3000 miles of canals in the country. The Railroad system gave us the ability to navigate regular terrain because there was more land than rivers. In 1828, the Baltimore and Ohio Rail line was completed and by 1860, there was a railroad network of 30,000 miles of rail lines in the country. During the time we had more rail lines than the rest of the world combined movement.

4. How did technological advancement in agriculture help transform the nations farmers from self-sustaining to commercial farmers? How did this help create the market revolution?

Farmers in the 18^th century (pre-Market Rev.) were merely focused on making crops for their families to eat and survive. This wasn’t really a choice decision as the technology of the time only allowed them to make enough to keep food on table in the first place, but producing to sell wasn’t really an idea in the minds of famers in the 18^th century. Before the Market Revolution people were more isolated in their own regions, focused on taking care of their own. And while in southern states market farming had been a thing, in the north it was a foreign idea. The 19^th century/Market Revolution had a tremendous impact on the quality of life because the given technological advancements pulled people out of only farming for themselves, and gave them the opportunity to produce for the market.

The John Deere Steel Plow helped aide tremendously in the process of farming because it allowed farmers to lay down more produce at a quicker rate. This was good because the ability to make more meant surplus and surplus was good farmers were able to provide enough for their families and enough to sell out on the market. The only problem was that the more you grew the more you needed to harvest. Thus the Cyrus McCormick Reaper was born. Attach to a horse, this contraption allowed you to cut and gather the reaped out crops at a quick rate. As a result of these occupational advancements the north began to industrialize.

5. In the chart above, write the terms in the left hand column and then fill out what characteristics of the American Mind it reaffirmed and/or what characteristics it helped crate.

 

DEFINED TERMS	CULTURAL NORM REAFFIRMED/EVOLVED	CULTURAL NORM CREATED
Steamboats	Individualism/competition	Economic Opportunity/physical mobility
Erie Canal	Individualism/competition	Economic Opportunity/physical mobility
Baltimore/Ohio Railing	Individualism/competition	Economic Opportunity/physical mobility
Telegraph	Individualism/competition	Economic Opportunity
John Deere	Individualism/competition	Economic Opportunity
Transcendentalist	Individualism/dissent/limited govt.	Popular participation in the political process
The 2nd Great Awakening	Individualism/dissent/limited govt./competition/separation or church and state/freedom of religion	Popular participation in the political process
Cult of Domesticity	Competition/progress	Femininity/role of women in society/separate spheres

 

6. How did the Transcendentalists, the Second Great Awakening, and the emerging cult of domesticity reinforce old characteristics of the American Mind and/or create new characteristics listed in the above chart?

 

As the environment changed from the Market Revolution, so did the identity of the American, and as the identity changed, so did the culture. There was a cultural emergence/philosophy known as Transcendentalism. As a transcendentalist, your core belief is: primacy of individual judgment over social traditions, and primacy of intuition over reason (because social tradition may invade reason). Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson had very progressive notion of freedom. He very much believed in it and took on redefining the very word itself. Emerson believed that freedom is a self-realizing process. Emphasis on the “ing” as the process never ends. Henry David Thoreau believed that “the individual needs to choose their own path” whether it be politically, socially, or personally. He was kind of a nature man who had a dope beard who went to the forest a lot because he thought “why the hell are people not out enjoying the forest right now?” Thoreau was weird and quirky but politically lived up to his own words and was against war and slavery. “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation, which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time I think right… Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.” Thoreau was saying that law is not inherently just, and anytime one follows laws that perpetuate injustice you are not as well. Thoreau was pretty much saying don’t follow laws that are bad. This is also known as civil disobedience. Gandhi and MLK were fans of Thoreau. He very much lived by his ideals and was thrown in jail for not paying taxes toward war/slavery. Both Emerson and Thoreau embodied the market era notion of individualism, dissent, and limited government.

The Second Great Awakening was born out of the daunting statistic of only about 10% of people attending church during the Market Era. The Awakening consisted of emotional energetic methods of religious revival in a time where people were able to move more rapidly which sped the rate of the Awakening. Charles Grandison Finney, aka “scary face guy with a powerful idea” was the architect of the Second Great Awakening. Finney held month long revivals in the forest. He was a lawyer, schoolteacher and preacher        who had a solid gift of gab.  The ideas of this revival were as following: the belief that we are inherently “alright”, that people are neither good or bad out the gate, and the whole new idea of humans being “free moral agents,” which means they had free will. The choice between sin and salvation vs. the idea that we are born inherently bad. People of the Second Great Awakening also held the belief in the correctability of humans, and the huge idea that “hey, slavery is bad dude.” More people created their own churches in the Second Great Awakening (just like the 1st one). There were about 2,000 ministers in the country before the Awakening, but by 1845 there were over 40,000 ministers. That’s about 38,000 many more people creating churches and going against the established churches in power, needless to say dissent was closely reflected in the Second Great Awakening. 40,000 ministers meant an abundance of new churches and this meant the churches needed more people to. Churches needing more people meant churches had to fight for attendance, so the new notion of competition wasn’t unfamiliar during the Second Great Awakening. But in order for competition for the people to take place, the churches needed the government out the loop. People actively expressed their needs to have a separation of church and state. The Second Great Awakening pretty much hit all concepts in American mind except for separate spheres. The Second Great Awaking influenced individualism, limited govt., dissent, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and competition.

Pre-Market Revolution, the men’s job in regards to the survivability of the family was farming, and for women it was making clothes, food, taking care of the children, etc. With the Market Revolution in place, women essentially lost their role in family survivability due to the availability of clothing and food in the market. This posed the question, “what was the women’s role in society?” The Market Revolution created the argument that men and women hold separate spheres in society and have different roles. The role of women was said to be the production of children and the raising of those said children. The home became the space for women, an idea called the “Cult of Domesticity.” Business was the space of men, political world was for men, and the home was for the women. Business and politics were corrupt, in an immoral political and work world. And the women’s job was two-fold; to raise the kids and protect their husbands from the immoral world they were engaged in. This familiar dynamic was born out of the Market Revolution, a belief that is 200 years old and is all based off the belief that women are naturally moral, more nurturing than men. It is fair then to say, that “stuff,” literal “stuff” when created, takes away our purpose. Because of the continued technological advancements, we continue to render ourselves more useless. Our social truths are elastic, and while we are on a constant search for “truth.” We must realize that “There is no inherent truth except for the truth that we create,” the imposition to liberate us from a static truth. Everything from the turn of the 19th century through the Civil War is because of the Market Revolution.