Nationalism

In the early 19th Century (1800s), the American society experienced a period of nationalism. Before, most American thought of themselves as members of a particular state rather than as members of a united American nation. Many historians call this time period "the Era of Good Feelings". While this title is not entirely accurate there are some reasons for American nationalism at the time:

1. The War of 1812 ended in 1815, ad with it came a strong sense of national pride. Many Americans saw this war with the British as a "second war of independence". They had been particularly upset with the practice of impressment, by which the British drafted American merchant seamen into service in the British navy.

2. There were war heroes such as Andrew Jackson who won a big victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans. (The war had officially ended shortly before the battle, but Jackson and the British had not yet been informed of that.) Also, William Henry Harrison was notable for his victory at the Battle of the Thames, in which the Native American leader, Tecumseh, was killed.

3. With American victory in the War of 1812, the Federalist Party, who were primarily in the New England states and protested the war, for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. In fact, James Monroe, a Democratic-Republican, faced no major party opposition for the presidency in 1820.

4. President James Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine, warning European powers to stay out of the western hemisphere.

5. John Marshall, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, issued a number of rulings which increased the power of the national government in relation to the states. Using a loose interpretation of the Constitution, he ruled that the national government had the power to create a national bank and that the State of Maryland could not tax the bank. (McCulloch v. Maryland) He also ruled that a law of Congress, giving Thomas Gibbons a license to ferry passengers across the Hudson River superseded [overrode] a lay of the State of NY giving Aaron Ogden the exclusive right to conduct such business. (Gibbons v. Ogden)

6. Congress, under the leadership of Henry Clay, was able to successfully resolve the issue of the extension of slavery for the time being through the Missouri Compromise. By adding a new slave state and a new free state at the same time and settling the issue of slavery in the western territories with the 36, 30 line northern and southern states found a way to peacefully coexist, at least temporarily.

7. Also, Henry Clay proposed his American system, which included:

• Support for a high tariff to protect American industries and generate revenue for the federal government
• Maintenance of high public land prices to generate federal revenue
• Preservation of the Bank of the United States to stabilize the currency and rein in risky state and local banks
• Development of a system of internal improvements (such as roads and canals) which would knit the nation together and be financed by the tariff and land sales revenues.

Questions:
1. Was the War of 1812 a "second war for independence"?
2. What are some ways that the U.S. has become nationalized in the past 10 years or so?
3. What do you think the Anti-Federalists would have said about this period if they were still around? Would their fears of an over-powerful national government be coming true?

The Marshall Court

The US Constitution gives the president the power to veto bills that Congress is trying to pass. However, it does not explicitly state that the Supreme Court has the power to strike down a law of Congress. This power of judicial review is a product of the Court's own interpretation in Marbury v. Madison.

Chief Justice John Marshall made the following statements concerning the Court in Marbury v. Madison:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."

Questions:
1) What is John Marshall saying about the Supreme Court and its role?
2) Was Marbury v. Madison a power grab by Marshall? If so, was this act unconstitutional? If so, what could the other branches of government do about it? If not, should the legislative and executive branches assume powers for themselves that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution?
3) Is the American government better off with or without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review? Explain.

Political Party Sytem

This is a basic summary of the history
of the American two-party system.
Hopefully it provides a little clarity.
There are two specific time periods where
the was no clear two-party system: the
Presidency of George Washington,
who did not represent a political party,
and the "Era of Good Feelings",
shortly after the Federalist Party had
faded away after the War of 1812.

The Democratic Party of today began
with Andrew Jackson and is a descendant
of the Jeffersonian Republicans.
The Republican Party of today began at
the time of Abraham Lincoln and has
some similarities with the Federalist Party.

Questions:
1) To what extent is the modern Democratic Party representative of Jeffersonian principles? To what extent is it representative of
Jacksonian principles?
2) To what extent is the modern Republican Party representative of Hamiltonian principles? To what extent is it representative of the ideas of Abraham Lincoln?

Early Presidents - Washington

George Washington

As the first president, George Washington had no role model to look to. He didn't know how a president was supposed to behave. Previous leaders of countries were primarily monarchs and the American Revolution was fought to break free from the control of a monarch. Despite this, some Americans were willing to make Washington a king.

Washington established some basic precedents (actions that future presidents would follow) during his presidency:
1) He chose a cabinet. These advisers would help him to make wise decisions in office. He chose Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Knox as Secretary of War and Edmund Randolph as Attorney General. The Constitution does not mention a cabinet, but all presidents since Washington have chosen one. Thus, it is part of the US government tradition, or the unwritten constitution.
2) He organized a militia to stop the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania. They had been protesting the Whiskey Tax that which would made their products more expensive for consumers to buy. This showed that the new national government would enforce the laws that it passed. Before the Constitution, there had been another rebellion called Shays' Rebellion which showed how chaotic the country could become without a stronger national government.
3) Washington avoided foreign military conflicts with his Proclamation of Neutrality. He declared that the US would side with neither Britain nor France in the war in 1793. When leaving office, Washington reiterated this position in his Farewell Address by telling the country to avoid making "permanent alliances" with foreign nations.
4) He chose to leave the presidency and become a private citizen after serving two terms (8 years). This tradition would be followed by future presidents for about 150 years. In that time it was part of the unwritten constitution. After Franklin Roosevelt broke the tradition by being elected to four terms, Congress and the states passed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting all presidents to a maximum of two terms.

Questions:
1) France helped the US gain independence from Britain in the American Revolution. Did the US owe France help in their fight against Britain?
2) Is neutrality always the best policy?
3) Are there any weaknesses to this policy? Are there any strengths to this policy?
4) Is neutrality a wise policy for the US to follow today?

Bill Clinton on Presidential Term Limits:
"Shouldn't the people have the right to vote for someone as many times as they want to vote for him?"
"...our country might face a crisis that a former president is uniquely qualified to help solve. The American public should have that option."

5) Is it wise to have passed an amendment to the Constitution barring presidents from serving more than two terms? Should it have remained in the unwritten constitution, (i.e. just a tradition)?

U.S. Constitution - A New Framework for Government

The Constitution: A Bundle of Compromises

Realizing that the Articles of Confederation weren't working out, delegates from the various states (except Rhode Island) met in Philadelphia. The delegates were directed by their states to revise the Articles of Confederation so that they would work better. Once in Philadelphia, the delegates wound up creating a brand new government called the U.S. Constitution. The new national government would assume new powers that it had not possessed under the Articles of Confederation. It would be given the power to tax and to enforce its own laws. Although some new powers were shifting from the states to the national government, the text of the Constitution begins with the words, "We, the people..." This demonstrates that it is the people, not the states, that are giving power to the national government. Thus, only the people can take that power back. The person that is generally given the most credit for creating the document was James Madison.

Great Compromise

In designing a document that would get the approval of people from different states, regions and economies the framers needed to compromise. Big states and small states disagreed over how each state would be represented in the new legislative branch. Delegates from states with large populations believed that they should be entitled to more representatives (proportional representation) in Congress since they would be representing more people. This proposal was called the Virginia plan and it also called for a bicameral (2-house) legislature. The New Jersey plan was proposed on behalf of states with smaller populations. They were fearful that the larger states would have too much power and be able to pass whatever laws they wanted without the consent of the smaller states. They proposed a unicameral (1-house) legislature in which each state would have the same number of representatives regardless of how large or small their population was. (equal representation) They finally came to agreement with the Great Compromise (Connecticut Compromise). This provided for a bicameral legislature in which smaller states would have fewer representatives in one house (House of Representatives) but an equal number of representatives (senators) in the other (Senate).

Three-Fifths Compromise

Another dispute arose over the issue of slaves. Should they be counted in a state's population even if they would not be given any rights? Delegates from states with few or no slaves did not believe that slaves should be counted. States with big slave populations, like Virginia, believed that they should count. Eventually, the delegates agreed that slaves would count as 3/5 of a person when counting the population of each state.

There was also disagreement about whether slavery should be addressed in the Constitution. The Constitution stayed silent on whether slavery would be legal or illegal in the U.S. Each state would get to make its own rules on the matter. But, an agreement was reached in which the importation of new slaves from Africa would be illegal after 20 years. While there would still be slaves in the country after 1807, they could only be ones that had already been in the country or descendants of slaves in the country.

Federalists

The people that strongly supported the new framework for government were called the Federalists. They were led by Alexander Hamilton. Along with Madison and John Jay, Hamilton wrote opinion pieces in newspapers urging states to support the ratification of the Constitution. They are collectively known as The Federalist Papers.

Anti-Federalists and a Bill of Rights

The Antifederalists, who included Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith and Robert Yates, opposed the new framework. They feared that a centralized government could become oppressive if given too much power. They also wanted a Bill of Rights, which identifies the rights that the national government could never take away from American citizens, included in the document. They also changed the rules by which major changes to the government could take place. Once it was agreed that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution was ratified. In fact, the Bill of Rights became the first ten amendments (major changes) to the Constitution. All of the original thirteen states would eventually ratify the document even though it stated that it would go into effect once 9 of the 13 agreed to it.

*Questions below map and chart.






















Questions to comment on:
1. Was the US Constitution an illegal document? If it was, should that matter?
2. Should there ever be compromise on an issue as serious as slavery? If not, how would you propose to get slave states to support the Constitution?
3. Should the U.S. Constitution have been ratified?
4. There was a lot of compromise among the big and small states in the drafting of the Constitution. At the time the largest state was Virginia (population: 747,610) and the smallest was Delaware (population: 59,096). Meaning Virginia was 12 to 13 times the size of Delaware and they received an equal number of representatives. This is not exactly democratic. (i.e. - one person, one vote) Today, the largest state is California (population: 36,961,664) and the smallest is Wyoming (population: 544,270). Thus, Wyoming gets two votes in the Senate just like California even though California has 68 times as many people! Should the Constitution be amended to distribute seats in the Senate more in a way that is more reflective of the population differences? Do you think that small states would ever ratify [approve] such a change?

Articles of Confederation

Articles of Confederation - Limited National Power, Strong States
The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States. It provided for a very limited national government to handle the affairs of the states. The Second Continental Congress went about drafting it shortly after setting up a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. The Articles were not ratified until 1781, less than a year before the British General Cornwallis surrendered.

The Americans wanted to avoid giving too much power to one central authority. Keep in mind that they were in the process of fighting a war against an oppressive centralized government. Also, it would be hard to get people in authority in the individual states to give up some of their power to a governing body outside of their area. So the Articles only gave the national government one branch of government, the legislative branch. This means that the Congress could pass laws, but had no power to enforce (executive) or interpret (judicial) those laws. It was not given the power to directly tax Americans nor to raise an army. This means that they would have to rely upon the states for money and soldiers to fight a war. States would have the power to comply with the request or to reject it.

It's Hard to Get Things Done When Need Everyone's Approval
The Articles of Confederation worked more like the United Nations than today's U.S. Congress. Americans were more closely identified with the state that they lived in than the country they lived in. The structure of the new national government ensured that few decisions could be made with the support of an overwhelming number of states. If Congress needed to pass a law that 7 out of 13 states (a majority) believed was necessary they couldn't pass it, because the Articles required that 9 states (a super-majority) had to accept a law for it to pass. If the Articles weren't working out and a major change (an amendment) needed to take place, all of the 13 states had to agree before that change could take place. Try getting all 12 of your friends to agree with you on the type game you are going to play.

What the Articles of Confederation Did Well
There are a couple of the things that were successful about the Articles of Confederation. They found a way to organize and settle western (today we call them midwestern) lands. The Land Ordinance of 1785 set up a way in which the Northwest Territories (the modern-day states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin) would be organized for settlement. The land would be surveyed and organized into a neat grid pattern. Townships would be made out of 36 square mile blocks. The sale of 4 of the blocks would go to the national government and the sale of 1 of the blocks would go to fund public education.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established a way for the territories to eventually become states just like the original 13 states. They would 1) need to organize a local government, 2) get 60,000 to inhabit the area and 3) apply to the Congress for the right to be admitted as a state. If the territory became a state, it would get representation in the national government rather than be controlled by the national government.

Questions to consider:
1) There is general agreement that the Articles of Confederation were a failure. Should this be expected in the country's first attempt at creating a representative democracy? Explain.
2) Do you think that the newly independent states could have continued to exist as 13 independent nations not linked by any type of government? Would such a situation lead to wars among the new nations (states)?
3) If we are going to change the Articles of Confederation, how far should we go? What is the proper amount of power to give the national government so that it can effectively help the colonies and still not be tempted to overreach its bounds?
4) Under the Articles of Confederation every state was given 1 vote in Congress regardless of whether it was a state with a small population or a large population. For example, Connecticut only had 59,000 people while Virginia had 747,000 in 1790. Is this fair? Is this democratic? (Democracy is a government in which the people control the government, usually through voting. Should democracy require that states with more people get more votes?)

American Revolution

The American Revolution was undoubtedly a significant event in American History. After approximately 150 years of limited control by Britain, no direct taxation and freedom to develop democratic institutions in the colonies the ties across the Atlantic were becoming strained. Britain, in order to pay off the 60 million pounds of debt that it incurred during the French and Indian War (also called the Seven Years War) began to demand tax dollars of the colonists. The British colonists in North America resisted these new laws, often violently.

Here are some informative websites on the Revolution:
PBS Liberty!
Library of Congress page on the American Revolution
Declaration of Independence at ushistory.org
Howard Zinn's view of the American Revolution

Here are some questions for you to consider as we cover the topic of the American Revolution.
Please post a response to one or more of these questions.

1) Was the American Revolution justified or not justified?
2) Was the American Revolution a radical revolution?
3) Were the violent actions (i.e. tarring and feathering) of patriots against other colonists who did not support the cause justified?
4) Was the American Revolution inevitable? (i.e. - Would the colonists, after about 150 years of some political freedom, demand independence even if Britain had not passed the taxes and other laws that it did?)
5) The Declaration of Independence lays out a long list of problems that they had with the King of England. Was King George the person responsible for all of the oppression of the colonies?
6) Did the colonists exhaust all measures of a peaceful resolution or were they too eager to separate from England?
7) Was the American Revolution fundamentally flawed since it did not enhance the rights of African-Americans and women?


Join or Die - This was a cartoon from Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Gazette 12 years before the Declaration of Independence (1754) in which the colonies are being urged to set up some type of centralized government to deal with the threat of Native Americans. It would later be used as a symbol for the American Revolution.






Gadsden flag - This symbol was used by the first Marines in the Revolutionary War. Notice there are 13 rattles at the tail.