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?)