Description
this linkg is also a source https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3narr1.html
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Unit 4 Lecture: From Confederation to Constitution to Crisis
The recurring difficulty of making thirteen independent former colonies cede
power to a new national authority dogged the revolutionaries during their war for
independence and can be seen in the weakness of the only governing document for
the United States, the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781. The
Confederation was simply a meeting of representatives from the states, and was not
a separate body with separate powers regarding things such as raising a military or
paying taxes. Instead the members of the Confederation had to vote
unanimously—and with state approval—to raise any sort of revenue, such as an
impost on foreign goods, which was constantly voted down. Because the United
States could not agree on new taxes, the United States defaulted on its debts in
1785 and its paper currency was nearly worthless, since it was backed by a nonexistent federal revenue. The unpaid debts—and the resulting lack of investor or
taxpayer confidence engendered by them—threatened to destroy the country as
well as individual states such as Massachusetts.
By 1787, the United States appeared to be not only bankrupt but unable to
defend itself: in addition to the troubles in Massachusetts, there were still British
troops in parts of New York and modern-day Michigan and the Spanish were
making things difficult for frontiersman trying to sell their products in New
Orleans. And so, for the founding elite of the United States, drastic times called for
drastic action. With the approval of the Confederation Congress, fifty-five of the
“who’s who” among the American elite met in private in Philadelphia during the
summer of 1787. The Convention quickly agreed to scrap the Articles of
Confederation—even though that is not what many in the Confederation Congress
wanted—and the Convention established the principle of a separate federal
government that would not answer to the state governments but to the people
directly. By September 1787 a finished draft of the Constitution was in place: the
House of Representatives would originate money bills, the Senate would ratify
treaties, as well as appoint government officials such as judges. And although the
President possessed a veto power over acts of Congress, the veto could be
overridden with a two-thirds majority of both house of Congress. A Supreme Court
would determine the constitutionality of the acts of Congress (though its role was
vague in the initial document) and amendments to the constitution could be ratified
by a two thirds majority of the states. Although power was divided in this new
federal government, when those who drafted the Constitution went about
convincing the state ratifying conventions to approve the new document, they
found many Americans fearful that this new federal government was simply a
group of elite Americans creating a new government to enrich themselves. Keep in
mind that most Americans were in some sense independent farmers—many living
far away from eastern seaboard towns on the frontier—and did not care much if the
United States did not possess economic or military might. Average farmers—who
often possessed what we today might call a libertarian mentality—only saw the
government as intrusive and predatory. These men and women believed the spirit
of the Revolution against Britain was being betrayed by the new concentration of
power in a federal government. Although the Federalists proved better able at
rallying people to their cause than their opponents, their margin of victory in many
states was razor thin and only came after several votes. Many Americans never
really accepted the basic premise of the constitution, namely that the Federal
Government was sovereign to the governments of individual states.
With the election of George Washington as first President of the United
States, however, the Federalists were in charge in the United States and their ideas
about having a strong central government coordinate fiscal and military policy for
the nation dominated the politics of the 1790s—but hardly without opposition. As
his first Secretary of Treasury, Washington chose Alexander Hamilton, a man who
believed in a vigorous state and who was allowed to propose and implement
important financial plans for the first Congress in 1790. Hamilton fought for and
won a plan on the public credit that established a national debt funded with new
taxes. In this way, investors—both foreign and domestic—would have much more
confidence lending the United States money (keeping in mind how the U.S had
defaulted on its debt less than a decade prior.) But the increase in taxes was not
appreciated and signaled that some Americans might take up arms against this
new, stronger state.
Alexander Hamilton was also a strong believer in making the U.S. an
industrial power like Great Britain. Through his views on debt, taxes, and
industrialization, Hamilton and many of his followers evinced support for Great
Britain, but at a time when many other Americans—most notably Secretary of
State Thomas Jefferson—were inspired by France and its Revolution against
hereditary monarchy, made real in their 1793 execution of King Louis. Remember
too that France had been an ally of the United States during the Revolution, and
French men and material helped Americans defeat Great Britain.
Foreign policy soon revealed deep divisions in domestic politics. To those
who formed “Democratic Societies”, the attempt by Federalists to raise taxes, fund
a large military, and ally the United States with Britain appeared to be a betrayal of
the American Revolution. The question of whom the US should support in the
growing war in Europe between Britain and France (over the execution of King
Louis) possessed more than theoretical significance given the importance of transAtlantic trade to the young nation. When the Federalists negotiated what was seen
as a pro-British treaty (Jay’s Treaty) in 1795, the French took action against what it
saw as a betrayal of the old revolutionary alliance between the U.S. and France.
The French decided to begin seizing American ships on the Atlantic—some 300 of
them by 1797.
By that time, John Adams—also a Federalist—had succeeded George
Washington as President. Adams found himself trying to negotiate with the French,
but when Adams’ negotiators were told to pay the French money to even begin
discussions, most Federalists began calling for war with France. A naval war in the
Caribbean ensued, which was not eventful. Rather the real drama occurred on the
homefront when the Federalists overstepped their bounds in trying to silence
domestic anti-war opposition. Passed by a largely Federalist Congress in 1798, The
Alien Act lengthened naturalization times for foreigners and empowered the
President to arrest or deport any foreigner suspected of being a danger to the
United States. The Sedition Act made it a crime now only to conspire to revolt but
to publicly “defame” the President or Congress. This last act smacked of traditional
British restraints on public speech against the King and there were plenty of
Democratic-Republicans (the name of those largely associated with Thomas
Jefferson in the opposition) who made the connection. The reaction to the Alien
and Sedition Acts were fierce and nearly led to a civil war until President Adams
stepped in and found a way to negotiate an end to hostilities with France in 1799.
However, after three terms in the White House, the country was growing tired with
the heavy-handed nature of Federalist rule, especially when the Federalists
basically questioned the ability of the common man to criticize the federal
government.
Of course, the only people who were generally able to take part in civil
society in the 1790s were white men. Native Americans, African-Americans and
women were unequal in this republic. In the case of Native Americans, President
Washington doubled the size of the American military to aid generals like Josiah
Harmar and Anthony Wayne in their efforts to defeat tribes and secure more land
for white Americans in the Ohio Valley. Anthony Wayne’s efforts in this regard
culminated in the Battle of Fallen Timbers in August 1794, where a Shawnee-led
coalition of natives were routed. President Washington claimed that he wanted
natives to live lives as sedentary farmers next to their white neighbors, but the fact
that Washington appointed his Secretary of War Henry Knox as the man to handle
native affairs was hardly an endorsement of peace between natives and white.
Native tribes were very much on the defensive in the early American republic.
For African-Americans, even as the Revolutionary war had led to thousands
of slaves running away, or being freed either for military service, or by stateencouraged laws, the majority of African-Americans remained in slavery in the
America of 1800. When the majority-enslaved Caribbean colony of Saint
Domingue slipped into revolution by the early 1790s, many white slaveowners in
the United States took notice. All the more alarming was that this former slave
colony soon became the first black republic in the Western Hemisphere. American
slaveowners wanted nothing to do with the radical implications of this successful
slave revolt and many slaveowners lost their enthusiasm for any kind of gradual
emancipation efforts.
The state of white women in the young United States also demonstrates the
unclear meaning of revolutionary ideals. The Revolution did nothing to
immediately change divorce or property laws. In addition, women lacked voting
rights as well as access to many employment options in the male-dominated world
of the professions of law, medicine, education, or the religious ministry. But the
logic of a republic, where the leaders of the polity can be no more moral nor
educated than the citizens they lead, also mandated that women receive some sort
of education—if only for the benefit of the sons who were then responsible for
being mature citizens or future political leaders. It should not be surprising that
from the 1790s several female academies came into existence and there were
individual cases of women taking a part in public philanthropy besides education
in the early years of the republic. There were several long-term challenges to
patriarchy contained in the era of the Revolutionary War and early republic.
Unit 4 Primary Sources
Citizens of Greenwich, Massachusetts criticize austerity and demand debt
forgiveness, 1786
This petition laid out the numerous frustrations western farmers possessed
regarding eastern interests, especially once the economy collapsed in the mid1780s. The tight money, high tax policies pursued by the General Court in
Massachusetts as a response to economic recession only made the situation worse
for poorer farmers, such as these
We are sensible that a great debt is justly brought upon us by the war and are
willing to pay our shares towards it…but we believe that is prudent measures were
taken a moderate quantity of [paper money]…. were allowed to circulate our
property might sell for the real value, and we might in time pay said debt…with
the greatest submission we beg leave to inform your Honours that unless
something takes place more favourable to the people, in a little time at least, one
half of our inhabitants in our opinion will become bankrupt- how can it be
otherwise- the constable are daily selling our goods, our land after it is appraised
by the best judges under oath is sold for about one third of the value of it, our cattle
about one half….And when we compute the taxes laid upon us the five preceeding
years…the amount is equal to what our farms will rent for….know that many of
our good neighbors are now confined in jail for debt and for taxes….
James Madison to George Washington on the Chaos of Decentralization from an
elite perspective, 1787
Madison, the brilliant young political theorist educated by John Witherspoon at
the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) quickly became the voice for those in
Virginia (and elsewhere) who demanded an abolition of the Articles of
Confederation in favor of a new central government.
Our latest information from Massachusetts gives hopes that the mutiny or as the
Legislature now style it, the Rebellion is nearly extinct. If the measures however
on foot for disarming and disfranchising those concerned in it should be carried
into effect, a new crisis may be brought on. I have not been here long enough to
gather the general sentiments of leading characters touching our affairs and
prospects. I am inclined to hope that they will gradually be concentered in the plan
of a thorough reform of the existing system….The present system neither has nor
deserves advocates; and if some very strong props are not applied will quickly
tumble to the ground. No money is paid into the public Treasury; no respect is paid
to the federal authority. Not a single state complies with the requisitions, several
pass them over in silence, and some positively reject them. The payments ever
since the peace have been decreasing, and of late fall short even of the pittance
necessary for the Civil list of the Confederacy….The late turbulent scenes in
Massachusetts and the infamous ones in Rhode Island [farmers revolt over lack of
money], have done inexpressible injury to the republican character in that part of
the United States; and a propensity towards Monarchy is said to have been
produced by it in some leading minds. The bulk of the people will probably prefer
the lesser evil of a partition of the Union into three more practicable and energetic
Governments…The latter idea is beginning to find expression in newspapers. But
tho it is a lesser evil, I trust it will rouse all the real friends of the Revolution to
exert themselves in favor of such an organization…as will perpetuate the Union.
Amos Singleterry of Massachusetts Argues Against the Federal Constitution, 1788
Singletary was one of the many debt-ridden, illiterate farmers from western
Massachusetts who despised wealthier politicians and landowners not only in a
place like Boston, but also in his own home county. His presence in the ratifying
convention was part of the reason why the vote in that state turned out to be so
close, even as the state did eventually vote in favor of the constitution.
We contended with Great Britain [during the Revolution], some said for a
threepenny duty on tea; but it was not that; it was because they claimed a right to
tax us and bind us in all cases whatever. And does not this Constitution do the
same? Does it not take away all we have- all our property? Does it not lay all taxes,
duties, imposts, and excises….? They tell us that Congress won’t lay [direct] taxes
upon us, but collect all the money they want by impost. I say there has always been
a difficulty about the impost….they won’t be able to raise money enough by
impost, and then they will lay it on the land, and take all we have got. These
lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk so finely, and gloss over
matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill,
expect to get into Congress themselves; they expect to be the managers of this
Constitution, and get all the power and all the money into their own hands, and
then they will swallow up us little folks, like the great Leviathan, Mr. President;
yes just like the whale swallowed up Jonah.
Alexander Hamilton from his Report on Public Debt, 1790
As the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton felt he was the secondin –command after Washington in the federal government, since he saw his
position as similar to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain. Hamilton
therefore went on the offensive in his efforts to create a British-style financial and
commercial power in the United States. It is worth considering to what extent the
average American would agree with Hamilton’s thinking on economics .
States, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and
trusted; while the reverse is the fate of those, who pursue an opposite conduct.
Every breach of the public engagements, whether from choice or necessity,
is in different degrees hurtful to public credit…When such a necessity does truly
exist, on the part of the government, [they]…should manifest…a sincere
disposition to make reparation, whenever circumstances shall permit….
Those who are most commonly creditors of a nation, are, generally
speaking, enlightened men; and…they will understand their true interest too well
to refuse their concurrence in such modifications of their claims, as any real
necessity may demand…To justify and preserve their confidence; to promote the
increasing respectability of the American name…to furnish new resources both to
agriculture and commerce…these are the great and invaluable ends to be
secured…for the support of public credit.
Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufacturers, 1791
Manufacturing establishments not only occasion a positive augmentation of the
Produce and Revenue of the Society, but they contribute essentially to rendering
them greater than they could possibly be without such establishments….It has been
observed that there is scarcely any thing of greater moment in the economy of a
nation, than the proper division of labor. The separation of occupations causes each
to be carried to a much greater perfection, than it could possibly acquire, if they
were blended…And from these causes…the mere separation of the occupation of
the cultivator from that of the Artificer, has the effect of augmenting the productive
powers of labour and with them, the total mass of the produce or revenue of a
Country. In this single view of the subject, therefore, the utility of Artificers or
Manufacturers, towards promoting an increase of productive industry, is apparent.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1785
Jefferson’s Notes were an attempt to create a kind of encyclopedia describing the
New World. But in this book Jefferson also expounded upon his views of
economics, which were diametrically opposed to those of Hamilton.
…[W]e have an immensity of land…it is best that all our citizens should be
employed in its improvement…Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people
of God, if ever He had chosen people, whose breasts He has made His peculiar
deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive
that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the Earth.
Corruption of morals in…[farmers] is [unknown] in the modern age. It is the mark
of those who do not look…to their own soil or industry…..While we have land to
labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at the work bench…for
the general occupations of manufacture, let our workshops remain in
Europe….The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure
government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.
Thomas Jefferson to Philipp Mazzei, 1796
[Over the past few years]…in place of that noble love of liberty and republican
government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican
monarchical aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw
over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British
government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their
republican principles: the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great
mass of talents. Against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three
branches of the Legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be
officers…speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance
invented for the purposes of corruption….In short we are likely to preserve the
liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall
preserve it….
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
