Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing the articles of confederation and the constitution
Comparing the articles of confederation and the constitution
The boston tea party, summary of event
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Edmund Sears Morgan, the author of, The Birth of the Republic, was a Sterling Professor of History at Yale University. Morgan's studies focused on American colonial history and English history. He wrote many books examining the colonial period and the period of Revolution, an example of which is The Birth of the Republic. He is also known for writing a best-selling biography of Benjamin Franklin.1
In The Birth of the Republic, Morgan tells the story of the birth of America and its road to independence, as well as the period after the Revolutionary War, in a blunt and concise manner. He begins by describing an era in which American civilians lived happily, enjoying an appropriate amount of freedom under the ruling of England; their owned property guaranteed their freedom. As soon as the Parliament of England imposed taxes American people after the costly war with France, Americans' freedom was threatened. The book briefly describes the revolutionary war since it is not meant to examine the military aspect excessively. Furthermore, Morgan thoroughly described how the Articles of Confederation was reformed to become the United States Constitution, explaining that it was due to the fact that state governments enjoyed too much power, while central (federal) government was too weak.
The author takes into the humanitarian aspect of revolution in prospect; he talks about how Americans wanted to be equal to Englishmen in respect to being represented in the House of Parliament. The "Stamp Act" is what the thoughts of the author are revolving around. Morgan associated the "Stamp Act" with what he believes Americans have reached before anyone else in the world which is "human equality." They have done so by denying that new taxes and tariffs...
... middle of paper ...
...ents with evidence, which may have hurt his credibility and perspicacity.
The author cites works that he says helped him form his ideas consciously and subconsciously; first of which is George Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Vol. 2); in which Bancroft answers the question "How did the United States come into being as a nation dedicated to principles of liberty and equality?" with utter confidence, according to Morgan.2 Bancroft was born in the post-revolution era in Massachusetts; his father was a revolutionary soldier and an author, which may have made his work biased toward the Patriots rather than the loyalists.
Works Cited
1.Yale University. "Department of History." Accessed January 28, 2014. http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/morgan.html.
2.Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
The very last statement in the book reads, “The Federalist, the blueprint of the American nation.” This statement alone can summarize the opinion of author Ed Millican as well as many others, but many pages before that is written, the author goes on to examine and explain the many ideas surrounding Publius, including the numerous interpretations of The Federalist, as well as the political objectives of the work as well. However, instead of merely stating the facts and then contributing his opinion, Millican breaks each part of Publius, including the founding fathers who created the pen name, their individual contributions, as well as what exactly a nation-state is. With the help of a significant amount of evidence, Milican continues to assert that Publius was entirely a nationalist and believed heavily in the Lockean ideals that people want to be a unified nation. The very first chapter comes on strong by giving examples of the many interpretations of Publius. Millican then either counters these arguments or accommodates them to his own conclusions. Afterwards, Publius’ mission in pre-Constitutional America is discussed, as well as the idea that The Federalist indeed had Nationalistic tendencies. The next section of the book contributes to perhaps the most appealing aspect of the whole book. Because the concept of the nation-state was brought up in the previous chapter, Millican elaborates on exactly what a nation-state is, as well as historical examples of the evolution of central regimes, but moreover the condition of the United States at the time The Federalist was in print. This provided an excellent introduction into what becomes the lion’s share of the book, which was Hamilton, Madison, and Jay’s contribution and actions in their respective volumes of The Federalist. This is unique because virtually every attempt at the motives of these works have only taken pieces of The Federalist and used, at most, a handful of essays of the 85 that collectively make up the collection.
Davidson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Nation of nations: A concise narrative of the American republic. (3rd ed., Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill
One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic
Portland: Frank Cass & Company Limited, 1996. Middle Kauff, Robert. A.S.A. The Glorious Cause. The American Revolution, 1763-1789. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Gordon Wood’s Radicalism of the American Revolution is a book that extensively covers the origin and ideas preceding the American Revolution. Wood’s account of the Revolution goes beyond the history and timeline of the war and offers a new encompassing look inside the social ideology and economic forces of the war. Wood explains in his book that America went through a two-stage progression to break away from the Monarchical rule of the English. He believes the pioneering revolutionaries were rooted in the belief of an American Republic. However, it was the radical acceptance of democracy that was the final step toward independence. The transformation between becoming a Republic, to ultimately becoming a democracy, is where Wood’s evaluation of the revolution differs from other historians. He contributes such a transformation to the social and economic factors that faced the colonists. While Gordon Wood creates a persuasive argument in his book, he does however neglect to consider other contributing factors of the revolution. It is these neglected factors that provide opportunity for criticism of his book.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
1776, Book Review It was a good year for a revolution, 1776. But it didn't start off quite as well as the colonists would have liked. When George Washington agreed to take command of the American forces in 1775, he probably didn't realize what he was truly getting himself into. Washington took command of an army made up of old men and young boys that had either come from their farms or the streets. The army was short on weapons and gunpowder, lacked uniforms, and was racked by disease and drunkenness.
Edward, Rebecca and Henretta, James and Self, Robert. America A Concise History. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2012.
America’s form of representative democracy came as a result of the transgressions Britain committed against their colonies. Several hundred years of salutary neglect served well for those living an ocean away from their motherland. Realizing the prosperity that colonies had obtained through a semi-free market society, the King of England and the parliament began enacting many taxes and acts. Taking away the colonies freedom was unsettling amongst the colonists and eventually led to a revolution. This revolution secured freedom from Britain as well as founded a new nation with the first ever constitution. Although the process to achieve democracy in America was a long, laborious road the freedom, prosperity and equality of opportunity shared by those amongst the states could not be denied.
Boyer,Paul S. Editor, the Oxford Guide to United States History, New York Oxford University Press, 2001
Reid, John Phillip. Constitutional History of the American Revolution / the Authority to Tax. Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin, 1987. 33. Print.
...ned Stamp Act he stated that he, “never saw one of those Stamps” and that he was “certain I never paid a penny for one of them”. So with so much attention being paid to Thomas Paine and his “Common sense” and John Hancock’s larger than life signature, what was the reason for our revolution? While that question may never be answered, there are always the eternal words of Levi Preston, “what we meant in going in for those redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always mean to. That didn’t mean we should”
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
George Bancroft the first well known American historian in the nineteenth century followed this perspective to weave the “great patriotic myth” of the founding of America and its rise to a blossoming world power. In this era when the country was experiencing tremendous growth both in population and territory, many few that the expression of a unique national identity was needed to bind the widely diversified and rapidly growing population with the ideals of American republicanism. This vision of course neglects the fact that w...