In this paper we will discuss the different point of views on the revolutionary war period that lead up the creation of the constitution between Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart. It is true that the constitution as created by the rich, however the rich were more educated than the poor at the time, making them the reliable leaders of the society. This said, the rich might have tweaked the Laws to their slight advantage. Schweikart explains the creation of the constitution in order to fulfil the needs of the population. However Zinn emphasizes the fact that the government is controlled by the elites who benefit the most form the foundation of the constitution. On one hand, In Chapter four of A Patriot’s History of the US, where Schweikat explains …show more content…
At the time everyone was thinking of a way to climb up the ladder of society. One opportunity was to the join the military to gain some property in order to climb up the social ladder. However the elites where governing at this time had other things in mind. The elites wanted to make sure that no one could get richer than them ensuring stability amongst nobility. Even Zinn says that the elites did not want an equal balance between slaves and masters, propertyless and property holders, Indians and whites. They were all considered to be the early women of America (they were invisible (Zinn, …show more content…
Schweikart also emphasizes that the founders saved America from the ruin and established a system of government that endured to the present day (Schweikart, p.100). We have 2 different point of views, where one says that the founders where unselfish and tried their best to create the most eligible constitution and the other point of view just shows the selfishness of the elites wanting the best for themselves. In that point we can say that they are both selfish and unselfish as there are arguments showing the positive effects of the constitution towards the population as well as the negative effects to the population. Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the declaration of independence was himself a hypocrite, he was a slave owner at the time when he wrote the declaration of independence (Lecture Notes, Dr. Mart). In other words, not all the founding fathers had good intentions when building the constitution. Which is why in my opinion the founders of the American Revolution where both selfish and unselfish matter. It makes sense since not everyone thinks in the same way, not all the rich people have the same trail of thoughts some might think of a way to benefit themselves, others might think of a way to benefit others, or even some trying to benefit others but not applying what they are trying to
In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis, the author relates the stories of six crucial historic events that manage to capture the flavor and fervor of the revolutionary generation and its great leaders. While each chapter or story can be read separately and completely understood, they do relate to a broader common theme. One of Ellis' main purposes in writing the book was to illustrate the early stages and tribulations of the American government and its system through his use of well blended stories. The idea that a republican government of this nature was completely unprecedented is emphasized through out the book. Ellis discusses the unique problems that the revolutionary generation experienced as a result of governing under the new concept of a democracy. These problems included- the interpretation of constitutional powers, the regulation of governmental power through checks and balances, the first presidential elections, the surprising emergence of political parties, states rights vs. federal authority, and the issue of slavery in a otherwise free society. Ellis dives even deeper into the subject by exposing the readers to true insight of the major players of the founding generation. The book attempts to capture the ideals of the early revolutionary generation leaders and their conflicting political viewpoints. The personalities of Hamilton, Burr, Adams, Washington, Madison, and Jefferson are presented in great detail. Ellis exposes the reality of the internal and partisan conflict endured by each of these figures in relation to each other. Ellis emphasizes that despite these difficult hurdles, the young American nation survived its early stages because of its great collection of charismatic leaders and their ability to ...
In 1787 there was a large tension between the elites and the underdogs over debt and tax relief. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia worked to remedy this tension; however, they did so at the expense of the underdog, the indebted, suffering farmer, and for the benefit of the wealthy, who gained from the underdogs’ suffering. How did the delegates manage to design a constitution so biased towards the elite and how exactly did the document benefit the wealthy? Section I examines the interests of the indebted farmers and the wealth. Section II explains how the delegates came to design a constitution that benefited the upper class. Section III Provides examples from the Constitution that show its bias towards the elite and the outcome that was in their benefit.
Did the Founding Fathers actually create the constitution to help us? Alternatively, did they create the constitution just to protect their beliefs and so on? The Founding Fathers was an elite group that sought to create a constitution for their own interests. Several members apart from this strategic group agreed to create the constitution only for their selfish ambitions. The Founding Fathers created the constitution rather than amend the Articles of Confederation. Just because some decline the ideas of others apart from the group, which created a break in the group. As a result, members of the elite group saw this as a way of starting over to fresh new start. Therefore, the person who always seemed to make everything a problem in this elite
Thomas Jefferson once said, “A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free.” The American settlers desired freedom and a sense of sincerity, or openness. The harsh oppression the British placed on the settlers left a lasting impression on the settlers’ minds. They used their familiarity and experiences with the oppression to form the ideals of the Constitution and the Amendments. According to civilliberty.about.com, the father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, was somewhat captivated with the concepts of freedom of speech and religious practice.
In chapter 17, “Or Does It Explode?”, Zinn’s overarching point is that the black revolt that occurred during the 1950s and 1960s should not have come as a shock to white America and that there were many signs leading up to it. In order to emphasize and back up this point, Zinn uses various examples to point out how black American were originally expressing their feelings before the ‘revolt’ began.
America is a nation that is often glorified in textbooks as a nation of freedom, yet history shows a different, more radical viewpoint. In Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States, we take a look at American history through a different lens, one that is not focused on over glorifying our history, but giving us history through the eyes of the people. “This is a nation of inconsistencies”, as so eloquently put by Mary Elizabeth Lease highlights a nation of people who exploited and sought to keep down those who they saw as inferior, reminding us of more than just one view on a nation’s history, especially from people and a gender who have not had an easy ride.
They were considered no use to the society, because they were labeled as being weak. They wanted to be privileged with the same roles as the men did, such as fighting in a battle. The Civil War gave the women an opportunity to do something about their wants. They took action by disguising themselves as men, so they would be able to attend the war. The woman began to take part in other battles that occurred as well. Many of them were able to get away with the scam for a while, until they ended up dead or injured. Those who did not want to join forces and fight still managed to participate in the war in several other ways, like supplying them with things they needed. They decided to take control over things such as teaching jobs, industries, slaves, and family farms and businesses. Women from the North and the South volunteered as nurses during the
...l people were created equally by God and that those who govern should be allowed to do so only when chosen by the people to do so. The colonists wanted a country where all citizens had an equal right to participate in government and were now ready to fight for that right.
The Conscription Act delivered the final straw in the long list of discrepancies, the catalyst that turned that small forest fire into a raging inferno of hate and fear. The white working class (mostly Irish immigrants) were infuriated, they couldn’t understand how they, white, hard-working voters were being punished. The government was forcing them to fight a war they didn’t support and the only way they could avoid it was to pay 300 dollars (a years wages for most), yet they would pay African Americans 1,000 dollars for volunteering. The new federal draft conditions also expanded to include a wider age range of men it would take. “The conscription law targeted men between the ages of 20 and 35, and all unmarried men up to age 45.” Adding to the already high tensions of laborers, since the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation they ...
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
By the late eighteenth century, the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason as it was called had begun to rapidly spread across Europe. People began believing in the ideals of popular government, the centrality of economics to politics, secularism, and progress. This cultural movement was sparked by intellectuals and commonwealth thinkers such as the influential writer John Locke and the famous scientist Isaac Newton, both who emphasized the fact that man, by the use of reason, would be able to solve all of his problems-whether it be problems with the government, morals or the society. However, these ideals weren’t just limited to the European nations where they had first begun. On the other side of the world, off in the United States, American intellectuals began to reason with these ideas as well. As a result, the influence on the profound of modern economic and political thought had a huge impact on the United States, resulting in one of the most important documents in known in American history; the Constitution.
In the early twentieth century, scholars gain a deeper understanding of the ideology behind those who partook in the American Revolution. People’s motivations throughout the American Revolution are a result of their desire for a new society that is not based on the old world’s standards of monarchy, privilege, and social hierarchy. Likewise, people want a society in the new world to determine one’s status based on one’s abilities, efforts, and talents and to characterize equality. A meritocracy, not monarchy become prevalent in the new world’s society, and one’s family’s reputation, wealth, and titles are no longer important. Therefore, colonists rebuke the old world system, which was questioned throughout the American Revolution. Wood explains that “republic individuals were no longer destined to be what their fathers were” (Wood 99). His explanation shows that scholars treated the American Revolution as an extension of the development America’s meritocracy and as an innovation of America’s resulting society during the early twentieth
Between the years 1775 and 1800, the American nation fought a war for independence from Great-Britain and the war was called the Revolutionary War. Despite its name, Howard Zinn argues that the war did little to help the situation of the underrepresented and kept the wealthy in power. Considering Zinn’s argument, the wealthy did stay in control of the government and the economic hierarchy in the new nation remained. However, there was an increased accommodation to the underrepresented groups like the poor and working class in America.
John Locke’s views on property and liberty, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), have had varying interpretations and treatments by subsequent generations of authors. At one extreme, Locke has been claimed as one of the early originators of Western liberalism, who had sought to lay the foundations for civil government, based on universal consent and the natural rights of individuals. [1] Others have charged that what Locke had really done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was to provide a justification for the entrenched inequality and privileges of the bourgeoisie, in the emerging capitalist society of seventeenth century England. The crux of these arguments either way have centered on Chapter 5 in the Second Treatise, entitled ‘Of Property’.
Women were not only separated by class, but also by their gender. No woman was equal to a man and didn’t matter how rich or poor they were. They were not equal to men. Women couldn’t vote own business or property and were not allowed to have custody of their children unless they had permission from their husband first. Women’s roles changed instantly because of the war. They had to pick up all the jobs that the men had no choice but to leave behind. They were expected to work and take care of their homes and children as well. Working outside the home was a challenge for these women even though the women probably appreciated being able to provide for their families. “They faced shortages of basic goods, lack of childcare and medical care, little training, and resistance from men who felt they should stay home.” (p 434)