An assumption that dominates American historical studies is that the wealth and prosperity of the country would be much less without the existence of a powerful central government. This theme is but part of a larger, and now international, orthodoxy that larger political jurisdictions, as long as they are "democratic," foster liberty and economic growth while smaller ones stifle it.
In Europe, elites hold up an all-European government as the golden road to a brighter and wealthier future. Others go further, such as Atlantic Monthly correspondent Robert D. Kaplan, and argue that eventual "world governance" by "global elites" is both inevitable and desirable. Kaplan, whose books are read by high-ranking government officials and journalists, believes that free markets, democracy, and liberty shall thrive under a world regime.
The truth is far different. All of history attests that the centralization and concentration of power breed despotism. In the history of European civilization, liberty and civilization have thrived when political power has been dispersed and checked. Contrast the Greek city states with the polyglot Alexandrian empire, the Roman Republic with the world-sprawling Roman Empire, medieval Europe with 20th century Europe. The nature of man being what it is, irresponsible, unchecked power has been, and always will be, abused, and there is no better way of rendering state power oppressive than by concentrating rather than dispersing it.
If your children attend a public or private university in this country, they will be taught that President Roosevelt "saved" capitalism from itself with his New Deal legislative program in the 1930s. They will also be taught as unquestionable truth that the Federalists rescued t...
... middle of paper ...
...ng to the tariff of 1842.
Sumner also observes that whenever the economy has floundered, many blame foreign trade for somehow draining the country of its wealth. For instance, James Madison warned in 1786 of "the present anarchy of commerce." He blamed the "unfavorable balance" of trade for "draining us of our metals" and furnishing "pretexts for the pernicious substitution of paper money." Madison had it exactly backwards. It was the habit of using paper money that was driving the nation's specie abroad, as coin would not circulate alongside paper of similar denomination. Madison's solution to commercial "anarchy" was a national government with the power to regulate commerce and the money supply. Not surprisingly, Madison would be one of the authors of the tariff of 1789. As president he would sign the tariff of 1816 and the charter for the second national bank.
The Great Depression tested America’s political organizations like no other event in United States’ history except the Civil War. The most famous explanations of the period are friendly to Roosevelt and the New Deal and very critical of the Republican presidents of the 1920’s, bankers, and businessmen, whom they blame for the collapse. However, Amity Shlaes in her book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, contests the received wisdom that the Great Depression occurred because capitalism failed, and that it ended because of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Shlaes, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a syndicated financial columnist, argues that government action between 1929 and 1940 unnecessarily deepened and extended the Great Depression.
In the beginning of the 1830s, the United States experienced a short period of expansion and a prosperous economy. Land sales, new taxes, such as the Tariff of 1833, and the newly constructed railroads brought a lot of money into the government’s possession; never before in the history of the country had the government experienced a surplus in its national bank. By 1835, the government was able to accumulate enough money to pay off its national debt. Much of the country was happy with this newly accumulated wealth, but President Jackson, before leaving office in 1836, issued what is called a Specie Circular. Many local and state governments liked to save specie, or gold and silver, and use paper money to take care of transactions. President Jackson, in his Specie Circular, said that the Treasury was no longer allowed to accept paper money as payment for the sales of land and the like. Most, if not all, of the country did not like this, and as a result many banks restricted credit and discontinued the loans. The effects of Jackson’s Specie Circular took effect in 1837, when Martin van Buren became president. All investors became scared, and in 1837, attempted to withdraw all of their money at once. Soon after this, unemployment and riots occurred in many cities, and the continued expansion of the railroad ceased to be.
Overall, the growth of the American government should have complimented American culture. Instead, -because of mass corruption, the influence big business, and foreign policy- the enormous growth of the federal government has hindered the great success America was meant to achieve.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
One such issue was that of the National debt and creating a National Bank. In 1790, Alexander Hamilton proposed that Congress should establish a national bank, in which private investors could buy stock, could print paper money, and keep government finances safe. Washington signed the bill establishing a national bank and started a strong foundation for a thriving economy and a stable currency.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
During the Great Depression, many economic institutions failed. President FDR opted to forego economic ideas such as the market’s self-regulation. The national government was traditionally limited in it...
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
Further, Daughan covers the British blockade on American ports and the Napoleonic Wars. First, the British blockade on 1813 made difficult for American flagships to leave ports because the British Navy blocked almost all American ports with the exception of New England which provided goods to the British Navy during the war. Secondly, Daughan adds that the Napoleonic wars had a major impact on the American local war; exclusively, Napoleon’s defeat in Russia gave more confidence to Britain for supporting the War of 1812 longer. In contrast, A.J. Langguth did not include in his book, Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence, any international aspect that might influence the War of 1812.
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
The New Deal period has generally - but not unanimously - been seen as a turning point in American politics, with the states relinquishing much of their autonomy, the President acquiring new authority and importance, and the role of government in citizens' lives increasing. The extent to which this was planned by the architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been greatly contested, however. Yet, while it is instructive to note the limitations of Roosevelt's leadership, there is not much sense in the claims that the New Deal was haphazard, a jumble of expedient and populist schemes, or as W. Williams has put it, "undirected". FDR had a clear overarching vision of what he wanted to do to America, and was prepared to drive through the structural changes required to achieve this vision.
In 1625, Jean de Brebeuf a French Jesuit missionary along with other Jesuit missionaries and servants set out and traveled to present day Georgia Bay. The aim of this voyage was the convert the native people of this land known as the Wendat to Christianity. In order to do this, several Jesuit missions were built near the Georgian Bay. However, it was clear from the beginning that the Hurons or Wendat people would not easily accept Brebeuf’s religion of Christinanity. There were many challenges, which he face during his time in the Wendat society, but eventually he was able to convert a sizeable amount of people.
God began His greatest work of creation. When God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground"(Genesis 1:26).
The story of Europe is a story that is worth telling for the simple fact that without the background of Europe, people will not understand the complexities in the creation of the Europe of yesterday and creation of the Europe today. This rich history cannot be ignored because of the close ties to the creation of the nations and the supranational institutions that have become the European Union and its trade partners. Without the background on the history of Europe the creation of this larger organization or supranational organization would be nearly impossible to understand the complexities of the current political, social and economic qualities within the EU. The history of a country, state or organization also helps us to understand the some aspects of the future of the EU.
I define history as important events that have happened in the past, and the ones that are presently happening. At some time or another everything will be considered history. History tells a story, whether it’s written, painted, carved, or sung; a collection of events that someone explains to you that is usually important.