More handpicked essays just for you.
Equality between men and women in the past and today
The long battle for equality
Equality between men and women in the past and today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In late May of 1776, the lawyer, John Adams, wrote a rebuttal to James Sullivan’s opinion on representation in the legislative process and who should be allowed to participate. Adams had learned of these views after reading Sullivan’s letter, which was originally addressed to Mr. Gerry; this letter highlighted what Sullivan believed to be flaws with the political system of the day and, to be more specific, who should be allowed to take part. To say that Adams disagreed with the ideas presented would, in many ways, minimize his response. John Adams had a very clear cut definition of who was competent enough and worthy enough to bear the weight of the full rights of citizenship, ultimately, the right to make decisions for the masses. James Sullivan argued, in his letter, that governments are permitted to exist by the people they serve; every individual under the government should have a voice to give or deny his “consent” of government and the laws they enact. If one does not give his consent to the government, “he owes no obedience” to it. Thus, if every person has to give their opinion about the laws for the laws to apply to everyone, then it follows that everyone deserves the …show more content…
Adams contends that it implausible to have every single person, “old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent” to every law. He follows by asking how a governing system can possibly have the right to rule as a majority over the minorities. Expanding upon this, Adams delivers a challenging contradiction: women were prohibited from voting due to the thought that they were only qualified in “domestic cares” and relied on a man for survival. By that logic, men who were “destitute of property” and “too dependent upon other men” should also be considered incompetent concerning knowing what is in the interest of the
Many speeches have shaped the nation we live in today. Patrick Henry’s “Speech in the Virginia Convention” and Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech in the Convention” are two of the most prominent speeches that have assisted in the forging of our new nation. The “Speech in the Virginia Convention” serves to encourage those that listened to take arms against the British and fight the injustice being done to them. The “Speech in the Convention” admits to the imperfections of the Constitution but supports its ultimate purpose. Both Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin believe leaders must do away with compromise and lead when it’s best for the people as a whole. However, Patrick discourages any future compromise, while Benjamin Franklin feels that future
The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the only one who could honestly be said to represent the majority yeoman farmer class, the highly privileged classes were fearful of granting man his due rights, as the belief that 'man was an unregenerate rebel who has to be controlled' reverberated.
He did not perceive the founding fathers to be experimental in nature. Ellis introduces each member of “The Quartet” with high praises, calling attention upon Washington’s organizational abilities, Hamilton’s financial skills, Madison’s drafting abilities, and Jay’s diplomacy tactics. Ellis advocated that through the superior leadership of each member, the creation of the American republic was inevitable. He argues, “To say, then, that ratification represented a clear statement about the will of the American people in 1787-1788 would be grossly misleading. What ratification really represented was triumph of superior organization, more talented leadership, and a political process that had been designed from the start to define the options narrowly” (Ellis 174).
Even though John Adams (1735-1826) and John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) were father and son, also they were our President in the United States but they are not the same. The differences are their early lives, the early political career, and major presidential actions.
“ A wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another... shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits..., and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned .This is the sum of good government (Jefferson,1801) .” This was said by Thomas Jefferson our third President of the United States of American. John Adams our second President of the United States of America, for 4 years as President change the “Free World” to a federalist powerhouse in this new, young country. John Adams was a poor President for the United states because of the X,Y,Z affair, the Alien Act , the Sedition Act ,and the “Revolution of 1800”.
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
As the tensions between Britain and the colonies grew stronger, Samuel stayed loyal to the crown. He viewed the American government as very primitive and dependent on the British government. When talk of the First Continental Congress arose, he began to voice his opinion. He tried to stop the election of the delegates by writing various pamphlets. His attempt proved futile and the delegates were elected and met together on that fateful day in Philadelphia when a new nation was envisioned. Now Samuel began to take more courageous steps in preventing the breaking away of the colonies. He wrote “Westchester Farmer” ,a compilation of five essays reasoning why the colonies should stay with the English. The five essays were Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Congress, The Congress Canvassed, Free Thoughts in the Full Vindication of the Congress, A View of Controversy, The Republican Dissected. Some of the writings were directed towards New Yorkers and local farmers. He begged the New York legislature to reject the laws of the “enthusiastic republicans” and was quoted as saying, ”The Congress is in the power of a faction using a mob to carry out its purposes”. The other writings were a rebuttal or defense to Alexander Hamilton’s attack. Hamilton was a student at the time when the pamphlets came out and he wrote The Farmer Refuted, a pamphlet opposing Seabury’s loyalist views. The news spread like wild fire and four of the pamphlets were printed in newspapers across the colonies. Samuel was branded a loyalist right away and this unintentionally made him some enemies.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
In the late 1780s there where a variety of men that would need to be represented by the government. These men included everyone from aristocratic land owners, to merchants, to hard laborers. The Anti-Federalists knew that all of these men needed to be represented in the government so that there were no laws made with the intention to harm a certain group’s way of life. In Federal Farmer Letter VII it is said that “Each order must have a share in the business of legislation actually and efficiently” (Hammond 559). By each class of men having an active role in their government, a process is created to able to prevent one class from overruling others for their own benefit. This is important to the Anti-Federalists because they think that each type of man should be considered equal. This hunger for equality leads us to see that the Anti-Federalists believe that all men should be able to be part of government wit...
...o consider the charms of liberty as imaginary and delusive.” John Jay in this document expresses his fear of the good hearted workers will lose confidence in prominent social figures thus causing civil unrest. He shows his concern on the fact that before they had a purpose or cause, ie independence, and not they are just going with the flow. Daniel Shays was an American soldier, revolutionary, and farmer, famous for being a leader of Shays ' Rebellion, an uprising against oppressive debt collection and tax policies in Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787. Instead of addressing the matter formally and politely they went straight to the source: the courts. Shays’ Rebellion shut down courts, stopped proceeding and stopped courts from collecting bankruptcies. This proved to the working class something needed to be done about the government or there would be constant revolts.
In the year 1776, an English-born American writer by the name of Thomas Paine published one of the most critical documents to American independence prior to the Declaration of Independence itself. His paper, Common Sense, called for the immediate break away of the colonies from England and the formation of a republican government, superior to the former monarchy. Though the sheer number of copies sold can speak for the impact of Paine’s work, proper insight requires us to look into the arguments that were presented. There was undoubtedly opposition from the remaining Loyalists, so how did Common Sense so totally eclipse the counterarguments? What caused this single document to inspire such a revolutionary spirit in so many colonists across
Benjamin Franklin stands tall among a small group of men we call our Founding Fathers. Ben used his diplomacy skills to serve his fellow countrymen. His role in the American Revolution was not played out on the battlefields, but rather in the halls and staterooms of governments. His clear vision of the way things should be, and his skill in both writing and negotiating, helped him to shape the future of the United States of America. His most important service was as a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Although it was not accepted, he is reported to have been the author of the single legislative Assembly, instead of two branches. Other statesmen have considered bicameral assembly preferable, and which have since been adopted in all the States of the Union, as, well as in other countries where the experiment of popular forms has been tried. There is no doubt that this was a favorite theory with him, because he explained and gave his reasons for it on another occasion. The perpetual conflict between the two branches under the proprietary government of Pennsylvania, in which the best laws after having been passed by the Representatives of the people were constantly defeated by the veto of the Governor and Council, seems to have produced a strong impression on his mind. He also referred to the British Parliament as a proof that the voice of the people expressed by their representatives is often silenced by an order of men in the legislature, who have interests to s...
Sixty- nine years after the Declaration of Independence, one group of women gathered together and formed the Seneca Falls Convention. Prior and subsequent to the convention, women were not allowed to vote because they were not considered equal to men. During the convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the “Declaration of Sentiments.” It intentionally resembles the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal…” (Stanton, 466). She replaced the “men” with “men and women” to represent that women and men should be treated equally. Stanton and the other women in the convention tried to fight for voting rights. Dismally, when the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced to the Congress, the act failed to be passed. Even though women voiced their opinions out and urged for justice, they could not get 2/3 of the states to agree to pass the amendment. Women wanted to tackle on the voting inequalities, but was resulted with more inequalities because people failed to listen to them. One reason why women did not achieve their goals was because the image of the traditional roles of women was difficult to break through. During this time period, many people believed that women should remain as traditional housewives.
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
To many, the Unites States serves as the ideal model of democracy for the modern world. Yet, how truly worthy is America of this status? Although it has been said that, “Equality is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie,” one must be extremely critical when analyzing such a statement. By taking a historical perspective to the question of how “equal” American equality actually is, it is simple to recognize how problematic the “Land of the Free” mentality can be. The early America’s most prominent thinkers have been sensationalized and given credit for developing a free and equal system. However, one can recognize that their manner of thinking was far from this idea of “all men are created equal” by critical examination of their literature.