Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essay on the impact of the american and french revolution
essay on the impact of the american and french revolution
essay on the impact of the american and french revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When the wave of American Revolution was going on around Europe and around the world, the Federalists split into two factions over their contrasting vision about the programs to guide the new republic. Due to this, the foreign policies of the United States had to face several critiques from its own citizens during the Federalist Era (1789-1801). The foreign affairs of the Federalist Era was shaped by the French Revolution and other subsequent war between British and France. Clearly, the ideological differences between the prominent political leaders divided the American into two factions.
Most American had welcomed the French Revolution of 1789, because it abolished feudalism and established a constitutional monarchy. Monarchy and privilege were overthrown in the name of
…show more content…
Yet, American ships continued to trade between the French West Indies and France carrying primarily grains, sugar and other foodstuffs. In 1794, England expressed displeasure of the limited American interpretation of neutrality by capturing more than three hundred of these ships in the vicinity of West Indies. This led to a different crisis, and it was addressed by signing a negotiation, the Jay treaty, between U.S and England.
On the other hand, France felt being betrayed by the so called “Neutrality” and its agreement with England, for France had helped America substantially during the American Revolution, and the confederated government had signed an alliance in 1778 promising aid if France were ever under attack.
In the election of 1796, Federalist obtained majority in the congress and John Adams became the president. Adam’s continued Hamilton’s pro-British foreign policy and strongly criticized French seizures of American merchant Ships. As a result, the growing tensions between U.S and France heightened further; the XYZ affair and the Quazi-war (1798-1800) were the immediate
In June of 1797 the relationship between France and the United States worsened. Jay's Treaty of 1795 angered France, who was at war with Britain and recognized the treaty as support of an Anglo-American alliance. Almost 300 American ships bound for British were seized by France. Marshall finally accepted a national appointment from President John Adams as one of the three representatives to France to negotiate peace. He accepted because he was concerned about the controversy. However, when Marshall and the other representatives arrived in France, the French refused to negotiate unless the United States paid massive bribes.
At the end of the 18th century, an undeclared war was going on between the United States and France because of the recent XYZ affair; triggering a positive reaction by Federalists like Fisher Ames to convince the authorities to make the war official. Not knowing what to do, President John Adams appointed former-President George Washington as commander of the army to hopefully resolve the issue with France through diplomacy (as was Washington's stance).
American foreign policy during the 1890s was based on many factors that each acted as an individual justification for our country’s behavior as a whole. Racism, nationalism, commercialism, and humanitarianism each had its own role in the actions America took against other nations.
Once again, Jefferson changed from Republican views to Federalist views because of his realist and public official side. Jefferson knew this would help the United States grow and it would keep Louisana out of the hands of other countries in Europe. Because of the war between France and Britain, the United States wanted to perserve their neutrality. The United States could trade with either of the countries without facing attacks. Jefferson asked Congress for an embargo.
The Age of Federalism written by two highly skilled historians Stanley Elkins and Eric Mckitrick describes how the country advance from just an idea to a working republic. In different ways, this story is about the evolution of two party system. It is surprising how the political organizations quickly became an integral party of a democratic system, but they did this regardless of warnings against political factions by American leaders who was afraid for the diverse impact it may have on the emerging republic. This book was written in order to give an analytical survey of the nation’s crucial decade under the constitution. This book provides a historical account of political, military, economic, cultural and diplomatic problems that faced the new nation. These issues are examined in the book from different point of views. The authors conducted a well-organized research using hundreds of sources such as, government documents, US documents, statesman’s papers, doctoral dissertations and newspaper articles. This book attempts to explore the great figures that played a major role in shaping this remarkable era. The authors did this in order to know them better and accurately interpret their behaviors. The book reveals Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams to be more complex, spirited and contradictory more than other
After the establishment of the constitution, the Federalist administrations faces many significant challenges when dealing with the economics of the United States; much of the country was divided over issues such as how to raise money, establishing a public credit system, how to pay the national debt, and whether or not a national bank should be established. Leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison came to represent the ideas of the people and as these ideas became more solid, debate and opposition rose. The Federalists saw multiple ways to resolve these issues, and the resolutions established that leadership in the United States would be successful.
...le this declared American neutral between France and England, Washington made sure to emphasize that no one associate with either side.
The formation of the United States Constitution in 1787 led the people of the United States to divide into two groups: the Federalists and the Anti Federalists. They both agreed in the some political thoughts as well as disagreed. Most distinguishable, the Federalists favored the central government, whereas the Antifederalists opposed it. In order to settle the new country after the Revolutionary War, the Hamilton Federalists best represent the ideals of America during the 19th century because it centralized politic, and individuals’ rights, and economic.
Relationships between the British and the Americans were well strained both before and after the war; however, following the war, the Treaty of Ghent was signed to provide a resolution to conclude the war and provide a compromise. Before the War of 1812, the French Revolution had taken a toll on British and French relations. Since the United States had an alliance with France at the time and had a proclamation of neutrality, complications arose when the British proceeded with their selfish practice of impressment. It was understood that the Americans at this time should keep
France had to declare bankruptcy after the American Revolution--war and debt helped bring down the monarchy. King, in 1787, called the Estates General, an assembly of noblemen buried since 1614. Thus the Revolution becan with an aristocratic attempt to recapture the state. "Men born and live free and equal under the law." Not democratic, but constitutional. The King was not King of France, but King of the French!!
The debate between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists is important because it provides us insight on how the United States Constitution was built and how it was changed. A reason why this debate is so important to understand is because there are people today who don’t agree with the government having so much power. Once one understands what started the disagreement between the two groups of politicians, one will see how both sides sealed the deal for our constitution that we still follow today. I have decided to speak about the Anti-Federalists first because this group of men stood out to me as being very intelligent, creative and brave but unfortunately their plan to help Americans wasn’t successful. Patrick Henry and George Mason, some of the few influential figures, were all about “supporting the American needs”. Originally called the “Federalists” in 1781, they were the first American National Government called the Articles of Confederation, which gave all thirteen states’ government more authority and freedom. The Federalists main concerns were to make sure Americans kept their liberty and states become one Union. The Anti-Federalists main concerns were to make sure Americans had their freedom but have separate Unions. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were different,
The American Revolution marked the divorce of the British Empire and its one of the most valued colonies. Behind the independence that America had fought so hard for, there emerged a diverging society that was eager to embrace new doctrines. The ideals in the revolution that motivated the people to fight for freedom continued to influence American society well beyond the colonial period. For example, the ideas borrowed from John Locke about the natural rights of man was extended in an unsuccessful effort to include women and slaves. The creation of state governments and the search for a national government were the first steps that Americans took to experiment with their own system. Expansion, postwar depression as well as the new distribution of land were all evidence that pointed to the gradual maturing of the economic system. Although America was fast on its way to becoming a strong and powerful nation, the underlying issues brought about by the Revolution remained an important part in the social, political and economical developments that in some instances contradicted revolutionary principles in the period from 1775-1800.
In early American government there were two emerging political views that were blatantly obvious in the new states; federalists and anti-federalists. In this paper two main topics of interest for each of the parties will be discussed, the role that government should have according to the differing views and the subject of foreign policy.
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
The most concrete results of the French Revolution were probably achieved in 1789-91, when land was freed from customary burdens and the old corporate society was destroyed. The great reforms of 1789-91 nevertheless established an enduring administrative and legal system, and much of the revolutionaries' work in humanizing the law itself was subsequently incorporated in the Napoleonic Code. Politically, the revolution was more significant than successful. Since 1789 the French government has been either parliamentary and constitutional or based on the plebiscitary system that Napoleon inherited and developed. The Revolution nevertheless freed the state from the trammels of its medieval past, releasing such unprecedented power that the revolutionaries could defy, and Napoleon conquer, the rest of Europe. Moreover, that power acknowledged no restraint: in 1793 unity was imposed on the nation by the Terror. Europe and the world have ever since been learning what infringements of liberty can issue from the concepts of national sovereignty and the will of the people.