Joseph Ellis’s The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 is a factual and historical account of events leading up to the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America as well as the unification of the states. This historical narrative centers on four prominent politicians, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who are credited with creating the American republic. These statesmen shared many commonalities as they were all deeply invested in the American Revolution, found deficiencies within the Articles of Confederation, and yearned for a modified constitutional framework that would sustain the American republic. Though the founding fathers formulated one objective, to form …show more content…
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). Each member excelled in his own field and persuaded fellow colleagues and the American people for the need for a document to replace the Articles of Confederation. Ellis additionally expounded on the built-in advantages these founding fathers had. He stressed upon their strengths, such as their ability to convene with similar ideas, versatility in many fields, persuading members of the opposition, and developing tactical propositions. After the founding fathers defeated Patrick Henry, a strong adversary and a harsh critic to the Constitution, Ellis wrote, “For better and for worse, the Constitution was destined to become the law of the land” (Ellis 187). These innate built-in advantages of the founding fathers were what helped them to achieve their goals. After analyzing these traits, Ellis concluded that the creation of the republic and the success of the founding fathers was indeed a special destiny, which was bound 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 ...
The meeting in Philadelphia was successful, it is known as the Constitutional Conventional. James Madison went to the meeting in Philadelphia it was his idea to create the United States in a republican model. The people would have the power in the form of representatives. Madison and his fellow Virginians came up with the details and a plan for the new government, it was known as the Virginia Plan. And Madison became known as the father of the constitution.
In 1777, the United States was separated into thirteen colonies that acted much like individual countries. Although the thirteen desired to obtain unity between each other, they dreaded the thought of relying on a monarchy to dominate them. These fiery colonies wanted complete and total control of their own land. It was time for “the people” to call the shots and control their own agendas. The Articles of Confederation, contained the preamble and
This four-page undergraduate paper discusses the opposition that American leaders encountered after the Revolution, as a result of deciding to form a central government. The states feared that such a government would suppress them and would interfere with their internal affairs. Consequently, heated debates and uprisings characterize this period, which started with the framing of Articles in 1777 and ended with the final adoption of the United States constitution in 1787.
According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton as the greatest personalities of that time (Pancake, 1974). However, the visions of these personalities for the American future were absolutely dissimilar. Both Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were statesmen and outstanding founders of America (Scott, 2008). Thomas Jefferson was the first Secretary of the States, while Alexander Hamilton was the Treasury Secretary (Scott, 2008). These two personalities were very well-educated. Thomas Jefferson got his education at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, while Alexander Hamilton graduated from Kings College, currently known as Columbia University, in New York.
The years following the American Revolution, better known as the Critical Period, were some of the most vulnerable moments in the extensive history of the United States. The Critical Period is infamous for a post-war recession, disorganization and competition of states, as well as a total lack of unity about the nation. The Articles of Confederation, ratified during the onset of this tumultuous period, added new dimension to early Americans’ idea of national government. The Articles formed a loosely united country under a highly restricted federal government. This apparent aversion of strong central government was rooted in the former colonists’ fear of a sequel to their monarchial horror that was England. Some believe that the Articles proved an efficient government for post-Revolution America serving as a successful conclusion to the war. However, while effective in avoiding an executive power, the Articles of Confederation proved ineffective in the successful governing of the United States. By the lack of assistance in solving post-war financial issues, the inability to maintain law and order in events of opposition, along with the disorganization of diplomatic relations exposed the shortcomings and the inadequate nature of the Articles of Confederation.
...ared that the ratification was not going to be achieved. For instance, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington in 1786 explaining how at least during the American Revolution all people were united for the same goal, but now their objective is unclear and chaotic, (Document D). All together majority of the people demanded a full presentation within the government, “yet if it is deficient in this essential principle of a full and just representation of the people, it will only be a painted sepulcher,” meaning that without a solid list of rights protecting people and balance within the branches of government everything will collapse, (Document F). The main doubts created by the writing and ratification of the United States Constitution evolved from the between the federalists and the antifederalists, who had different visions of how the government should be run.
The Constitution was issued by prominent figures of society such as lawyers, businessmen, merchants, or investors. Their intellectual ideas were based on Calvinistic views and from Hobbes’s theory. They believed in the sense of human evil and that men are selfish. The makers of the constitution imagined a humane and democratic society that could be controlled by government. The Founding Fathers were concerned to create a government to regulate trade and institute class structure. The actions of citizens from the Shay’s rebellion generated a fear of uprising from lower classes. The Fathers wanted a “balance government” that would not create conflicts among classes. During the convention in Philadelphia, George Washington addressed his view on stability of the people. He urged the delegates not to make a document that only “pleased the people.” Fair treatment within classes was necessary but in contradiction to the Founding fathers belief, “man is an unregenerate rebel who has to be controlled.” (page 7)
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
In 1776 when the Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain with the Declaration of Independence they had one clear goal in mind: become a sovereign nation and avoid the tyranny of Great Britain. What they did not know, however, is that they had to face many more issues beyond simply cutting the ties with Great Britain; they also had to create and maintain a working system of rules which could guide them into becoming the United States of America. Once Independence was gained in 1783, the Articles of Confederation were created, but with many deep flaws in the system. The Federal government had no power, and the states were loosely held together and hardly acted as if they were a single united nation. After recognizing that these problems were too large to overcome easily, several of the greatest men in the nation gathered together to rectify these problems.
The political structure of America changed dramatically as a consequence of the Revolution. When the colonists were divided by loyalty towards Britain and those who wished for separation, the amount of determination that Patriots had was reflected through powerful spokespeople and pieces of writing. The Pe...
Whose side would you have been on in the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson’s or Alexander Hamilton’s? Both of these men served under George Washington in the first presidential cabinet, yet they had very different views of what government should be (Davis 86). My objective in this research essay is to inform the reader of why there was so much controversy between these two founding fathers, and to determine which side had the better views for our newly forming country.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
The winds of frustration with the government swept through the states. The public was tired of the unreliable continental dollar, the inability to repay soldiers for war service, and the overall insufficiencies of the government. Angry, emblazoned citizens voiced their feelings through uprisings, like Bacon and Shay’s rebellions. Shockwaves of perturbed feelings resonated strongly in the minds of the leaders of the states and national government. It was time for the well bred, well fed, well wed, well read, and well read, to go back to the drawing board and supply the nation with a democratic, republic that worked. The Constitutional Convention that is so widely renowned throughout history, (and rightly so), was summoned to meet in Philadelphia, behind closed doors, to re-work the framework of our land.
Wills, G. (Ed.). (1982). Introduction. The Federalist papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. (pp. vii – xxiv). New York: Bantam.