The main purpose of this chapter is to determine the Founding Fathers’ motives for creating the Constitution by analyzing a secondary source by Woody Holton, and several primary sources. Frist, I will begin with the secondary source, “Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution” by Woody Holton. Mr. Holton’s main purpose was to locate the motivation behind the Constitution in developments in the states (page 90). Mr. Holton addressed several grievances for possible motives of the Founding Fathers’. First, the excessive democracy that acerbated many Americans, the runaway inflation caused by the farmers who were allowed to satisfy their debt to creditors with property and good instead of hard currency, and the Revolutionary War that
Gordon Wood achieved great success among his peers with the publication of his book, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, for which he was awarded the Bancroft Prize, as well as the John H. Dunning Prize, both in 1970. In it, Dr. Wood breaks down the process of how American political thought developed from early protests against British measures in the construction of the world's first federal republic. He does so by giving us in detail using a number of different sources, historical information on the reasoning behind the revolution. Dr. Wood walks us through how our government started with a monarchical society which was hierarchical, and later transformed, and emerged as a more recognizable modern society, in where a more commercially oriented and capitalistic government came to light. Wood writes, “[Americans] learned how to define the rights of nature, how to search into, to distinguish, and to comprehend, the principles of physical, moral, religious, and civil liberty, how, in short, to discover and resist the forces of tyranny before they could be applied.
Within the first chapter, Larson describes how Americans after the American Revolution were hesitant about changing ideas. The idea of federal powers and a new market economy scared the lives of many as they feared the corruption of these higher powers were imminent. The Americans held onto their free market economy with disbelief as they did not understand their own economy could be corrupted as well. In short, the Americans had to pick the lesser of two evils that would give them more liberty with the best chance it would not corrupt their market. The side that embraced the free market was the Democratic-Republicans were the others that opposed it was the Federalists.
Charles Beard interprets the constitution of the United States in an economic manner. Beard claims certain personal interests among individuals such as money, public securities, and trade carried out the movement for the constitution. Beards hypothesis says merchants, manufacturers, shippers, and financiers would be in support of the constitution whereas non-slaveholding farmers and debtors would be in opposition of the constitution. For example, according to the article “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States” by Charles Beard, beard states “Would it not be pretty conclusively demonstrated that our fundamental law was not the product of an abstraction known as “the whole people,” but of a group of economic interests
Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..
The establishment of the Constitution after the failed Articles of Confederation remains a source of controversy among American citizens even in modern times. In his essay “The Hope of the Framers to Recruit Citizens to Enter Public Life,” Jack N. Rakove accurately argues that the Constitution was meant to be an avenue for the people to enter into and be involved in politics, and for the government to be involved in the peoples’ lives in order to ensure a non-autocratic future for the new nation. An element of the Constitution through which the Framers ensured the freedom and political participation of American citizens was the Bill of Rights. “The principal result of the ratification debates was the acceptance of an idea that the framers
Beard held the framers of the Constitution did not write it to entirely benefit themselves, but those they represented. The Founding Fathers consisted mostly of men of means, and they believed a strong federal government would support the needed economic growth of the country. Several interest groups they represented included; slavers, manufactures needing protective tariffs, persons interested in expanding into Indian lands wanted protection, bondholders wanted the government to raise taxes to pay off the bonds they held, and moneylenders did not support the use of paper money. However, the common man did not have the wealth to have their vision supported. Even those who held small land holdings found they were not well represented, and slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property were not represented at
I Agree… “The Federalist No. 84” and “The Anti-Federalist No.84”, both have their views on what should happen to our government. Whether it is to add a bill of rights or not, but I agree with the writer of “The Federalist No.84” because if the Constitution is adopted, then it will be our Bill of Rights, also based on other countries’ bill of rights then it may argue with a semblance of reason. Because I have read both sides of the discussion, I can see who is wrong and why.
The United States Constitution is one of most know historical document in the whole history of the United States. However when the constitution was made was it truly made to help build a better union, or really just a certain group of people? The United States Constitution was hypocritical at the time it was written, because it did not establish Justice for the workers because the government never paid back the bonds they promised, it did not help form a better union by making farmers pay in currency, and for sure did not secure the blessings of liberty for slaves or their posterity. The United States Constitution was hypocritical on the fact that it did not establish Justice to the workers of America when it was made. The workers of America had fought in the Revolutionary War for a government they believed in.
In his essay ‘The founding fathers: a reform caucus in action', John P. Roche describes the Founding Fathers as practical politicians that were indeed acting on behalf the citizens they represented. Roche states the founding fathers kept in mind everyone's rights while making the Constitution. He explains how James Madison drafted the Virginia Plan. Roche describes it as a ‘Political Masterstroke'.
During the time period of the late eighteenth century the United States were seeking a new governing platform that would support the ideals present in the American Revolution. Principles such as freedom, independence and natural rights were among the driving forces in shaping the constitution. Throughout the creation of the document many disputes occurred, the Federalists wanted a strong central government with unchallenged authority while the Anti Federalists fought for personal freedoms and decisions to be made at a state level. Correspondingly once the Constitution was completed The Anti Federalist opposed to it. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights in addition to their claim
After a fiercely fought revolution, the newly independent American nation struggled to establish a concrete government amidst an influx of opposing ideologies. Loosely tied together by the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen sovereign states were far from united. As growing schisms in American society became apparent, an array of esteemed, prominent American men united in 1787 to form the basis of the United States government: the Constitution. Among the most eminent members of this convention were Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. These men, held to an almost godly stature, defined the future of the nation; but were their intentions as honest as they seemed?
While many think of this document, signed on July 4th, 1776, as the signal of the end of the Revolutionary War and the beginning of the United States of America, it was in fact signed by a small group of scared men who are today called the Founding fathers. These men signed the document years before the Americas were recognized globally as their own independent self-governing nation, where “all men [were] created equal.” This was an entirely new concept in the methodology of a government treating their people. Ideas almost identical to this had previously only been seen in the European Enlightenment, written by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet “Common Sense,” inspired by ideas from Thomas Locke. Sadly, these aspirations were not carried out to the fullest of their potentials and hypocrisy flourished throughout
The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.
The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized management system widely used for responding to both natural and man-made disasters. It provides a flexible and scalable framework for command, control, and coordination of emergency response efforts. The ICS is designed to facilitate effective communication, enhance situational awareness, and ensure a coordinated response among multiple agencies and organizations involved in disaster management. When it comes to man-made disasters, such as terrorist attacks or industrial accidents, the ICS provides a structured approach to coordinate response efforts among various agencies, including law enforcement, fire departments, emergency medical services, and hazardous materials teams (USDA, n.d., p.3). It enables these entities to work together seamlessly, share information, and allocate resources effectively to mitigate the incident's impact.
