Blog #8: Washington's Farewell Address

Blog #8


After two terms of service George Washington left the office of the president, leaving behind his hopes and aspirations for the future of the government. Beginning the address, Washington starts by stating how he wishes not to be considered for the next presidential election. His choice to voluntarily step down from office highlights his good nature as he decided against the power of the presidency and was content with two terms. Furthermore, Washington expresses his gratitude toward the people of the united states but states he will not leave without laying down the concerns that he fears will plague the office if acted upon. One of these examples is political parties. Washing states that the enemy of all governments are political parties. He yields the fact that human nature will drive people to congregate with members of shared belief, but goes on to state that political parties (factions) will only serve to further divide the country as one party will always seek revenge on their political opponents or seek to expand their influence through the office. Washington's warning about political parties is interesting as 21st century America finds itself in a gridlock position of political opposition today. Another major point proclaimed in his farewell address was religion, morality and education. Washington proclaims that it is necessary to spread these beliefs as "it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened". Washington also argues preservation of these three values protects one's protection of their property as where is security for property "if religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice".  Overall, the preservation of morality, religion and prosperity he said cultivates peace and happiness not just within our nation but also maintains peace with other countries which is why it is important to preserve these ideals. Lastly, Washington warns the country to remain neutral and not forge permanent alliances with other countries. His rationale for this warning was that political alliances could create complected entanglements and that he had seen first hand with the Anglo-French war situation. He believed that political alliances could bring in unwelcome influence from other countries and advised the future politicians to take advantage of America's isolated position in the world. Overall. Washington had great insight in his farewell address, however America still fell prey to these faults despite the forewarning. 

   
Andrew Jackson gave a similar farewell address talking about how America had prospered beyond that of any other nation but also warned the country about the growing danger of sectionalism.

Blog #7: Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality

Blog #7



As discussed in class, moving froward from the revolutionary war, America was bruised and tired. Historians speculate that if the British had quickly reorganized their military and come back at the states defeat for America was likely. Because of the country's need to rebuild, when France called the new country for aid against Britain, Washington was hesitant to join and thus, issued the Proclamation of Neutrality which was America's first act of foreign policy. Washington states in the proclamation that he politely seeks for neutrality of America and the different European powers. He later adds that this policy will be strict and warns American citizens to be careful in their foreign actions because the citizens of the country must also reflect this neutral policy. This was a smart move as while there was opposition of this proclamation because France aided the rebellion, overall it secured future trading partners and kept the US out so they could rebuild.


America also issued a statement of neutrality at the beginning of the great war however tension slowly began to rise after Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare and the US eventually joined the war because of the interception of the Zimmerman telegram.

Blog #6: Federalist Paper #10

Blog #6

1.) What is a faction?
A faction is stated to be a majority or minority of a whole group. A group that deviates either in belief or some other distinction such as political view from the whole population of people. The people of a faction are unified together, bound either by common ground of belief, interest or through their desire for the well being of their community.

2.) Are factions good or bad?
Factions are both. This being stated, factions are bad to a greater extent ad factions are good to a lesser extent. The reason for this comparison is because factions, while expanding the diversity of belief and viewpoint, do much more to divide people and create conflict and struggle rather than to allow for the expansion of ideas. Factions are very much like communism, good on paper, but in reality they only emulate discontinuity. With communism and factions, boiled down the fault is placed of the nature of man. The resilience in which one protects his opinion only adds to the problem of conflicting ground and results in getting nothing accomplished. The paper states that Man is biased against his judgement because of his interest, which in turn corrupts his integrity and thus clashes time and time again without giving an inch of ground. Such can be drawn to the gun debate in America. Pro and anti gun activists are so sunk into their own bias that very little legislation has been passed on this matter despite the numerous shootings in America that seems to rise every year. To this point, factions are good because of this much needed diversity in opinion. The very core of America was founded on the basis of freedom of speech and the inalienable right to voice your opinion. Not everyone thinks the same, and it is from this diversity that the government is able to get perspectives from areas that they themselves would never think of. All in all, factions are both good and bad however the federalist paper targets them to be bad to a greater extent,

3.) Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?
  This is due to the fact that, as Madison states in the paper, you would have to destroy liberty and this is "worse than the disease". Liberty was one of the core values that kindled the revolution and taking this vital ingredient of America away is nigh impossible. To strip an American of their freedom would be to take the very heart of the country with it. Furthermore, the other option would be to give every citizen the same opinions, values and passions. This would completely destroy all diversity of thought in the country and lead the country away from what a democracy is based off of. This difficulty of elimination is very similar to the hate speech problem in the US today. Hate speech is legally protected by the supreme court ruling because freedom to express one's opinion is in the country's constitution but that still doesn't mean hate speech is productive much like factions.

4.) If factions cannot be removed then how can they be controlled?
If one cannot target the faction itself then the solution sought out in the federalist papers was to control the effect of the faction. The paper theorized that the effects of a faction would be better suited to be controlled in a large society with a representative government instead of a smaller society with a popular form of government. Madison examined a republic to solve the faction problem rather than a pure democracy. One of the main differences between these two forms of government is that a republic can pass ideas through the "medium of a chosen body of citizens". This allows for a refinery of public views and the medium chosen body of citizens will be least likely to sacrifice the interests of their country. Essentially, through controlling widespread ideas through the country it allows for people to not become so narrow minded and for the intermingling of ideas that take on mutations so there is diversity but also this preserves cooperation.


5.) Centuries after the federalist papers, the two dominate political factions of 21st century America are the Republicans and the Democrats.


  

Blog #5 Republican Motherhood

Blog #5 Republican Motherhood

1.) What role did the revolutionary war play in the transformation of housewifery to Republican Motherhood?
The revolutionary war sought more duties for women other than just maintaining the house. As stated in document A, it talks about how women were now regarded as patriots in giving service to their country by enlightening the youth of the next generation and employing various skills such as a lady's intellect to guide younger minds to grow to be astute legislators and inquisitive philosophers that would help mold America into what it has become today. The documents also state that this newfound task given to the women of America was a duty of god and a task to be carried out with honor as it was incredibly important. Stated in document B, it says that women in this new Republican Motherhood were there to correct the mistakes of man. While these new "duties" placed of women did not allow themselves to step out of change the world themselves it gave them new purpose to cultivate public happiness and maintain the country's independence.

2.) What were the consequences of Republican Motherhood on Women?
The new system of Republican Motherhood employed on Women a responsibility to train the societies of America in good fashion so that the country may flourish. However, this system doubled down on the restrictions of women staying in the household and stated that is she had a high intellect that those skills were better off being used to train their youth to be smart rather than use that intellect tackling problems on their own. Women were now confined to the household more than ever and it was stated in document A that is she abandoned this sphere of dominion than she is deserting the station which God and nature have assigned her. Republican Motherhood did nothing to advance the role of women in society because they still were not allowed to step outside of their house.

3.) What is the significance of the ideology of Republican Motherhood as a stage in the process of women's specialization?
Republican Motherhood recognized that women were destined for more than just maintaining their household. Women were now slowly becoming more involved in affairs outside the home and moving further in their education so that they could now educate the youth. Now women's role in society was broadening which was the beginning steps in the process of women's specialization.


       

1.) The setting of this photo is in a home during the transition to Republican Motherhood. The picture clearly demonstrates how women were responsible for raising the children.

2.) The women is at the center of the portrait because it is meant to symbolize how women were the center of household life and a center for care for their children. The women represented in this picture looks mildly happy and its clear there is more going on in her head that meets the eye. This lady is republican because she is holding her two sons and caring for them which exemplifies the Republican Motherhood ideology of women being the gardeners of their children.

3.) Her sons represent the values of Republican Motherhood. How the women's main role is to use her knowledge to better educate her children so that they can one day change the world.

4.) Her arm is positioned holding up her child, which is also part of the ideology of the Republican Motherhood. The idea that women's job was to support her children in whatever way possible is reflected by her arm holding her child up and close to her. 

 

Blog #4 Rethinking the Revolution

5 Things I learned from "Rethinking the Revolution" By John E. Ferling

1.) Through beginning to read this article I found it interesting that during the war for independence and after its conclusion, major historical figures such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington took to setting their alibi against the future so that that would be remembered as smart and refined individuals. Following this, comparing to the new knowledge that we have talked about in class about how George Washington was very late to switch sides and fight against the British I find it funny that history stands him up on a pedestal and proclaims he is a "veritable Moses" as Parson Weems stated.      

2.) As I begin to learn new things about the revolutionary war in our class I find it more and more interesting the point Ferling makes about the disparity between people's impression of the civil war and the war for independence. I believe this disparity has some part to do with the fact that rallying to say that the American's in the late 1700's were fighting against the oppressive British in much easier to root for when faced with the opposite choice, to rally behind a war in which these same Americans turned on each other and there was mass slaughter. The math of the revolutionary war that is presented also intrigued me as the death rate for serving in the continental army was higher than serving for either side during the civil war. 

3.) The question the author asks time and time again throughout this piece is why the american revolution is thought of in this great light? It is a very valid question. I had never before stopped to think that through all my schooling, the school system plants a subconscious bias in your brain about this war. About how it was the underdog rough rag tag Americans vs the Pristine oppressive and cruel British. But through this article it is clear this black and white picture is maybe more gray than anything else. I learned that through history there has been this undercover propaganda that highlights only what we want to remember about the war: the signing of the declaration of independence, the British surrender at Yorktown or the persistent courage of the Continental army. 

4.) I also must say that I am shocked to learn much more information about George Washington this year. While coming up on high school I realized that there must be more to this man than I was being taught but it never occurred to me that George Washington is histories Santa Claus. Being since I have been told how George Washington was our best president to date or that he was the most strategic and brave leader than lead us to freedom I find it funny when the article says that he did not once mention a battle of the revolution nor ask congress to commemorate a date in honor for any significant part of the war. Furthermore, George Washington did not utter any famous words of advice in his addresses or letters to congress meanwhile Abraham Lincoln spoke about a house divided cannot stand and remembering the fallen soldiers that gave their lives for the longevity of the union. Interesting.

5.) Finally, one of the continuations to the question mentioned in response 3, I realize that the hindrance of military technology during the revolutionary war was a large contributor to why it was so bloody and awful. Nowadays to end an enemies life it is an easy an pressing a button on a different continent and watching a drone strike or missile go crashing into enemy territory. However, I realize now how deadly the war for Independence must have been because the muskets were not very accurate so close range fighting was inevitable and as the article describes sometimes ended in all out bayonet charges. Even the 78 years between the American revolution and the Civil war was enough for military weapons to improve so that it wasn't just two armies standing face to face and shooting at each other. This factor made me see the American revolution as much more brutal as I read the accounts of the soldiers recalling what life in such a close combat environment was like. 

Blog #3 Declaration of Independence

Blog #3: Declaration of Independence







1.) List the Democratic Principles discussed in the opening.
The Declaration of Independence calls for a creation of a new government but with certain boundaries to ensure that their new government does not turn into a repeat of the much hated British Monarchy. Among these boundaries is the fact that the government should be an institution by the people and for the people that has full consent of the people living under said government. Furthermore, if this newly created government should turn out to be unjust and tyrannical then it is the right of the people to change it or completely disband it. All in all, these democratic principles demand that a government is created for the safety and happiness of the people in which it serves and can be overthrow if the government wavers from this declaration.

2.) List 5 Grievances the colonists were making the King aware of.
One of the grievances the colonists called out against the king was "for imposing taxes on us without our consent". The grievance was one of the driving factors of what brought the colonists to rebel in the first place. The heavy taxes that the British imposed to treat the colonists like English citizens and also to squeeze more money out of the colonies to pay off the 7 years war. Another grievance they stated was "for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world".  The restricted markets that the British imposed on the colonists were unfair and did not allow the colonies to receive any products that were not either filtered through Britain or straight from Britain. Following that, another grievance was "for  quartering large bodies of troops among us". Especially because the red coat army was full of indecent soldiers who were brash and abrasive, the colonists were treated very poorly by the army and making the colonists share their home with this army did not go well received. Another large grievance was "for protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states". The colonists were treated unequally under the British laws which caused great upset because they colonists were supposed to behave and get taxed like British citizens but not treated the same under the law. Finally, "for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government". In short, the colonists were fed up of constantly being overlooked by the British like they were their little play-thing across the sea that Britain could treat however they wanted to.

3.) Summarize what the final paragraph is saying.
The colonies are declaring outright that from this point on, they are free independent states with no connection to Britain and that they are permitted to go about conducting all the business that a nation would. In addition, this action is carried out by the general congress of the new united states and that the congress carries the will of the people in their decision.


4.) The Declaration of Sentiments was signed by Women who sought progressiveness by stating that all men and women are created equal and that they both have certain inalienable right.

Blog #2: Peter Zenger

Blog #2: Peter Zenger

1.) Who was Peter Zenger?
John Peter Zenger was a newspaper printer for the New-York Weekly Journal. Zenger came under legal fire from Governor Cosby as a result of the conflict ignited when William Bradford voiced his opinion against Cosby, in Cosby v. Van Dam. Zenger, caught in the middle of the feud between Bradford and Cosby, was targeted because Governor Cosby sought to take out the New-York Weekly Journal. Cosby was refused a burning order of the paper by the popularly-elected assembly and thus sought to take down the paper by prosecuting their printer: John Peter Zenger.

2.) What was the controversy over his charges?
Zenger was charged with seditious libel. This charge was controversial because Governor Cosby had been halted with his resolve to have issues of the newspaper burned, so he turned to the paper's printer. This attack tried to extend libel law to place the blame on the printer of the paper as well as the author behind the paper. Additionally, by accusing Zenger of seditious libel and challenging the truth of the paper, it brought freedom of the press and the ability to publish something that is not factual into question. Andrew Hamilton expanded on these points by stating that the course case, at its core, was challenging liberty and how the outcome of the case could potentially effect everyone living under the British Government.

3.) What influence did his case have on American governmental traditions?
The end of Crown v. Zenger brought no precedents or laws concerning freedom of the press or seditious libel. However, the result of the case had a large influence on the importance of these two subjects as well as affected the way in which people thought about them. The Zenger decision had a large impact on the U.S government as it later led to the protections of freedom of speech and press outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

4.) What is the lasting significance of his trial?
As the world becomes more diverse, both in national agendas and personal beliefs, freedom of speech and press have become even more important. The ability to speak out against the government or publish what you believe is a privilege that many countries do not have. The Zenger trial revealed how important free speech was in building a successful and thriving nation. The reason such significance is placed on this amendment is because through history, the anger that swells from feeling powerless or unable to speak up is a driving factor in the creation of revolutions; very much like how the colonists had no say against the British government and then revolted for their freedom.

5.) Brown v. Board of Education was another court ruling in history that had a significant impact of the country. The ruling that state laws that allowed racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional was a major victory for the black population in american as well as the abolitionists.

 

Blog #1: Mayflower Compact/Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

Blog #1: Mayflower Compact/Fundamental Orders of Connecticut










1.) What concepts are included in the Mayflower Compact?
  The Mayflower Compact lays simple groundwork for a frame of government in the new colony in northern Virginia. The document suggests that there must be the creation of a political body to better ensure the preservation of the colony and to make sure there is order among the people as well, so the colony can thrive and accomplish what they set out to do. Not only must laws be created, but these laws must be fair and just, to enrich the societal aspect of the colony to keep the people prosperous. Lastly, The Mayflower Compact includes that these laws must be followed by the colonists with the utmost respect and obedience and with these concepts working in tandem the colony will succeed for God, the Christian faith, and the King.

2.) How does the Mayflower Compact reflect an attachment to the "Old" and "New" worlds?
The Mayflower Compact demonstrates an attachment to the "Old" world because the Compact talks about pursuing forward and creating this new colony all in the name of King James, Christianity and God. The reasoning for their voyage ties back to the old world in Europe, especially England with the Monarchy of King James and mercantilism driving exploration of the "New" world. The document also reflects an attachment to the "New" world because the Compact suggests ways of governing the colony such as the body politick and fair, just laws to govern by which steers away from putting the power all in the hands of one person.

3.) How did the Fundamental Order of Connecticut differ from the Mayflower Compact?
 The Fundamental Orders were much more specific and detailed than the Mayflower Compact, designing the exact process of setting up a functioning government, taxing the towns and mandating elections to properly govern the new dwellings on the connectecotte river. In addition to this, The Fundamental Orders was written in the form of a constitution that is neatly proclaimed and with each point of the order identifying a different aspect of the government that is to be built.

4.) What prompted the colonists of Connecticut to take this approach to government?
A specific constitution is very useful for building a government because the creation of a constitution not only inscribes these new laws onto paper, but also creates a reference that the colonists could look back upon while setting everything up. The order also states that wherever there is a congregation of people, that in order to maintain peace God has ordered that an orderly and functional government be set up to keep the peace and unite the people.

5.) In what significant way(s) does the Fundamental Orders reflect a fear of and safeguard against the usurping of power by one person or a chosen few?
The Fundamental Orders make it very clear that the officers who will be in power must be elected in a fair trial by the people as well as the governor cannot serve more than once in two years. The Compact also states that to solidify the choice of the people, each town can send a reasonable proportion of their freemen to the general court to vote for or against laws and orders. These restrictions and emphasis on the election process showcase the fear and methods of safeguarding against having one person or a small group posses all the power.

6.) The Articles of Confederation established the role of the national government and bound the original 13 colonies. The Mayflower Compact and The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut had a similar role when they were created in the 1600's.

My First Blog

Hi! This is the first post of my School Blog account, have a great day gamers. :)