Q&A: The Articles of Confederation, The Great Compromise, The Whiskey Rebellion

Question 1

The Articles of Confederation

The objective of the Articles of Confederation was to shape the Continental Congress with the capacity to carry out foreign negotiation, roll out new currency and post office, accomplish relations with the resident Indian people, and employ armed forces to the imaginary state army. There was no national judicial or administrative branch since the restricted authorities provided to the central government under the Articles revealed the rather weak judgment of state identity among the people of the nations. Although the Articles offered a significant opportunity for interstate collaboration by suggesting an organizational outline to the objective for better unity and assisting in determining issues like the Western lands settlement, it was eventually not in a position to offer useful national authority. Though there were various grounds for the failure of the Articles, the main mistake was its incapacity to build unity and an efficient administration of the states (Chu & Dougherty, 2002).

The Great Compromise

In 1787, the framers of the United States Constitutional Conference had accomplished an extremely crucial agreement (Chu & Dougherty, 2002). The Great Compromise (or it is also called the Connecticut Compromise in respect to its Connecticut representatives – Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman) offered a twofold system of congressional delegation. In the House of Representatives, every state would be allocated some amount of seats in relation to its population. In the Senate, all nations would acquire an equal amount of seats.

The Whiskey Rebellion

A small number of years following the Constitutional Conference, the new American nation experienced a severe threat: border farmers rose up against a whiskey levy and threatened to split. In the year 1790, George Washington was in power and the initial meeting was to take place in the new state’s capital, Philadelphia. Several of the border settlers in the counties of Pennsylvania became dissatisfied with the new federal state. Traders could pack whiskey kegs on their mules and horses and transport them across the mountains to the Eastern cities. Brewers sold whiskey openly to the army that was beginning to launch forts along the river Ohio. Some brewers were engaged in big operations, but most farmers made some amount of whiskey every year during harvesting. Some people exchanged whiskey for required items or goods while others gave it out in exchange for cash (Harris & Tichenor, 2010).

Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

During the summer of 1798, the new American state was on the verge of war with France. Some concerned Americans faced both a threatening opposition and a strong enemy abroad. In a bid to reinforce the country during war and squeeze their political enemies, the Federalist Party that was in control approved a sequence of four laws jointly referred to as the Alien and Sedition Acts (Hartman, 2002). A leading Federalist by the name, Alexander Hamilton, supposed that the new laws would bring about national harmony. The Acts gave rise to more arguments since they subdued the likelihood of opposition politics. The federalist schemes with the acts flopped. As the predicament with France cooled, public backing for the acts quickly went down.

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

These were the resolutions established in order to oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts endorsed by the Federalists in the year 1798. The Jeffersonian Republicans were the first ones to respond to the resolutions implemented by the Kentucky legislature in November of 1798 (Silber, 2001). Jefferson created them with an aim to harass the Federalists’ wide version of the Constitution that would have broadened the authorities of the national state over other states. The resolutions affirmed that the Constitution only recognized a solid between the states and, therefore, the federal state had no authority to apply powers not expressly delegated under the stipulations of the pack. Thus, in the case the federal state took such powers for granted, its operations under them would be invalid. Therefore, it was the authority of the states, not the federal state to make decisions as to the functionality of such acts.

Question 2

During the American Revolution, several women took over and participated in British and American armies. A number of them were daughters or wives of soldiers or police officers, who kept a steady presence in the military camps. However, they did not often provide any military task during the war; therefore, the records did not contain their names. It may be complicated to affirm exactly what their responsibilities were, but it may be gathered that they comprised majorly of mending, laundry, cooking, childcare and nursing the sick (Hartman, 2002). On the other hand, women during the antebellum era were not equal to the rest of the citizens of America. Nevertheless, several gained advantages from the better chances and alterations in social mindsets that emerged prior to the Civil War. They were in a position to acquire education despite the fact that the majority of the population opposed them. Moreover, they found jobs, even though the work positions and salaries available were less in number as compared to those for men.

Republican Motherhood

Prior, during, and following the American Revolution, a specific mindset towards the duties of women in the new United States existed nowadays called Republican Motherhood. It focused on the principle that the daughters of the loyalists should be brought up to support the principles of republicanism in an effort to extend republican ideals to the subsequent generation. Therefore, it represented civic responsibility. After the Revolution, it led to women’s increased responsibilities in abolitionism, education, and women’s rights.

Cult of Domesticity

During the 18th century, another attitude appeared called Cult of Domesticity. It concerned the daughters and wives belonging to the men of upper and middle classes. Men of the above-mentioned social classes had steady incomes and believed that women’s should be pure, passive to their husbands’ decisions, and should engage only in housekeeping and upbringing. During this era, several women, both married and unmarried, had no means for a home, nor the safety that allows them to be sexually clean. Some of them were coerced to work and enslaved all over the South, hence were considered unworthy and immoral (Silber, 2001).

Moral Suasion

In the years 1830s, several of Worcester County abolitionists were associates of the South or North Division Anti-slavery societies, two well-known local abolitionist movements that were a branch of the drastic American Anti-slavery order created by Garrison William. These two groups remained until the beginning of the Civil War and their members campaigned for the split of Massachusetts from the Union and all political or pro-slavery organizations. It also campaigned for the instant eradication of slavery. They believed slavery was a sin, hence were opposed to it, and campaigned an approach known as moral suasion to imply that the collective change originated from the alterations in the principles of people. Women’s role during this time was to make authoritative speeches concerning moral matters, including the issue of slavery, and to pass on the information to as many people as possible.

American Temperance Society

Apart from teaching, the middle-class women practiced their ethical rights by engaging in restructuring organizations that paid attention to managing repulsive behavior like alcohol consumption and sexual sin. The American Temperance Society got a voice from the religious principles of the second Great Awakening and the influence of immigration. It is in the year 1828 that Beecher Lyman instituted the movement that condemned idleness, drinking alcohol, family violence, and crime (Silber, 2001).

Lowell Massachusetts

The Boott Cotton factory at Lowell Massachusetts was distinctive of what some individuals referred to as cathedral of industry where individuals from across the world struggled for the production of textiles. The characteristic feature of the corporation was that the female workers, mainly the daughter of the farmers of New England, were engaged in textile production there. By 1840, a total of 8,000 women, which constituted more than a half of the workforce, worked at the factory.

Stay Connected

Live Chat Order now
Stay Connected

Question 3

Federalists (John Adams)

Federalist Party was the early United States political party that campaigned for a robust central state. It seized authority from 1789 to 1801 at the period of the rise of the nation’s political party system. This term was initially used in 1787 to portray the followers of the new Constitution, who stressed the federal nature of the planned Union. John Adams, its representative, became the second president of the US. Being a Massachusetts lawyer, he acquired fame at the time of the storm surrounding the Stamp Act of 1765, as he was a bright advocate of American rights. During his tenure as the president, he was determined to carry on Washington’s strategy of worldwide impartiality. He advocated for an accord with France in 1800 but was caught in the dilemma between the pro-British factors inside his Federalist Party and the pro-French Republican Party established by Jefferson. Historians have commended the quest for neutrality in the case of Adams as well as campaigns for the Alien and Sedition Acts that was passed into law in 1798 (Egerton, 2014).

Jeffersonian Republicans (Thomas Jefferson)

The Jeffersonian Republican Party also known as the Democratic-Republican Party is a precursor of the contemporary Democratic Party. It developed in the 1790s in the early days of the presidency of George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, who is believed to be the most successful president of the US since he managed to sit for presidency for two terms (1801-1809) was the leader of this party. The Republicans believed in the rights of states, including personal freedom. Their worry was that the concentration of federal authority under Adams and Washington symbolized a precarious danger to autonomy. The Republicans preferred France in foreign policy that had supported the colonies during the revolution. The thoughts stood for the exodus from guidelines of the Federalists under Adams and Washington’s administrations. The Federalists had instituted monetary guidelines that offered more authority to the federal state and had denied ties with France in goodwill to Britain (Hartman, 2002).

Democratic-Republicans (Andrew Jackson)

Democratic-Republican Party was the second political party in the US created by the secretary of state Thomas Jefferson and his friend Madison James in the year 1791-93. The party managed the presidency and the Congress, including most states at the time of the first party system. Andrew Jackson was a wealthy lawyer and an aspiring politician. His skills exhibited during the Britain versus the United States war made him acquire fame as a military hero. He ended up becoming the most powerful political figure in the years 1820s and 1830s. He became president and the leader of the new Democratic Party between the years 1829-1837. Jackson campaigned for the rights of states and the extension of slavery into the western borders, as he was against the Congress and the Whig party on polarizing problems like the Bank of the US. His legacy eventually flawed by his participation in the forceful transfer of Native Americans living on the East Mississippi (Chu & Dougherty, 2002).

Whigs (John Tyler)

This political party was full of life in the 19th century in the US. It was regarded as essential to the second party system and was active from 1830 to 1850. It was created to oppose the strategies of the Democratic Party. John Tyler, its representative, was the president of America between the years 1841 and 1845. He followed the demise of the President, Henry Harrison between the years 1773-1841. Tyler was the first Vice President to become president because of the death of his forerunner. He was a strong campaigner on rights of the state. Earlier, he was a Democratic-Republican, but in 1840, he vied for the presidency on the Whig ticket. During his tenure as the president, he disagreed with the Whigs, who eventually attempted to indict him. His administrative achievement was the successful takeover of Texas in 1845.

Republicans (Abraham Lincoln)

The Republican Party was opposing the Democratic Party. Former participants of the Whigs and anti-slavery activists have founded this party. Its aim was to oppose slave labor and promote independent businesspersons. The most famous representative of the Republicans is Abraham Lincoln, who was the president of the US during 1861-1865. He started the Civil War and, as a result, abolished slavery, and strengthened the economy of the US.

Question 4

By the middle of the year 1840, Slavery was well rooted in Texas since here dwelt majorly Southern settlers. The South was ready for new land in order to enlarge its economic and social system. However, the North was unwilling to embrace the expansion of slavery into their new territories since the Northern whites were not in a position to battle with Southern plantation slavery. The reason for that was their cultural discrimination (Harris & Tichenor, 2010). It was not the ethical demands of abolitionism, but the realistic question of slavery that drove a wedge between the South and North. Even though, slavery endured the predicaments of the revolutionary years, social and economic alterations in the new state drove a wedge between the slave South and the free North.

Cotton Gin

The discovery of the cotton gin in the year 1793 strengthened the innermost significance of slavery in the South. Slavery was never common in the North despite the fact that some of the entrepreneurs’ areas grew wealthier on investments from the Southern plantations and the slave trade. Between the years 1774 and 1804, the entire northern state eradicated slavery; however, the odd institution was still essential in the South. Even though, the United States Congress banned the African slave trade in 1808, the local trade thrived, as the slave population in the United States almost tripled. By 1860, the population was about 4 million, and half of the people inhabited the cotton-producing areas of the South (Hartman, 2002).

Elijah Lovejoy

Northerners reacted to abolition in several ways. Businesspeople dreaded abolition, thinking it would spoil trade with the South. Slavery humiliated several Southerners at the beginning of the century because they needed liberation before the liberator could embark on publication. They tried to defend their position by pointing out that God approved slavery, according to the Old Testament, so it should be correct. On the other hand, Northern clergymen opposed that Southerners relied understanding on intense literalism. Nevertheless, even when Elijah Lovejoy, the famous abolitionist, passed away in 1837, anti-slavery movements were no longer present.

Gag Rule

The first American Anti-Slavery Society Convention was held in 1833 in Philadelphia. In a reaction, anti-abolition riots occurred in several northeastern states, including Philadelphia and New York between the years 1834-1835. Many Southern states, starting with the Carolinas, demanded from other nations to try to contain abolition movements and their writings. The United States House of Representatives implemented a gag rule, involuntarily tackling abolition schemes. During the Gag Rule era of 1835-1844 that prohibited the debate of slavery in Congress, abolitionists challenged that the slave authority was holding back the freedom of speech (Harris & Tichenor, 2010).

Limited time Offer

0
0
days
:
0
0
hours
:
0
0
minutes
:
0
0
seconds
Get 19% OFF

Pro-Slavery Argument

During the 1830-1860, the pro-slavery argument was at its peak. William Harper, James Hammond, and John Calhoun were the most famous people spreading the pro-slavery argument. The well-known The Mudsill Theory of 1858 by James Hammond expressed the pro-slavery political argument. The speech disagreed that slavery would bring an end to social ailing by eradicating the class of landless poor people. These pro-slavery assumptions supported a class-sensitive outlook on American antebellum society. They felt that blight of several past societies was the subsistence of a category of poor individuals without land. Southern pro-slavery assumptions’ followers felt that this category of poor individuals without land was naturally controlled, which damaged the entire society. Thus, the utmost danger to democracy was viewed as originating from a class rivalry that destroyed the state’s economy and the society.

Pottawatomie Creek

Pottawatomie Creek occurred as the reaction to the actions of pro-slavery people, who attacked the city of Lawrence. John Brown decided to revenge the slave persecutes at the small settlement of Pottawatomie Creek, close to Osawatomie. Brown, having four of his sons and two or three others, stormed into the settlement during the night, dragged the five sleeping settlers from their cottages and slashed them with cutlasses. On May 1856, he led the group of militant abolitionists who murdered five pro-slavery settlers in Pottawatomie Creek. He maintained that he did not take part in the killings but endorsed them as substantiated payback for a pro-slavery battery of Lawrence, Kansas (Hartman, 2002).

Question 5

Missouri Compromise

Missouri Compromise took place in 1820 and was a determination that became successful between the South and North and approved by the Congress. In this case, it enabled for the admission of Missouri as the 24th state in the year 1821 (Silber, 2001). It manifested the start of the stretched sectional disagreement over the expansion of slavery that constituted to the American Civil war. In spite slavery had been a discordant problem in the US for years, there had never been a sectional hostility that was so clear and aggressive as it was in the Missouri predicament.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

This treaty was signed in February 1848 and it stopped the Mexican-American War in goodwill to the US. In May 1846, the war had broken out about 2 years earlier over a border disagreement involving Texas. The accord supplement 525,000 square miles to the US state, including parts of California, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Mexico, on the other hand, surrendered all claims to Texas and acknowledged the Rio Grande as the southern border of America.

Kansas-Nebraska Act

This act was signed in 1854 bill enabled inhabitants of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide whether slavery would be mandated within the new borders of the state. The bill reversed the Missouri Compromise’s, which stated that slavery was prohibited on these territories. The disagreements that took place between anti-slavery and pro-slavery in the outcome of the Act’s course contributed to the era of violence referred to as Bleeding Kansas and contributed to the beginning of the Civil War (Silber, 2001).

  1. The Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians essay
  2. Bacon’s Revolt essay
  3. Art History essay
  4. Wars and Revolutions essay

0

Preparing Orders

0

Active Writers

0

Support Agents

Limited offer Get 15% off your 1st order
get 15% off your 1st order with code first15
Close
  Online - please click here to chat