In 1830, there were two highlighted U.S. senators on opposing parties; one was Daniel Webster of the Whig party and the other was Robert Y. Hayne of the Democratic party. In January of 1830, a series of debates between the two senators began over whether states have the right to nullify federal law and views on the Union. Webster stood with a Hamiltonian ideological school as he was for a centralized government and opposed nullification and Hayne stood with a Jeffersonian ideological school as he was for more power in the state governments and was arguing on behalf of nullification. Many sources were used to craft the arguments for both sides, such as The Constitution being used by both Webster and Hayne, but Hayne used his Compact Theory to …show more content…
We do not impose geographical limits on our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our power of legislation.” (Webster-Hayne 8). This was a good point to use in his argument because he is showing that the states work better united as one with a centralized government, rather than having state powers coerce each other to adopt the same laws and principles. In this speech, Webster used patriotism as a big persuasive factor to get the others in the Senate to gear more towards his side of the argument, which worked in his favor as after giving this speech, more people sided with his argument. Robert Y. Hayes, in my opinion, may be the most politically correct in this situation because he showed obvious faults in the centralized government that the state governments would be able to handle on their own if they had that
The topic for the second paper is: Compare and Contrast Lincoln and Douglas on the Issue of the House Divided. Highly recommended that you read the two articles by Jaffa posted in the "Content" section.
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
against slavery , it refused to attempt to stamp it out of the regions it was
In Tindall and Shi’s “America,” the reader is denied the opportunity to have a complete understanding of both the Virginia Plan (representing the large states) and the New Jersey plan (representing the small states.) In order for the people of today to comprehend their government, a detailed historical account of how our government came to be is an important factor. Given a brief explanation, the reader is only vaguely introduced to the concepts that there were disagreements in how our country should be run in the beginning. More emphasis is given to the outcomes and effects of the Connecticut Compromise than why the Compromise was needed in the first place.
In 1853, Brooks was elected to the 33rd Congress as a member of the Democratic Party. While in office, Brooks had met an anti-slavery campaigning Senator named Charles Sumner. Charles Sumner was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and graduated from Harvard law school in 1830. He edited a law review, the American Jurist, and served as a reporter for the United States Circuit Court. Sumner also lectured on constitutional and international law at Harvard ’s law school for three winter terms. Sumner first became a politician in 1845, while the Mexican-American War was in dispute. In an Independence Day speech before city officials in Boston, Sumner denounced the use of war for settling international disputes and promoted arbitration instead. He also opposed the annexation of Texas and criticized the institution of slavery. From these speeches, Sumner was known as a keen and favored public speaker. In 1848, Sumner abandoned the Whig party in support of Martin Van Buren’s unsuccessful Free-Soil campaign for presidency. In 1851, a Democratic-Free-Soil coalition in the Massachusetts legislature chose Sumner to fill the U.S. Senate seat of Daniel Webster, who had resigned to become Secretary of State.
There are few speeches in the American history that compel us towards great acts of patriotism. Patrick Henry's speech in the Virginia Provincial Convention of 1775 is a prime example of one of these great speeches. During the debates on whether or not to compromise with Great Britain, Patrick Henry proposed the idea to his fellow members of the First Continental Congress to declare war on Great Britain. A reason why the speech was so powerful was the rhetorical strategies of the diction of slavery, the appeal to God, and the appeal to logic, that he deftly employed. After Patrick Henry opens his speech by respectfully acknowledging the opposition for their own opinions, intellect, and patriotism, he gains the attention of the Congress
The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.
At the convention, the founders were debating about how many representatives in the Congress should each state allowed to have. For example, James Madison, who came from Virginia, one of the larger states, suggested that representation should be proportional to the state’s population (Hart et al. 109-110). Coming from a state with larger population had influenced Madison’s proposal, for he reasoned that since Virginia has a large population of people, so more representatives are needed to represent more people. However, the states with a smaller population disagreed with this proposal and came up with a proposal that would counter Madison’s proposal. Paterson, who came from New Jersey, one of those states with smaller population, proposed a plan in which equal number of people should be elected from each state for representation in the Congress (Hart et al. 109-110). It was evident to see how coming from a smaller state had affected Paterson’s proposal, for he feared
From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together.
After James Monroe’s second term as the fifth president of the United States ended, preparations were already underway for the next election to determine who would become the president. There were four prominent candidates running. They were Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, and Andrew Jackson. John C. Calhoun, who was Secretary of War under Monroe, was originally thinking of running as president but dropped out in the hope of becoming Vice President. Clay was the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Adams was the Secretary of State under President Monroe, Crawford was most notably Secretary of the Treasury under Monroe, and Jackson was a war hero during the War of 1812. For the first time, none of the men who were running for office identified as Federalists. A Federalist is someone who believes in a strong central government. All four men said that they were Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic-Republicans, who were also known as the Republican party, generally opposed the viewpoints that the Federalists held. They believed in states’ rights; that is that the states should be more powerful than the National government....
The essay under critical analysis is entitled, “Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” written by Gary B. Nash. This analytical essay consumes the fourth chapter of the book Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, edited by Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, and Ray Raphael. His essay, along with the twenty-one other accounts in the book depicting lesser-known individuals, whose contributions in securing independence from Great Britain and creating a new government in America rival that of the nation’s more notorious and beloved founders, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Dr. Nash focuses his efforts on Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus of the 1770’s and 80’s and the lasting influences of the 1776 constitution it created within American politics as well as several nations around the world. Within his analysis and interpretation of Pennsylvanian politics during the American Revolution, Dr. Nash utilizes a pro-whiggish, radically sympathetic stance to assert the Radical Caucus’ remarkable ability to gain support from and bestow power upon the common working man, take political power from conservatives within Pennsylvania’s public offices, and revolutionize democratic thought through their landmark reformations of the state’s constitution. Respecting the fact that Dr. Nash’s position on this subject required extensive research through first hand accounts, pamphlets, newspapers and the analysis of countless preserved records, indicates that the account he has given is very credible. Complying with his presentation of facts and the significance of the topic within early American history has prevented a well-rounded counter-argument ...
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.
Continuing the metaphor of faction as a disease, Madison labels “[a] republic” as “the cure for which we are seeking”. Madison notes that a republican government differs from pure democracy in that the delegation of the government is smaller and can thus achieve efficient action. Another contrast lies also in the extent to which a republic has influence over a “greater sphere of country”. The passing of public views “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens” allows for refinement of ideas due to the influence of elected officials’ wisdom and is “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves”. To protect against the caprices of wicked men, the number of representatives of the people will be a quantity that stymies the influence of the few but is able to, as Madison states, “guard against the confusion of a multitude”. Madison then references his belief in the common sense and good will of men in that “the suffrages of the people” is likely to result in the election of men most deserving and fit for their roles as representatives and lawmakers. Madison presents an avowal that counters one of the Anti-Federalists’ major grievances: “[t]he federal Constitution forms a happy combination” with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”; Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger
Anti-Federalists believed that a representative should not “filter out” the people’s requests, but reflect on them exactly as the people asked. I feel this is totally incorrect, because if a person’s opinion is wrong, and it won’t benefit the country, then why should the representative follow through with it. Anti-Federalists are trying to appease the people instead of helping them and doing what’s best for them, even if the people disagree with it. That’s why the representative must be educated, and “have a good head on his shoulders”.
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...