Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing the articles of confederation and the constitution
Comparing the articles of confederation and the constitution
The boston tea party, summary of event
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Edmund Sears Morgan, the author of, The Birth of the Republic, was a Sterling Professor of History at Yale University. Morgan's studies focused on American colonial history and English history. He wrote many books examining the colonial period and the period of Revolution, an example of which is The Birth of the Republic. He is also known for writing a best-selling biography of Benjamin Franklin.1
In The Birth of the Republic, Morgan tells the story of the birth of America and its road to independence, as well as the period after the Revolutionary War, in a blunt and concise manner. He begins by describing an era in which American civilians lived happily, enjoying an appropriate amount of freedom under the ruling of England; their owned property guaranteed their freedom. As soon as the Parliament of England imposed taxes American people after the costly war with France, Americans' freedom was threatened. The book briefly describes the revolutionary war since it is not meant to examine the military aspect excessively. Furthermore, Morgan thoroughly described how the Articles of Confederation was reformed to become the United States Constitution, explaining that it was due to the fact that state governments enjoyed too much power, while central (federal) government was too weak.
The author takes into the humanitarian aspect of revolution in prospect; he talks about how Americans wanted to be equal to Englishmen in respect to being represented in the House of Parliament. The "Stamp Act" is what the thoughts of the author are revolving around. Morgan associated the "Stamp Act" with what he believes Americans have reached before anyone else in the world which is "human equality." They have done so by denying that new taxes and tariffs...
... middle of paper ...
...ents with evidence, which may have hurt his credibility and perspicacity.
The author cites works that he says helped him form his ideas consciously and subconsciously; first of which is George Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Vol. 2); in which Bancroft answers the question "How did the United States come into being as a nation dedicated to principles of liberty and equality?" with utter confidence, according to Morgan.2 Bancroft was born in the post-revolution era in Massachusetts; his father was a revolutionary soldier and an author, which may have made his work biased toward the Patriots rather than the loyalists.
Works Cited
1.Yale University. "Department of History." Accessed January 28, 2014. http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/morgan.html.
2.Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
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.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers to the United States, was not a patriot but a mere loyalist to England before the dissolution between England and the colonies occurred. Sheila L. Skemp's The Making of a Patriot explores how Benjamin Franklin tried to stay loyal to the crown while taking interest in the colonies perception and their own representation in Parliament. While Ms. Skemp alludes to Franklin's loyalty, her main illustration is how the attack by Alexander Wedderburn during the Privy Council led to Franklin's disillusionment with the British crown and the greater interest in making the Thirteen Colonies their own nation. Her analysis of Franklin's history in Parliament and what occurred on the night that the council convened proves the change behind Franklin's beliefs and what lead to his involvement in the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was the colonial agent representing Massachusetts in Parliament in Britain.
One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic
Davidson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Nation of nations: A concise narrative of the American republic. (3rd ed., Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill
Portland: Frank Cass & Company Limited, 1996. Middle Kauff, Robert. A.S.A. The Glorious Cause. The American Revolution, 1763-1789. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Gordon Wood’s Radicalism of the American Revolution is a book that extensively covers the origin and ideas preceding the American Revolution. Wood’s account of the Revolution goes beyond the history and timeline of the war and offers a new encompassing look inside the social ideology and economic forces of the war. Wood explains in his book that America went through a two-stage progression to break away from the Monarchical rule of the English. He believes the pioneering revolutionaries were rooted in the belief of an American Republic. However, it was the radical acceptance of democracy that was the final step toward independence. The transformation between becoming a Republic, to ultimately becoming a democracy, is where Wood’s evaluation of the revolution differs from other historians. He contributes such a transformation to the social and economic factors that faced the colonists. While Gordon Wood creates a persuasive argument in his book, he does however neglect to consider other contributing factors of the revolution. It is these neglected factors that provide opportunity for criticism of his book.
...ned Stamp Act he stated that he, “never saw one of those Stamps” and that he was “certain I never paid a penny for one of them”. So with so much attention being paid to Thomas Paine and his “Common sense” and John Hancock’s larger than life signature, what was the reason for our revolution? While that question may never be answered, there are always the eternal words of Levi Preston, “what we meant in going in for those redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always mean to. That didn’t mean we should”
1776, Book Review It was a good year for a revolution, 1776. But it didn't start off quite as well as the colonists would have liked. When George Washington agreed to take command of the American forces in 1775, he probably didn't realize what he was truly getting himself into. Washington took command of an army made up of old men and young boys that had either come from their farms or the streets. The army was short on weapons and gunpowder, lacked uniforms, and was racked by disease and drunkenness.
The American Revolution is without a question one of the, if not the most, important period in the beginning of American history. Between 1765 and 1783, the colonists rejected the British monarchy and aristocracy after a series of taxes and tariffs were forced upon them, finally the colonists then ultimately overthrew their authority and founded the United States of America. Many historians and authors have debated over the exact reason and overall effects of the War for Independence, however, all agree of the significance and importance of this event. The colonies, which were created as a resource for raw materials and a means for generating profits for Parliament and the Crown, began to desire managing their own affairs and worked towards
America’s form of representative democracy came as a result of the transgressions Britain committed against their colonies. Several hundred years of salutary neglect served well for those living an ocean away from their motherland. Realizing the prosperity that colonies had obtained through a semi-free market society, the King of England and the parliament began enacting many taxes and acts. Taking away the colonies freedom was unsettling amongst the colonists and eventually led to a revolution. This revolution secured freedom from Britain as well as founded a new nation with the first ever constitution. Although the process to achieve democracy in America was a long, laborious road the freedom, prosperity and equality of opportunity shared by those amongst the states could not be denied.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
The start of the American Revolution, described by Edmund Morgan as, “the shot heard around the world,” was the “Americans’ search for principles” (Bender 63). Although the world’s colonies did not necessarily seek independence much like the Americans, the world’s colonies were nonetheless tired of the “administrative tyranny” being carried out by their colonizers (Bender 75). The American Revolution set a new standard in the colonies, proclaiming that the “rights of Englishmen” should and must be the “rights of man,” which established a new set foundation for the universal rights of man (Bender 63). This revolution spread new ideas of democracy for the colonized world, reshaping people’s expectations on how they should be governed. Bender emphasizes America as challenging “the old, imperial social forms and cultural values” and embracing modern individualism” (Bender 74). Bender shapes the American Revolution as a turning point for national governments. The American Revolution commenced a new trend of pushing out the old and introducing new self-reliant systems of government for the former
Boyer,Paul S. Editor, the Oxford Guide to United States History, New York Oxford University Press, 2001
George Bancroft the first well known American historian in the nineteenth century followed this perspective to weave the “great patriotic myth” of the founding of America and its rise to a blossoming world power. In this era when the country was experiencing tremendous growth both in population and territory, many few that the expression of a unique national identity was needed to bind the widely diversified and rapidly growing population with the ideals of American republicanism. This vision of course neglects the fact that w...