The documents that seems to have been the most in influential in furthering the conservative cause seem to have a common idea throughout them. This idea that these particular documents seem to display is a refusal to play by the prescribed rules of the establishment republicans conservatives in power at the time. The conservative movement saw them as temporizers ready to contain Communism rather than roll it back, tolerate rather than terminate the New Deal, change race relations by federal edit, and accommodate labor unions. The conservative movement believed that Nixon lost to John F Kennedy in 1960 because he was too moderate which is how Barry Goldwater came onto the scene for the 1964 presidential election. Document 9 clearly describes …show more content…
a position of difference between states rights and civil rights. Articulating the overreach of the federal government into states rights it makes the case that the constitution does not require states to maintain racially mixed schools which of course was generally appealing to the South.
Document 9 also notes the difference between establishment republicans as “temporizers” and the true conservative movement that Barry Goldwater represented. In Milton Friedman’s, Capitalism and Freedom 1962, Document 11 contends that economic political liberties go together and to diminish one is to diminish the other. for example, As stated by Friedman, “A housing program intended to improve the housing conditions of the poor, to reduce juvenile delinquency, and to contribute to the removal of urban slums, has worsened the housing conditions of the poor, contributed to juvenile delinquency, and spread Urban blight.” Earning a Nobel Prize in 1976 based on his work Friedman became the conservatives favorite economist providing further legitimacy to the growing conservative movement. By 1969, Spiro Agnew while serving as Nixon’s running mate made speeches in Mississippi and Pennsylvania during the Presidential campaign, Document 15. During this time, Agnew’s attacks on arrogant intellectuals, snobs and social permissiveness made him the Republicans most effective
fundraiser. Relying on his speech writers Harry Dent and Pat Buchanan, Agnew contributed heavily in regaining conservative support that had wavered because of Nixon’s foreign policy decisions. No doubt Agnew’s speeches advanced the conservative cause during the critical campaign of 1969. Another very influential Document came in 1971 by Lewis F Powell Jr., titled Confidential Memorandum: Attack on American Free Enterprise System, Document 18. Recognizing the anti-business attitudes of the new left and counterculture of the 60s, Powell understood the battle for the conservative movement had to be one not just in politics but in the arena of public opinion. Document 18, written for the US Chamber of Commerce, caused the chamber to become a much more aggressive defender of capitalism. Further, it helped to create a more broad phenomenon in which money from corporations and right-wing foundations could influence politics. Within the context of Document 18, Powell advocates a pro business model by which conservatives with the help of the Chamber of Commerce would combat the liberal attacks on the American free enterprise system. Successful efforts to maintain the traditional family by stopping the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment were realized by 1976. Document 24, details an interview of Phyllis Schlafly with the Washington Star. By founding NOW-National Organization for Women and successfully stopping the Equal Rights Amendment Phyllis Schlafly had created as a byproduct a movement that had successfully fused many Christian Denominations together into one movement for a conservative political cause. Essentially, the entire Christian Right conservative movement still in effect today owes its development to the efforts of Phyllis Schlafly.
All of these documents prove that both parties had an unequal distribution between both strict and loose constructionism. Neither of them were completely equal on what their party stood for. During this period of time, both parties changed, sometimes siding with the other party, The Democratic/Republicans did not always follow their views, nor did the Federalists, answering my stated thesis.
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
It is clear that Richard Nixon was elected as a conservative. He promised themes of “law and order” (Lecture 24, November 14), pandered to what he called the “silent majority” (Silent Majority Speech, 1969) and promised to end the unpopular Vietnam War, a product itself of liberal policies and ideals. He offered a sharp contrast in rhetoric between the soaring “we can do it all” language perpetuated by Kennedy and Johnson (Lecture 25, November 19). But how truly conservative was “Tricky Dick’s” presidency? Did the man who was elected specifically to end the seemingly endless chaos of the sixties actually prolong the national nightmare?
They had written 85 documents known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the implementation of the aforementioned powers that the central government lacked. Federalist Paper No. 12 argued that tariffs are the most effective way of acquiring funds for the state, and that a tax on income and “…personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of...” They advocated for nationwide tariffs, which they believed would be effective based on how much success other mercantile nations had with them. The federalists had a large amount of support within the nation, and saw great success when publishing their papers, but they still had a sizable opposition. When gathered at the constitutional convention, they could not garner enough support to pass their version of the constitution, and thus had to make several compromises. Many of these were rational compromises which served to appease several parties at once; however, contrary to that pattern the 3/5th Compromise was just a way to get the southern states to approve the new
While it is always debatable as to the extent of influence the Federalist Papers had in the final success of the ratification of the new constitution, they remain a crucial element in the understanding of the Constitution of the United States and provide a stable foundation from which Constitutional interpretation and study can be
This disunion was attempted once between the states and brought about the Civil War. A conservative document that lays the foundation for our republic is exactly what our country needed and that is what prevailed. It is the world's oldest written constitution still in effect. It contains the very principles that our statutes and codes emerged from. It defines that our government must be confined to the rule of law. The Constitution’s 25 Amendments, added over a period of 180 years, have in most cases, plugged the loopholes, rather than change the focus of the document. This is what I believe in preserving, the document in its entirety. I do not believe that it is a document that is open to direct change. However, I do believe that there is some truth in what former President Franklin D.
On September 17, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention sent their new constitution to the states for ratification. The Federalists highly approved of the Constitution because it allowed for a more central and powerful government that was previously undermined under the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalists, however, didn’t want a powerful central government, but, instead, powerful state governments; in response to the Constitution, many Anti-Federalists began writing essays and creating pamphlets as a means of arguing against it. In retaliation to the Anti-Federalists attempt at getting states to not ratify the Constitution, many Federalists developed a group of essays known as the Federalist Papers, which argued for the ratification of the new law system.
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.
Looking at the United States in 1965, it would seem that the future of the liberal consensus was well entrenched. The anti-war movement was in full swing, civil rights were moving forward, and Johnson's Great Society was working to alleviate the plight of the poor in America. Yet, by 1968 the liberal consensus had fallen apart, which led to the triumph of conservatism with the election of President Reagan in 1980. The question must be posed, how in the course of 15 years did liberal consensus fall apart and conservatism rise to the forefront? What were the decisive factors that caused the fracturing of what seemed to be such a powerful political force? In looking at the period from 1968 to the triumph of Reagan in 1980, America was shaken to the core by the Watergate scandal, the stalling of economic growth, gas shortages, and the Vietnam War. In an era that included the amount of turbulence that the 1970's did, it is not difficult to imagine that conservatism come to power. In this paper I will analyze how the liberal consensus went from one of its high points in 1965 to one of its lows in 1968. From there I will show how conservatism rose to power by the 1980 elections. In doing so, I will look at how factors within the American economy, civil rights issues, and political workings of the United States contributed to the fracturing of the liberal consensus and the rise of conservatism.
they are different. It is like two sides of a coin, one is for options,
The United States population in 1850 was 31,000,000. Fourteen percent of that was African American. And then ten percent of the African American population was free. But what exactly does freedom mean in terms of what they could do? The north is commonly viewed as being anti-slavery and keeping blacks free. Three regions make up the North - New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, and the Midwest. In total, these states had a free black population of 221 thousand, which is surprisingly a smaller number than the number of free blacks in the south - 250 thousand. But just how free were free blacks, especially in the anti-slavery north? It depends on what "free" means. All people supposedly had access to three general freedoms - there's political
Freedom is having the right to own, act, think, and speak without any restrictions from the outside. Ever since the New World was discovered, people have been fighting for their independence till this day. People of other colors and race have been forced to do labor without their consent. Today, those same people have been blamed or accused of crimes that were not committed by them despite of being free. Freedom has different meanings and those meanings change overtime; however sometimes the significance of freedom does not change.
The ideas of freedom and good are closely related. Freedom is the idea of being free or at peace instead of being trapped or unable to live as you choose. Good is something that is right or proper. Without the concept of good, there would not be freedom, a fundamental, universal right.
In the wake of World War 2, countries around the world began to see their economic situations change. While the war may have had some very positive effects on the economy in the United States, other countries were not as lucky. At the time, the United States was focused on getting themselves out of the depression. The war enabled the U.S. economy to steadily improve, as I will further discuss. However, many countries faced repeated hardships as the war surged on. These results directly connect to the Freedom, Equality and the Common Good theme, as other nation’s economies suffered in the midst of the United States individual prosperity.
Comparison of the Implications of Negative and Positive Freedom for the Relationship Between the Individual and the State