The quality of a secondary history text is dependent on the ability of an author to not only research the topic as well as come up with an original argument, but also how well they are able to remove their personal bias’s when forming arguments and coming to conclusions. As easy as it is to understand this and write it on a page, succeeding in accomplishing the aforementioned tasks is not as easy of a proposition however. In 1960 John C. Miller and HarperCollins Publishers Inc. published The Federalist Era: 1789-1801. Beginning in the years immediately following the Constitutional Convention, and ending with the Election of 1800, The Federalist Era examines the fascinating birth and growth of the nation. The Federalist Era is an extremely thorough …show more content…
study of the era in which the foundation of the United States of America was constructed and the federal government began to take shape at its very heart. After earning his PhD. in 1939 at Harvard University, John Miller began to publish works and teach as a professor at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. In the early 1950s he was invited as a visiting professor at Stanford University and one year later he received a permanent position there. At the time of his death in 1991, Miller was one of the nation’s foremost experts on early American history. At its very core, The Federalist Era is a study of American foreign relations and domestic political development in the years immediately following the Constitutional Convention of 1787. More specifically, Miller refines his themes to focus on the measures he believed were “...necessary to promote the growth, prosperity, and cohesion of the United States...” as well as how the individual was to be protected from the government in regard to his ability to freely “...exercise his constitutional rights.” Summarizing himself in one sentence, “...the dominant themes of this book are Union and Liberty.” (pg.XIII) These themes of union and liberty are in many ways pitted against one another in the very idea of the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist, or what became the Democratic-Republican vs Federalist. The federalists desired to create a union among the American states, believing that it would create the greatest chance of success in their 'the great experiment'. Democratic-Republicans on the other hand were looking at the other side of the same coin. They too wished to establish a stable environment for the 'experiment' to unfold and take shape, however they were concerned with losing the liberties that had been promised to them. Afraid the forfeiture of state rights and subsequent consolidation of power into a federal government would end up creating a government equivalent to that of Great Britain, Democratic Republicans were unwilling to trade one tyrannical government for another and even after the Constitutional Convention major divisions existed. The problems that plagued the young American nation were rooted in these very arguments and the growing pains that ensued are documented by Miller in his text. The passions the founding fathers had in fighting for their idea of what direction the nation should go in resulted in an extremely important era of American political history. This is where Miller's text begins, the nation was “...divided into three distinct sections...” whose economic and social institutions were so different that the primary challenge to the American government, according to James Madison, “was to unite 'the minds of men accustom to think and act differently.'” (pg.2) These divisions in the population extended from the lowly civilian to the politicians in the national capital. Miller examines the politician disagreements by exploring the preoccupation in Congress regarding the adoption of a Bill of Rights. It had become an issue of division that it was “…given precedent over the organization of a Federal Judiciary-without which no part of the revenue system could operate...and the authority of the Federal government could not be extended over the states.” (pg.22) As a result of differing ideologies, the disagreements in the capital were beginning to destroy the American nation from within. In order to so greatly explore the development of the federal government and its policies in the depth he did, Miller was unable, or intentionally neglected to, examine the history and desires of state politics during The Federalist Era in any great detail.
This leaves the history a bit unfinished in some ways because of the absence of states original positions and political ideas. It would not have been necessary to document each and every state but a single chapter on the topic of individual state governments could have been very beneficial to the finished product aiding in the understanding of their beliefs and actions. Focusing almost the entirety of his scholarship on correspondents between statesmen, as well as the language of legislation and its interpretation, Miller has taken a macro view in his study of the …show more content…
era. Although Miller does well in many instances in historically mapping the era in a subjective manner, he does always seem to give the Federalists the benefit of the doubt when examining the less popular or more controversial topics. When the unpopular Alien and Sedition and Naturalization Acts of 1798, created unrest domestically, Miller absolves Hamilton and Adams by saying that “although they approved of them, neither President Adams nor Alexander Hamilton inspired them.” (pg. 229) The President of the United States, should not have been let off of questioning so easily without more prodding into the issue. The guilt according to Miller could be found in Congress, with most of the blame falling onto Representative Robert Harper of South Carolina and Senator James Lloyd of Maryland. This is very convenient for Miller because since there is no way to completely absolve the Federalists for passing of the Acts, he was able to place the blame upon two men who appear in his text only twice each, and he is able to distance the Federalist Party from the unfavorable Alien and Sedition Acts. As unpopular as these acts were, as horrible as the language is within them, and as tyrannical as they appear, Miller views them more as a necessary evil. Miller absolves the Federalists and the passing of the Acts due to the fact that “…in the Alien and Sedition Acts, as viewed by Federalists, the national government was doing no more than self-preservation required.” (pg. 232) They were acting in their own best interests to slow the dilution of their population from the immigration of peoples whom had differing views. The purpose of this was so immigrants would have a more difficult time spreading radical ideologies in the United States. The first fifteen to twenty years of existence for the United States is a time period filled with historical figures who were so influential in the formation of our nation that their names and faces now grace our holidays and currency.
Due to the cults of personality that develop around the more influential of the founding fathers, the likely hood of a scholar having difficulty removing their personal bias’s while studying the era is increased. This does not in any way mean scholars cannot subjectively study the era and create fantastic works of scholarship. It does however create the issue of historical individuals being placed on pedestals by modern historians. This very issue has hampered Miller and in many ways detracts from his research and perspective presented in The Federalist Era. Two of the most important figures in early American history are Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton due to their contributions in state building and economic reform, and in Miller’s text these two individuals are used as the figureheads for the argument between opposing factions that developed within the Federalists Party. Although this serves as a fantastic way to present the information, Miller clearly is favorable of Hamilton over Jefferson throughout his text. At one point he even describes Hamilton as “possessing the ability-rare in a man so deeply committed in the issues of the day-of viewing himself and his adversaries objectively.”
(pg.81) On the other hand, this macro perspective that Miller has taken does give the reader a look into the unbalanced and tumultuous atmosphere which existed around the government at the time. The Federalist Era offers the reader a very entertaining and detailed look at the formation of the United States government in the late 18th century and because of Miller's macro study According to Miller, the likely hood of success of this 'experiment' hinged on these opposing fractions ability to work together and compromise on issues. Through the use of many primary sources, including a number of manuscripts, Miller's text offers a great image of the time and events that are being covered.
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.
...s not favor one founding brother over another. The book's sources seem to come from a wide variety of both primary documents and critical literature. Great quotations from each of the founding brothers are adequately and properly dispersed to create an illusion that the major players in the book are arguing their respective points. The quotations are so effective because they come directly from the American leaders themselves and are seamlessly blended with Ellis's additional commentary.
In this book Founding Brothers, the author Joseph J. Ellis writes about American Revolution's important figures such as George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison exhibit that how the specific relationships of the Founding Fathers have influenced, or were influenced in the course of the American Revolution. These men have become the Founding Fathers and had a strong connection with each other as friends fighting one another to eliminate the British from North America, and forming optimistic brotherhood eager for freedom. However, many of the Founding Fathers were preoccupied with posterity. They wanted to construct and preserve images that served both their egos and
During 1788, Alexander Hamilton was one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers in addition to being a Lawyer in the state of New York. The Federalist Papers are known for being an imperative source of understanding in regards to the original Constitution.
George Browm Tindall, David Emory Shi. American History: 5th Brief edition, W. W. Norton & Company; November 1999
He states that the government had too many leaders and not enough followers. That the government administrated by too many people who had a different motive on running the state. In addition, Madison agreed to what Hamilton was saying. Therefore, Madison helped Hamilton settle this dilemma. “It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is a force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.” (Hamilton) Hamilton father explains why this would be a problem with government and predicts what might happen if it reaches to that point. “To this reasoning, it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.” (Hamilton) Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the 18th and 19th Federalist paper. The 18th article spoke about contradicting the argument of anti-federalists that proposed a monarchical rule in America. Madison states that if the anti-federalist and federalist do not collaborate on the rule that they established for the people. They would become like the people in Greek history. “Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes.” Demonstrating a jealous view of power and disorganized fashion. “Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun
"Teaching History.org, Home of the National History Education Clearinghouse." Jefferson versus Hamilton. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. .
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
Of the many figures in American History, Alexander Hamilton has proven himself one of the most versatile and influential. His policies and ideals have helped the United States blossom into a prosperous world power. Through his power as secretary of Treasury and his convincing intellectual efforts, he was able to dominate the nations early political environment. Hamilton’s patriotic endeavors have proven themselves to be durable and in the best interests of the United States.
According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche...
...der Hamilton shaped the New World and the way in which policies were managed. Today’s United States government mirrors more the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, but it seems the majority of her people prefer the vision of Thomas Jefferson; the idealistic dream of true freedom and of the ability to shape one’s own destiny. Would it be the other way around if the current state of government was turned? For sure, if one vision had prevailed wholly over the other, the outcome would be substantial in modern society; Hamilton’s vision would have created another England and Jefferson’s – who knows?
...al system. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the true authors of The Federalist Papers. They were strong advocates for the U.S Constitution and wanted to show people the flaws of the old system.
As a federalist Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish a stronger federal government under a new Constitution. He met in Philadelphia with other delegates to discuss how to fix the Articles of Confederation that created a weak central government. During the meeting, Hamilton expressed his view that a dependable current source of revenue would be crucial to develop a more powerful and resilient central government. Although Hamilton played a diminutive part in the writing of the Constitution itself, he did heavily influence its ratification. In cooperation with James Madison and John Jay, Hamilton wrote fifty one of eighty five essays under the joint title The Federalist “The Federalist Paper.” In the essays, he cunningly explained and defended the newly drafted Constitution prior to its approval. In 1788, at the New York Ratification Convention, two thirds of delegates opposed the Constitution, however Hamilton was a powerful advocate for ratification, effectively arguing against the anti Federalist persuasion. His efforts succeeded when New York agreed to ratify, which led the remaining eight states to follow. He had a proposal for the new government that was modeled on the British system, which Hamilton considered the best.
Newman, John. UNITED STATES HISTORYPreparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. Second Edition. New York: AMSCO SCHOOL PUBLICATIONS, INC, 2010. eBook. .