Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Articles of confederation paper
Iriquois the Constitution of the United States
US ch 5 articles of confederation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Articles of confederation paper
Joseph Ellis’s The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 is a factual and historical account of events leading up to the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America as well as the unification of the states. This historical narrative centers on four prominent politicians, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who are credited with creating the American republic. These statesmen shared many commonalities as they were all deeply invested in the American Revolution, found deficiencies within the Articles of Confederation, and yearned for a modified constitutional framework that would sustain the American republic. Though the founding fathers formulated one objective, to form …show more content…
He did not perceive the founding fathers to be experimental in nature. Ellis introduces each member of “The Quartet” with high praises, calling attention upon Washington’s organizational abilities, Hamilton’s financial skills, Madison’s drafting abilities, and Jay’s diplomacy tactics. Ellis advocated that through the superior leadership of each member, the creation of the American republic was inevitable. He argues, “To say, then, that ratification represented a clear statement about the will of the American people in 1787-1788 would be grossly misleading. What ratification really represented was triumph of superior organization, more talented leadership, and a political process that had been designed from the start to define the options narrowly” (Ellis 174). Each member excelled in his own field and persuaded fellow colleagues and the American people for the need for a document to replace the Articles of Confederation. Ellis additionally expounded on the built-in advantages these founding fathers had. He stressed upon their strengths, such as their ability to convene with similar ideas, versatility in many fields, persuading members of the opposition, and developing tactical propositions. After the founding fathers defeated Patrick Henry, a strong adversary and a harsh critic to the Constitution, Ellis wrote, “For better and for worse, the Constitution was destined to become the law of the land” (Ellis 187). These innate built-in advantages of the founding fathers were what helped them to achieve their goals. After analyzing these traits, Ellis concluded that the creation of the republic and the success of the founding fathers was indeed a special destiny, which was bound to
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
In chapter eleven, The Age of Democratic Revolutions: The North Atlantic World “Turn Upside Down”, Wells discusses the American and French Revolutions. Both of these revolutions shook the world and turn the world around. After the Enlightenment, there were many revolutions across Europe; however, the American and French Revolution had more power in them to change the world. Because of the books, pamphlets, and sermons, the idea of rationalism moved from philosophes to many of other people. With these new ideas, the people started to believe in change which led to stress and upheaval. In America, the revolution was not like other revolutions. There was no reigns of terror, no mass deportations, or forced labor camps. However, the American
Throughout the entirety of his analysis, Roche consistently reiterates what he feels to be the greatest testament to the political excellence of the Framers: their unrelenting ability to compromise. While this could serve to potentially benefit his analysis had he cited with it specific constitutional evidence supporting these democratic values, Roche mainly relies on storytelling tactics of the struggles of the Framers to compromise instead. Indeed, perhaps Roche’s analysis can best be summarized in his assertion that “however motivated… [the Framers] demonstrated their willingness to compromise their parochial interests [for the sake of the nation]” (Roche, 15). This is to say that because Roche spends such vast amounts of his analysis of the Constitution on the sacrifices of the Framers with no real relevance to the actual wording of the Constitution itself, his argument about the democracy reflected in the constitution simply becomes lost within his “Founding Fathers” rhetoric. Beard, however, in citing specific constitutional features (including the Electoral College, the general means of representation for citizens, and the ratification of the Constitution) as anti majoritarian in nature successfully supports
In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis, the author relates the stories of six crucial historic events that manage to capture the flavor and fervor of the revolutionary generation and its great leaders. While each chapter or story can be read separately and completely understood, they do relate to a broader common theme. One of Ellis' main purposes in writing the book was to illustrate the early stages and tribulations of the American government and its system through his use of well blended stories. The idea that a republican government of this nature was completely unprecedented is emphasized through out the book. Ellis discusses the unique problems that the revolutionary generation experienced as a result of governing under the new concept of a democracy. These problems included- the interpretation of constitutional powers, the regulation of governmental power through checks and balances, the first presidential elections, the surprising emergence of political parties, states rights vs. federal authority, and the issue of slavery in a otherwise free society. Ellis dives even deeper into the subject by exposing the readers to true insight of the major players of the founding generation. The book attempts to capture the ideals of the early revolutionary generation leaders and their conflicting political viewpoints. The personalities of Hamilton, Burr, Adams, Washington, Madison, and Jefferson are presented in great detail. Ellis exposes the reality of the internal and partisan conflict endured by each of these figures in relation to each other. Ellis emphasizes that despite these difficult hurdles, the young American nation survived its early stages because of its great collection of charismatic leaders and their ability to ...
When one explains his or her ingenious yet, enterprising interpretation, one views the nature of history from a single standpoint: motivation. In The American Revolution: A History, Gordon Wood, the author, explains the complexities and motivations of the people who partook in the American Revolution, and he shows the significance of numerous themes, that emerge during the American Revolution, such as democracy, discontent, tyranny, and independence. Wood’s interpretation, throughout his literary work, shows that the true nature of the American Revolution leads to the development of United State’s current government: a federal republic. Wood, the author, views the treatment of the American Revolution in the early twentieth century as scholastic yet, innovative and views the American Revolution’s true nature as
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
When the Founding Fathers got together at Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, they had many different views and opinions as to how to govern our country. At the convention, the founders fought over the issues of slavery, representation and the Congress’s powers. Their personal lives had influenced their ideas and some of the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention. The founders’ different personal experiences, economic backgrounds, and coming from states of different sizes, economy and needs, led to the creation of the Three-Fifths Compromise, The Great Compromise, and the Slave Trade Compromise.
The meeting in Philadelphia was successful, it is known as the Constitutional Conventional. James Madison went to the meeting in Philadelphia it was his idea to create the United States in a republican model. The people would have the power in the form of representatives. Madison and his fellow Virginians came up with the details and a plan for the new government, it was known as the Virginia Plan. And Madison became known as the father of the constitution.
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
2. Roche, John P. "The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 8 -- 20).
Revolutions are usually described as “radical” events. A “radical” event is defined as one that greatly changes the political, cultural, social, and/or economic nature of a society. I believe that the American Revolution was a radical event that dramatically changed our society. There were many impacts to the changes such as slavery, primogeniture, the Articles of Confederation, republican motherhood, and government. This was the time in life, that we as America gained our independence from Britain. The American Revolution is what shaped our world to become what it is today.
In 1776 when the Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain with the Declaration of Independence they had one clear goal in mind: become a sovereign nation and avoid the tyranny of Great Britain. What they did not know, however, is that they had to face many more issues beyond simply cutting the ties with Great Britain; they also had to create and maintain a working system of rules which could guide them into becoming the United States of America. Once Independence was gained in 1783, the Articles of Confederation were created, but with many deep flaws in the system. The Federal government had no power, and the states were loosely held together and hardly acted as if they were a single united nation. After recognizing that these problems were too large to overcome easily, several of the greatest men in the nation gathered together to rectify these problems.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.