Between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the century, the United States’ industry grew dramatically in what some called the “Second American Revolution.” The industrial output that had been ranked fourth behind Britain, France, and Germany only a few decades earlier had now become larger than these three combined. Help from the government and new technologies gave the capitalist class its chance to rise. The concept of Social Darwinism promoted laissez-faire capitalism and its idea that government intervention was not needed in industry and that the economically “strong” (the wealthy business owners) deserved to have high status and not be limited. This led to low wages and poor conditions for laborers, prompting them to create unions in an attempt to right the situation. The union movement was successful on some fronts and unsuccessful on others. The unions were successful in uniting workers and shortening work days, but unsuccessful in achieving any of their economic goals, such as higher wages.
In the late nineteenth century, there were four major national trade unions. The first was the National Labor Union (NLU). This union had the goal of uniting all workers, regardless of skill level, area of work race, or gender. It included members of all backgrounds, allowing for diversity and unity of all different workers. The second union was the Knights of Labor. This union was much more radical than the NLU but still held the same goals of equality, leading to the same diverse and unified result. The third union was the American Federation of Labor (AFL). This union was much less radical than the previous two and chose to work toward realistic goals instead of large reforms. It only accepted skilled workers, which meant that it did not have the same level of diversity as the NLU or the Knights of Labor. It did, however, unite its workers under a common goal. Finally, there was the Industrial Workers if the World (IWW). This was by far the most radical and revolutionary union at the time, often resorting to violence to achieve its means. The workers in the IWW were able to unite under the common idea that change was needed and could only be achieved through radical means. Although many goals were not met, each union had a way of uniting their workers as one front against the problems they were facing.
The one goal that the unions did manage to achieve was the shortening of the workday. At the time the unions were formed, long workdays were considered normal. The average laborer’s workday consisted of ten hours of work with only one hour of rest. The work was often hard and this ten-hour day was very tiresome for workers. Many workers at the time had to work even longer than this. The labor unions made shortening this workday one of their main goals. The NLU’s efforts eventually paid off when they managed to shorten the workday for federal workers to eight hours. Unfortunately, this was the only victory that the union movement could claim.
The most important goal for the unions was higher wages for laborers. The method used to achieve this goal was striking, but it proved unsuccessful because the government’s eventual intervention always brought the strikes to their ends. In the Railroad Strike of 1877, which was in protest of cut wages, President Hayes eventually sent the army to stifle the strikers. In the Pullman Strike of 1894, which consisted of a boycott because of lowered wages during a depression, the federal government issued an injunction referring to the ruling of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that restraint of trade was illegal. Eventually, President Cleveland sent troops, who jailed union leaders for violating the injunction. The result of Homestead Strike of 1892, a protest over the fact that the Carnegie Steel Company had lowered wages in spite of increased profits, was slightly different. The government did not intervene to stop the strike, but the company hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to crush the strikers, eventually leading to the destroyed union ending the strike itself. The goals of increased wages were never met because the inions faced powerful opposition: the corporations themselves and the government. The corporations had the money and the power to crush the unions if they needed to through expensive resources such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency. The President was always willing to stop strikes using the military and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act made the strikes illegal because they were restraint of trade. The unions faced resistance far too powerful for them to ever succeed in their economic goals.
The union movement following the Civil War was successful in some areas, but failed profoundly in others. The unions each managed to unify workers as single fronts against their problems. They also managed to shorten the workday from ten hours to eight. However, they were unable to meet their economic goal of higher wages. The federal government was clearly on the side of the corporations, who already had plenty of resources to fight the unions on their own. This made all of the unions’ strikes unsuccessful, stopping them from achieving their main goal. Although the Unions had their small victories, they faced too much opposition to be able to do most of what they were created for.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Essay #6: Cause of the Civil War
Political tensions between the North and the South first began with the formulation of the first two political parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Later, other tensions also developed with the issue of slavery expansion. Many people say that the Civil War should have started in 1820, but it was delayed by the Missouri Compromise, which admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, while also forbidding slavery above the 36 30’ line. When the issue flared up again, the Compromise of 1850 was issued, giving many advantages to the free North while also creating a very harsh fugitive slave act. The final attempt at a solution came with the Kansas-Nebraska act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, angering many Northern abolitionists. The many attempts at compromise did not wok, however, and after Lincoln’s election, South Carolina seceded from the union, quickly followed by six other Southern states. The Civil War was caused the struggle between the North and the South for economic and political power. People in the North wanted to contain slavery because they thought its spread would hurt their industry economy, but Southerners felt that they needed slavery to spread in order to maintain political power. When Southern states eventually seceded and the North fought them, their actions were justified by the compact and contract theories respectively.
The conflict between the North and the South over the expansion of slavery was hugely significant before the Civil War. It became an important issue because of the potential impacts it could have on the economy. While the Southern economy was dependent on slavery and the plantation system, the North relied heavily on industry. Both wanted to expand their systems for separate reasons. The Northern industrial capitalists believed that expanding capitalism would benefit them greatly. Expansion of capitalism would lead to an expanded labor pool, which would lower the necessary wages for workers. Expansion of capitalism and industry, however, was impossible in slave states because the economy was already based on slavery and plantation. The people of the North believed that slavery’s expansion would hinder their potential prosperity. Therefore, they saw slavery expansion as a threat and fought against it, which in turn threatened the Southerners.
To the South, the expansion of slavery was necessary for their political survival. If there were more free states than slave states, then the free states would have control of Congress. The issue of slavery was up for debate in numerous territories and states. The South needed some of them to have slavery so that they could maintain equality in Congress and not lose power. When Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860, they saw it as a sign that attempting to work with the union was no longer realistic. Abraham Lincoln had a very strong platform of slavery containment. With a President holding such views, the South recognized that they had very little chance of gaining slavery in any territory or state. This, they believed, would mean that free states and territories would be added, forcing the South to become more and more outnumbered in Congress until they held essentially no power. Eventually, South Carolina seceded because of its loss of political power.
Six other Southern states followed South Carolina in seceding from the union. These states believed that they had the right to do this because they believed in the compact theory. This theory, popular in the South, stated that the federal government was created by the states. Therefore, state laws were supreme when in conflict with federal laws and the states had the power to declare federal laws null and void. If this theory was taken to its extreme, the logical conclusion was secession, which is exactly what happened. The North, however, believed in the contract theory, which stated that the federal government was created by the people and not the states. Therefore, the federal government was supreme and its laws took precedence over state laws. The debate over these two theories had existed since they were created by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, but it was still nowhere near resolved. These two theories existed to give the power to the people who created them The South believed that their states could not be controlled by the federal government, so secession was within their power. The North believed that the job of the federal government was to control the states, so they were justified in attempting to stop the South from seceding. The North and South might not have started the Civil War had they not still been debating two political theories that justified their respective actions.
The Civil War was a result of power struggles between the North and the South. The North attempted to contain slavery because they believed that its expansion would hurt their industry economic power. The South wanted to spread slavery because they believed that containment would take away their political power. Lastly, the entire war started because both sides were justified by their respective theories. These two theories were created to deal with power and its distribution. Ultimately, all decisions made leading to the Civil War were made for political and economic power.
The conflict between the North and the South over the expansion of slavery was hugely significant before the Civil War. It became an important issue because of the potential impacts it could have on the economy. While the Southern economy was dependent on slavery and the plantation system, the North relied heavily on industry. Both wanted to expand their systems for separate reasons. The Northern industrial capitalists believed that expanding capitalism would benefit them greatly. Expansion of capitalism would lead to an expanded labor pool, which would lower the necessary wages for workers. Expansion of capitalism and industry, however, was impossible in slave states because the economy was already based on slavery and plantation. The people of the North believed that slavery’s expansion would hinder their potential prosperity. Therefore, they saw slavery expansion as a threat and fought against it, which in turn threatened the Southerners.
To the South, the expansion of slavery was necessary for their political survival. If there were more free states than slave states, then the free states would have control of Congress. The issue of slavery was up for debate in numerous territories and states. The South needed some of them to have slavery so that they could maintain equality in Congress and not lose power. When Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860, they saw it as a sign that attempting to work with the union was no longer realistic. Abraham Lincoln had a very strong platform of slavery containment. With a President holding such views, the South recognized that they had very little chance of gaining slavery in any territory or state. This, they believed, would mean that free states and territories would be added, forcing the South to become more and more outnumbered in Congress until they held essentially no power. Eventually, South Carolina seceded because of its loss of political power.
Six other Southern states followed South Carolina in seceding from the union. These states believed that they had the right to do this because they believed in the compact theory. This theory, popular in the South, stated that the federal government was created by the states. Therefore, state laws were supreme when in conflict with federal laws and the states had the power to declare federal laws null and void. If this theory was taken to its extreme, the logical conclusion was secession, which is exactly what happened. The North, however, believed in the contract theory, which stated that the federal government was created by the people and not the states. Therefore, the federal government was supreme and its laws took precedence over state laws. The debate over these two theories had existed since they were created by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, but it was still nowhere near resolved. These two theories existed to give the power to the people who created them The South believed that their states could not be controlled by the federal government, so secession was within their power. The North believed that the job of the federal government was to control the states, so they were justified in attempting to stop the South from seceding. The North and South might not have started the Civil War had they not still been debating two political theories that justified their respective actions.
The Civil War was a result of power struggles between the North and the South. The North attempted to contain slavery because they believed that its expansion would hurt their industry economic power. The South wanted to spread slavery because they believed that containment would take away their political power. Lastly, the entire war started because both sides were justified by their respective theories. These two theories were created to deal with power and its distribution. Ultimately, all decisions made leading to the Civil War were made for political and economic power.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
DBQ #6: Changing Roles of Women
Starting in 1815, American society began to change drastically. This was due to two very important events happening: the revolution of industry and the Second Great Awakening. Technology advanced greatly with the invention of the telegraph, the sewing machine, and the assembly line. Agriculture also prospered with the mechanical thresher, a tractor with a steam engine, and the reaper, used to harvest wheat. The Second Great Awakening spread religious zeal and Evangelical ideas throughout America. The Evangelicals promoted education for everyone and applying God’s plan to human institutions. The changes being caused by these two monumental events inspired a number of reform movements, including a campaign for women’s’ rights. Between 1815 and 1860, women evolved from subservient homemakers in the cult of domesticity to leaders and workers. They began to hold actual jobs in factories, had more power in their households due to education, and became more important in society when they took part in the religious revival and in protesting for other reform movements at the time.
When colonists first settled in America, the job of a woman was difficult but not considered to be very important. She was to bear children, cook, clean, and usually undertake other tasks such as sewing, spinning, or occasionally raising animals. Very little changed before the Revolution. After, however, a woman’s job shifted with the new concept of republican motherhood. She was still expected to care for the house, but was now given an actual “important” responsibility. She was in charge of the household and of raising the children to be good Americans. This job, while significant, still confined women to their homes and did not allow them to earn money, forcing them to continue to depend on their husbands for everything, making it impossible for them to be independent. After the start of the Reform Movement, however, this changed, too. Women began to find jobs in factories and mills with other women, such as the Lowell Mill, which was written about in a letter from one of its workers (doc. B). They had to work very long hours and earned little pay compared to that of male workers. Many women also found the work to be “tedious,” but others, such as the writer of the letter, saw the positive side. This work was far from perfect, but it was a step toward positive change for women.
[Note: I didn't remember if you wanted us to include the extra credit about the thresher and the reaper in the essay or just in a post at the end, so I'm doing both. The mechanical thresher was a tractor with a steam engine and the reaper was a tool used to harvest wheat.]
When colonists first settled in America, the job of a woman was difficult but not considered to be very important. She was to bear children, cook, clean, and usually undertake other tasks such as sewing, spinning, or occasionally raising animals. Very little changed before the Revolution. After, however, a woman’s job shifted with the new concept of republican motherhood. She was still expected to care for the house, but was now given an actual “important” responsibility. She was in charge of the household and of raising the children to be good Americans. This job, while significant, still confined women to their homes and did not allow them to earn money, forcing them to continue to depend on their husbands for everything, making it impossible for them to be independent. After the start of the Reform Movement, however, this changed, too. Women began to find jobs in factories and mills with other women, such as the Lowell Mill, which was written about in a letter from one of its workers (doc. B). They had to work very long hours and earned little pay compared to that of male workers. Many women also found the work to be “tedious,” but others, such as the writer of the letter, saw the positive side. This work was far from perfect, but it was a step toward positive change for women.
[Note: I didn't remember if you wanted us to include the extra credit about the thresher and the reaper in the essay or just in a post at the end, so I'm doing both. The mechanical thresher was a tractor with a steam engine and the reaper was a tool used to harvest wheat.]
Monday, November 10, 2008
Essay #5: Nationalism
George Orwell described the purpose of a nationalist as “to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." Americans sought land expansion before they had even gained their independence, attempting to move west before the British government issued the Proclamation of 1763. After the Revolution, this impulse was acted upon by Thomas Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase. After the war of 1812, this impulse grew even stronger as Nationalism increased. The people of America began to see themselves as one nation and as “God’s chosen people.” Politicians, religious leaders, and educators all argued that America was great and its ideas needed to be spread. This belief, favored by most Americans, was called “Manifest Destiny” and was the basis for many political decisions made in America for many years. Nationalism played a substantially large role in America’s foreign policy in the early nineteenth century through Manifest Destiny, which gave incentive for the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, harmed Indian-American relations and led to the Trail of Tears, and sparked a conflict that ended in war with Mexico. The Monroe Doctrine was created to keep Britain from influencing an area that America hoped to dominate, the Trail of Tears was a result of the Americans wanting Native Americans to move so that Americans could have more territory, and the Mexican-American War started because America seized Mexican territory.
After the Napoleonic Wars, victorious monarch banded together to smother rebellion and stop democracy. There were rumors that Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France would attack the rebellious colonies of Spanish America. This worried many Americans, who thought that the concept of republicanism was in danger, as well as the physical security of their country, Britain was also upset because trade with the Spanish American revolutionaries greatly helped their economy. Britain asked America to join with them in a declaration warning Europeans to stay away from Latin America and renouncing interest in acquiring territory there. Secretary John Quincy Adams, a nationalist, was wary of an agreement because he believed that Britain was seeking to gain control of the Western hemisphere itself. As a nationalist, he wanted America to be able to expand and recognized that the agreement would help Britain to gain power, which would make expansion much more difficult for the United States. Therefore, he convinced Monroe to turn down the offer and issue the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially warned Europeans to stay out of North America. This statement is a clear example of nationalism and Manifest Destiny. The US government wished to expand its territory in North America but saw the threat of European nations asserting dominance first. Naturally, the Americans chose to protect their own interests and power by doing what they could to keep the Europeans away.
The desire for westward expansion continued in the 1820s, showing a continued belief in Manifest Destiny. President Andrew Jackson favored the nationalist idea of expanding American power by expanding territory. Unfortunately, the western part of the continent was occupied by Native Americans. The tribes were officially recognized as separate nations and it had been agreed in the 1790s that land could only be acquired from them through treaties. However, the Americans continually violated these treaties and redrew the lines defining territory multiple times to allow white Americans to move farther west. Other Americans took Manifest Destiny’s justification that America’s superior ideas needed to be spread to heart. They began an attempt at “civilizing” Native Americans by teaching them Christianity as well as American language and lifestyle. Many resisted, but some accepted the white teachings and began to change their lifestyles. Georgia brought multiple issues dealing with Native Americans to the Supreme Court, where John Marshall ruled in their favor. President Jackson, however, refused to enforce the rulings because he wanted Native American land to be open to white Americans. He instead created the Indian Removal Act, which would move all Native Americans east of the Mississippi westward. Many resisted and were killed, but Jackson stilled believed it to be right because it fulfilled the nationalistic need for American land.
In 1845, America’s relationship with Mexico was already fragile when President James K. Polk decided to formerly annex Texas. This alone was a huge territorial expansion, but it did not satisfy Polk. He also wanted to acquire the California-New Mexico region. Unfortunately, his attempt at purchasing the land failed, so he resorted to more aggressive measures. He sent troops into the desired region near the Rio Grande and the Nueces River. When the situation became hostile, America declared war on Mexico supposedly because Mexicans had crossed into America and attacked its citizens. This claim was never verified and was most likely Polk’s excuse so that he could wage war and seize the territory he wanted. America eventually gained one million acres of Mexican land in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the war. Even then, however, Polk was not satisfied. He believed that America could have received even more land from Mexico. Polk obviously saw gaining land as very important, as is shown by the great extents he went to to obtain it. He strongly believed in the nationalist concept of Manifest Destiny and its idea that America had the inevitable right to land because of its superiority.
Nationalism played a profound role in the shaping of American foreign policy in the early nineteenth century because it made Americans desire expansion through Manifest Destiny. The Monroe Doctrine was created to keep foreign influence out of North America so that the United States would be free to expand without competition. Native Americans were forcibly moved west so that white Americans could gain land. They were also forcibly taught American lifestyles because Americans believed that they were superior. Finally, America waged war with Mexico over fifty acres of land because Polk saw expansion as important enough to be worth the risk. In all, most important decisions concerning foreign policy in the United States in the early nineteenth century were made because of the nationalistic belief that America was superior and needed to expand.
After the Napoleonic Wars, victorious monarch banded together to smother rebellion and stop democracy. There were rumors that Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France would attack the rebellious colonies of Spanish America. This worried many Americans, who thought that the concept of republicanism was in danger, as well as the physical security of their country, Britain was also upset because trade with the Spanish American revolutionaries greatly helped their economy. Britain asked America to join with them in a declaration warning Europeans to stay away from Latin America and renouncing interest in acquiring territory there. Secretary John Quincy Adams, a nationalist, was wary of an agreement because he believed that Britain was seeking to gain control of the Western hemisphere itself. As a nationalist, he wanted America to be able to expand and recognized that the agreement would help Britain to gain power, which would make expansion much more difficult for the United States. Therefore, he convinced Monroe to turn down the offer and issue the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially warned Europeans to stay out of North America. This statement is a clear example of nationalism and Manifest Destiny. The US government wished to expand its territory in North America but saw the threat of European nations asserting dominance first. Naturally, the Americans chose to protect their own interests and power by doing what they could to keep the Europeans away.
The desire for westward expansion continued in the 1820s, showing a continued belief in Manifest Destiny. President Andrew Jackson favored the nationalist idea of expanding American power by expanding territory. Unfortunately, the western part of the continent was occupied by Native Americans. The tribes were officially recognized as separate nations and it had been agreed in the 1790s that land could only be acquired from them through treaties. However, the Americans continually violated these treaties and redrew the lines defining territory multiple times to allow white Americans to move farther west. Other Americans took Manifest Destiny’s justification that America’s superior ideas needed to be spread to heart. They began an attempt at “civilizing” Native Americans by teaching them Christianity as well as American language and lifestyle. Many resisted, but some accepted the white teachings and began to change their lifestyles. Georgia brought multiple issues dealing with Native Americans to the Supreme Court, where John Marshall ruled in their favor. President Jackson, however, refused to enforce the rulings because he wanted Native American land to be open to white Americans. He instead created the Indian Removal Act, which would move all Native Americans east of the Mississippi westward. Many resisted and were killed, but Jackson stilled believed it to be right because it fulfilled the nationalistic need for American land.
In 1845, America’s relationship with Mexico was already fragile when President James K. Polk decided to formerly annex Texas. This alone was a huge territorial expansion, but it did not satisfy Polk. He also wanted to acquire the California-New Mexico region. Unfortunately, his attempt at purchasing the land failed, so he resorted to more aggressive measures. He sent troops into the desired region near the Rio Grande and the Nueces River. When the situation became hostile, America declared war on Mexico supposedly because Mexicans had crossed into America and attacked its citizens. This claim was never verified and was most likely Polk’s excuse so that he could wage war and seize the territory he wanted. America eventually gained one million acres of Mexican land in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the war. Even then, however, Polk was not satisfied. He believed that America could have received even more land from Mexico. Polk obviously saw gaining land as very important, as is shown by the great extents he went to to obtain it. He strongly believed in the nationalist concept of Manifest Destiny and its idea that America had the inevitable right to land because of its superiority.
Nationalism played a profound role in the shaping of American foreign policy in the early nineteenth century because it made Americans desire expansion through Manifest Destiny. The Monroe Doctrine was created to keep foreign influence out of North America so that the United States would be free to expand without competition. Native Americans were forcibly moved west so that white Americans could gain land. They were also forcibly taught American lifestyles because Americans believed that they were superior. Finally, America waged war with Mexico over fifty acres of land because Polk saw expansion as important enough to be worth the risk. In all, most important decisions concerning foreign policy in the United States in the early nineteenth century were made because of the nationalistic belief that America was superior and needed to expand.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Essay #4: The Articles of Confederation
Even after separating, America was still far from being a stable nation. In June of 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a government made up of confederated states. About a month later, a committee established by the Congress and led by John Dickinson had created the Articles of Confederation. It was adopted a year later by the Congress and was translated into French after the Battle of Saratoga to persuade France to ally with them by showing that they had an actual government in the making. However, approval of the Articles of Confederation was required by all thirteen states and many refused because of complaints about land. States such as New York and Virginia had large holdings beyond the Allegheny Mountains, mainly because of earlier charter grants. States such as Pennsylvania and Maryland had none and claimed that the states that did would not have retained possession of this land without their help. This land could be sold to pay off debts, while the states without it would have to impose large taxes on their residents. Therefore, they wanted all of the trans-Allegheny land to be turned to the central government. Eventually however, New York gave up its Western claims and Congress announced a plan to dispose of these areas for “common benefit.” Finally persuaded, the states all agreed, with Maryland being the last on March 1, 1781, less than eight months before America’s victory at Yorktown. Eventually, however, the Articles of Confederation were deemed insufficient and were replaced by the Constitution, which formed a completely new government. The Articles of Confederation were profoundly inadequate in their shaping of government as well as the domestic affairs and foreign affairs problems that they caused. The centralized government that it formed was very weak because almost all power was given to the states. The government was unable to help the felling economy because it did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or establish a uniform currency. Lastly, The government was forced to request troops from the states and there was no chief executive or state department to conduct foreign affairs, making the government unable to do anything about the problems that America was facing with European nations.
The central government established by the Articles of Confederation was very weak. Most of the power was instead given to the states. The government was formed this way because many people feared that a strong central government would lead to tyranny and abuse. They were particularly wary of giving too much power to one person because they had just finished a war caused by exactly that. Any centralized authority, they felt, could lead to another King. However, others felt that not having strong centralized authority made the overall government weak. These people were eventually proven right. One example of the crippling inadequacy of the government was the Articles of Confederation’s tax-collection program. Each state had a tax quota and was asked to please contribute that amount on a voluntary basis. The government rarely made a fourth of the amount requested for a year. A stronger central government would simply have taxed the people normally, but this was seen as too similar to the British crown. The result was a feeble and defective system. Another problem with the Articles of Confederation was that each state was given one vote in congress. This meant that the 68,000 people in Rhode Island had the same total influence as the 680,000 Virginians. This allowed some people much more power than others and was contrary to the Declaration of Independence’s message of equality. Congress was also flawed because ratification of the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote, which was basically impossible. This meant that the problems in the Articles of Confederation could not be fixed.
The lack of authority held by the central government caused many domestic problems. After the Revolution, America faced a depression caused by war debts. The government could do nothing about this because it did not have the power to tax, establish a uniform currency, or regulate trade. Because of the lack of uniform currency, notes were often given arbitrary values by different banks and inflation became a serious problem. The different currencies, in combination with trade barriers, made trade between states very difficult. Because the Articles of Confederation did not allow the central government to do anything to fix the economic problems plaguing the country, the states were forced to find their own solutions. Many resorted to taxing. Massachusetts imposed a 30% tax on farmers, which forced most of them into foreclosure or debtor’s prison. Many of these farmers had fought in the war and were angered by this enormous and unfair tax. A man named Daniel Shays led a violent protest demanding an end of foreclosures and a reduction of taxes. The revolt caused little change and the depression raged on, with the government still unable to do anything.
The Articles of Confederation did not only cause problems with domestic affairs, however. Foreign affairs were also seriously impacted. After the war, relationships with European nations were hurt when America did not fully abide by the Treaty of Paris. They did not pay off debts or compensate loyalists whose property had been taken, as they had said that they would. Britain also broke the treaty by not removing their forts from the West. Many European countries doubted the power of America because of the disunity of the states. Many sought ways to exploit America, including Spain, a former ally. Spain and America engaged in heated disputes about the northern boundary of Florida and the navigation rights of the Mississippi River. America was unable to do anything about any of these problems because of the lack of central authority concerning foreign affairs. In order to send an army to deal with a conflict, the government had to request troops from the states. Again, the government could not make decisions of its own for the welfare of the country. There was also no chief executive or state department to conduct foreign affairs, which kept the government from being able to make any real decisions about foreign policy. The central government created by the Articles of Confederation was essentially powerless in this aspect, as well as all others.
The Articles of Confederation were inadequate because they created a very weak central government and caused domestic and foreign affairs problems. The basis of the Congress was flawed and the format of the government gave almost all power to the states, making the central government unable to do anything substantial. The central government could not help the falling economy because it could not impose taxes or regulate trade. It was also unable to develop a uniform currency, which made things even worse. The government was also completely unable to regulate foreign affairs, which was particularly significant because America was facing many problems with European nations after the war. The government could not send troops without requesting them from the Senate, however, and did not have a department to deal with foreign affairs issues. All of these things together caused problems and put America in a very precarious position. It made perfect sense, therefore, when delegates met in May of 1787 to revise America’s government.
The central government established by the Articles of Confederation was very weak. Most of the power was instead given to the states. The government was formed this way because many people feared that a strong central government would lead to tyranny and abuse. They were particularly wary of giving too much power to one person because they had just finished a war caused by exactly that. Any centralized authority, they felt, could lead to another King. However, others felt that not having strong centralized authority made the overall government weak. These people were eventually proven right. One example of the crippling inadequacy of the government was the Articles of Confederation’s tax-collection program. Each state had a tax quota and was asked to please contribute that amount on a voluntary basis. The government rarely made a fourth of the amount requested for a year. A stronger central government would simply have taxed the people normally, but this was seen as too similar to the British crown. The result was a feeble and defective system. Another problem with the Articles of Confederation was that each state was given one vote in congress. This meant that the 68,000 people in Rhode Island had the same total influence as the 680,000 Virginians. This allowed some people much more power than others and was contrary to the Declaration of Independence’s message of equality. Congress was also flawed because ratification of the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote, which was basically impossible. This meant that the problems in the Articles of Confederation could not be fixed.
The lack of authority held by the central government caused many domestic problems. After the Revolution, America faced a depression caused by war debts. The government could do nothing about this because it did not have the power to tax, establish a uniform currency, or regulate trade. Because of the lack of uniform currency, notes were often given arbitrary values by different banks and inflation became a serious problem. The different currencies, in combination with trade barriers, made trade between states very difficult. Because the Articles of Confederation did not allow the central government to do anything to fix the economic problems plaguing the country, the states were forced to find their own solutions. Many resorted to taxing. Massachusetts imposed a 30% tax on farmers, which forced most of them into foreclosure or debtor’s prison. Many of these farmers had fought in the war and were angered by this enormous and unfair tax. A man named Daniel Shays led a violent protest demanding an end of foreclosures and a reduction of taxes. The revolt caused little change and the depression raged on, with the government still unable to do anything.
The Articles of Confederation did not only cause problems with domestic affairs, however. Foreign affairs were also seriously impacted. After the war, relationships with European nations were hurt when America did not fully abide by the Treaty of Paris. They did not pay off debts or compensate loyalists whose property had been taken, as they had said that they would. Britain also broke the treaty by not removing their forts from the West. Many European countries doubted the power of America because of the disunity of the states. Many sought ways to exploit America, including Spain, a former ally. Spain and America engaged in heated disputes about the northern boundary of Florida and the navigation rights of the Mississippi River. America was unable to do anything about any of these problems because of the lack of central authority concerning foreign affairs. In order to send an army to deal with a conflict, the government had to request troops from the states. Again, the government could not make decisions of its own for the welfare of the country. There was also no chief executive or state department to conduct foreign affairs, which kept the government from being able to make any real decisions about foreign policy. The central government created by the Articles of Confederation was essentially powerless in this aspect, as well as all others.
The Articles of Confederation were inadequate because they created a very weak central government and caused domestic and foreign affairs problems. The basis of the Congress was flawed and the format of the government gave almost all power to the states, making the central government unable to do anything substantial. The central government could not help the falling economy because it could not impose taxes or regulate trade. It was also unable to develop a uniform currency, which made things even worse. The government was also completely unable to regulate foreign affairs, which was particularly significant because America was facing many problems with European nations after the war. The government could not send troops without requesting them from the Senate, however, and did not have a department to deal with foreign affairs issues. All of these things together caused problems and put America in a very precarious position. It made perfect sense, therefore, when delegates met in May of 1787 to revise America’s government.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Essay #3: First Continental Congress
[9/29 note: You said to leave you a note in class, but I didn't get time to write one, so I'm including it here. I don't know if this applies to me, too, or just Sarah, but I feel like the prompt was vague and I may have been graded down for interpreting it differently. You said in your comment that I was supposed to discuss the position of the radicals in the pretext. I did not do this because I saw the prompt as meaning "explain what persuasive techniques the radicals used to get their points across" instead of "explain what the opinions of the radicals were and why." Therefore, my background information was about the reasons for the Continental Congress and I included the descriptions of the opinions in later chapters. The essay still might still deserve the grade that you gave it, but I would appreciate the second look because the prompt did not say we had to discuss it a certain way. In case you still don't like it, I'm putting my revises thesis in this note. I didn't change it in the essay because it would not make sense with the rest of it.
My revised thesis: The radicals were the most persuasive and effective in achieving their goals because their view made the most sense. They wanted to separate because the British government was imposing taxation without representation as well as the "intolerable acts" and because the war had already started.]
The people of America might still be living in colonies if not for the eloquent arguments of John Adams. Following the French and Indian War, the British government began to create a series of new laws that limited the colonists’ freedom. One of these was the Tea Act, which was created in 1773 to give the British a monopoly on the American tea business. The colonists’ response came in the form of the Boston Tea Party, in which they dumped the contents of 342 chests of tea from a British ship into the ocean. The enraged British government passed a series of acts to restrict colonial freedom – particularly in Massachusetts – that came to be known by colonists as the “Intolerable Acts.” Colonists met in Philadelphia at the First Continental Congress to respond to this and broke into three groups: radicals, moderates, and conservatives. Of these, the radicals were by far the most effective in creating persuasive arguments and achieving their goals. They were severely outnumbered in the beginning, but they ended up guiding the actions of the colonies through the continental congress because they gave good arguments and used logic to point out the problems of the British government’s relationship with the colonies.
Most representatives at the First Continental Congress held opinions that differed from those of the radicals. Many of them, including George Washington of Virginia and John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, were moderates. Moderates were the complete contrast to radicals in that they wanted to avoid taking any real action against Britain. Although they agreed that there were problems between Britain and the colonies, they maintained that the problems could be resolved and the relationship could be fixed without separating or taking action to remove British authority. The moderate opinion was held by certain colonists for a long time, but the congress eventually came to the decision that something had to be done. The recent problems were proof of the rocky relationship with Britain and the moderates offered no solution, so the people of the Congress were easily swayed by other arguments.
The second group formed was the conservatives, including John Jay of New York and Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania. They, like the radicals, believed that action was required against the British government, but did not favor the idea of separating. Instead, they wanted to recreate the situation in the colonies from before the French and Indian War. Joseph Galloway proposed a plan called the Galloway plan, which would restore the relationship between the colonies and the British crown to what it essentially was before 1763, but with one major change: the colonies would have a “grand council” that would be given the power to veto British acts. This plan was almost passed, but was defeated by only a few votes. Eventually, the radicals began to win over the rest of the representatives and they chose to take more severe action.
There were twice as may Americans opposed to or indifferent to the idea of independence than there were those who favored it. The same was true of the representatives when the First Continental Congress began. However, John Adams of Massachusetts gave very eloquent arguments in favor of separation and managed to sway quite a few people to his ideas instead of those of Galloway or the moderates. The radicals used ideas from Thomas Jefferson’s A Summary View of the Rights of British America in their arguments. They pointed out the reasons why Britain should not have authority to tax the colonies and that each colony had its own individual legislature, none of which were related to that of Britain. The arguments were persuasive and the radicals managed to barely defeat the Galloway plan in favor of their own. They were not able to convince the other representatives of separating, but they did manage to convince them to take more extreme action than had been suggested by the moderates or the conservatives. They created the Declaration of Resolves, which declared the “Intolerable Acts” null and void and recommended that colonists obtain weapons and form militias. It also recommended a boycott of all British imports and even called for the establishment of “associations” in every colony to make sure that people enforced the boycott. The radicals won the debates and eventually convinced the others to help them to reach their goals. They did not declare independence at the First Continental Congress, but they started on the path to it and managed to gain support from those who had originally disagreed completely.
Of the three groups of people at the First Continental Congress, the radicals definitely took the most important steps to achieving their goals by creating the most persuasive arguments. The moderates did not offer a plan that would help to fix the situation between the colonists and the British crown. The conservatives created a plan, but it was defeated because their arguments could not beat those of John Adams. The radicals created logical and eloquent arguments and eventually managed to sway opponents onto their side. They were severely outnumbered in the beginning, but their style of debate brought opponents onto their side and allowed them to create the Declaration of Resolves. The First Continental Congress was the colonists’ first step to the radicals’ goal of independence.
My revised thesis: The radicals were the most persuasive and effective in achieving their goals because their view made the most sense. They wanted to separate because the British government was imposing taxation without representation as well as the "intolerable acts" and because the war had already started.]
The people of America might still be living in colonies if not for the eloquent arguments of John Adams. Following the French and Indian War, the British government began to create a series of new laws that limited the colonists’ freedom. One of these was the Tea Act, which was created in 1773 to give the British a monopoly on the American tea business. The colonists’ response came in the form of the Boston Tea Party, in which they dumped the contents of 342 chests of tea from a British ship into the ocean. The enraged British government passed a series of acts to restrict colonial freedom – particularly in Massachusetts – that came to be known by colonists as the “Intolerable Acts.” Colonists met in Philadelphia at the First Continental Congress to respond to this and broke into three groups: radicals, moderates, and conservatives. Of these, the radicals were by far the most effective in creating persuasive arguments and achieving their goals. They were severely outnumbered in the beginning, but they ended up guiding the actions of the colonies through the continental congress because they gave good arguments and used logic to point out the problems of the British government’s relationship with the colonies.
Most representatives at the First Continental Congress held opinions that differed from those of the radicals. Many of them, including George Washington of Virginia and John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, were moderates. Moderates were the complete contrast to radicals in that they wanted to avoid taking any real action against Britain. Although they agreed that there were problems between Britain and the colonies, they maintained that the problems could be resolved and the relationship could be fixed without separating or taking action to remove British authority. The moderate opinion was held by certain colonists for a long time, but the congress eventually came to the decision that something had to be done. The recent problems were proof of the rocky relationship with Britain and the moderates offered no solution, so the people of the Congress were easily swayed by other arguments.
The second group formed was the conservatives, including John Jay of New York and Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania. They, like the radicals, believed that action was required against the British government, but did not favor the idea of separating. Instead, they wanted to recreate the situation in the colonies from before the French and Indian War. Joseph Galloway proposed a plan called the Galloway plan, which would restore the relationship between the colonies and the British crown to what it essentially was before 1763, but with one major change: the colonies would have a “grand council” that would be given the power to veto British acts. This plan was almost passed, but was defeated by only a few votes. Eventually, the radicals began to win over the rest of the representatives and they chose to take more severe action.
There were twice as may Americans opposed to or indifferent to the idea of independence than there were those who favored it. The same was true of the representatives when the First Continental Congress began. However, John Adams of Massachusetts gave very eloquent arguments in favor of separation and managed to sway quite a few people to his ideas instead of those of Galloway or the moderates. The radicals used ideas from Thomas Jefferson’s A Summary View of the Rights of British America in their arguments. They pointed out the reasons why Britain should not have authority to tax the colonies and that each colony had its own individual legislature, none of which were related to that of Britain. The arguments were persuasive and the radicals managed to barely defeat the Galloway plan in favor of their own. They were not able to convince the other representatives of separating, but they did manage to convince them to take more extreme action than had been suggested by the moderates or the conservatives. They created the Declaration of Resolves, which declared the “Intolerable Acts” null and void and recommended that colonists obtain weapons and form militias. It also recommended a boycott of all British imports and even called for the establishment of “associations” in every colony to make sure that people enforced the boycott. The radicals won the debates and eventually convinced the others to help them to reach their goals. They did not declare independence at the First Continental Congress, but they started on the path to it and managed to gain support from those who had originally disagreed completely.
Of the three groups of people at the First Continental Congress, the radicals definitely took the most important steps to achieving their goals by creating the most persuasive arguments. The moderates did not offer a plan that would help to fix the situation between the colonists and the British crown. The conservatives created a plan, but it was defeated because their arguments could not beat those of John Adams. The radicals created logical and eloquent arguments and eventually managed to sway opponents onto their side. They were severely outnumbered in the beginning, but their style of debate brought opponents onto their side and allowed them to create the Declaration of Resolves. The First Continental Congress was the colonists’ first step to the radicals’ goal of independence.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Essay #2: Religion in the Colonies
Should the “opiate of the people” cause this many extraordinary developments? In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his protests about the Catholic Church to the door of Wittenberg’s Cathedral, starting the Protestant Reformation and causing many Christians to separate from Catholicism. In the 1530s, Henry VIII severed ties with the Catholic Church and created the Church of England. Many people, later named “Puritans,” wanted to purify Christianity. As time passed, these people became upset by the lack of reform in the Church of England. When England began colonizing the Americas, many settlers sought to bring about religious change. Religion played an extremely significant role in the establishment of the English colonies in North America by giving incentives for the creation of early colonies, causing conflict which led to the founding of other colonies as religious havens, and being heavily incorporated into multiple colonial governments.
Two of the earliest colonies, Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth, were founded by Puritans seeking to avoid persecution. Massachusetts Bay was originally started as an economic venture, but it was made into a theocracy before the settlers even reached land. John Winthrop, who was a preacher on the Arabella, said that he wanted Massachusetts Bay to be a “city upon a hill.” This meant that they would be watched by the world and could not allow themselves to do anything wrong. He believed that God had created an agreement with the Puritans similar to the one he held with the people of Israel. He also believed that the Anglican church of England had gone astray and wanted to help fix it. As a contrast, the Pilgrims who founded Plymouth were separatists who decided that their differences with the Church of England could not be reconciled. They came to the New World with the hope of creating a sanctuary where citizens could worship in the “correct” way without being persecuted by the Anglicans of England.
Conflict between people with different religious opinions led to the creation of new colonies as havens for settlers with certain beliefs. Although the settlers of Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth sought to avoid oppression based on their beliefs, they themselves oppressed others, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson for their differing beliefs. Roger Williams believed in the concepts of separation of church and state as well as complete religious freedom. He was banished from Massachusetts Bay and eventually created his won colony, Rhode Island, where his views were incorporated into government. Anne Hutchinson publicly expressed her opinion that people could interpret the Bible themselves and that priests were not necessary. After being banished, she helped Roger Williams to found Rhode Island. Other colonies were also created as sanctuaries that provided freedom. Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn as a haven for Quakers, but allowed settlers of many origins. Maryland, created by Lord Baltimore, was originally a haven for Catholics, but ended up being a sanctuary for all Christians because they were all given equal rights.
Religion played an important role in colonial government as well as providing an incentive for creation. Massachusetts Bay created a theocracy. Only adult males belonging to Puritan congregations were allowed to vote. Laws punished those who did not attend church or who did things considered to be sins. Anyone who expressed a differing religious opinion (such as Anne Hutchinson or Roger Williams) was banished. Plymouth had similar laws, punishing those who failed to live by “God’s law.” Rhode Island was the complete opposite. The government was created on the idea of separation of church and state. All residents were guaranteed religious freedom and religion was never incorporated into government in any way. This was very strange at the time because all other governments had specific religions that people were expected to follow by law. Pennsylvania was similar. William Penn, the founder, was a Quaker and believed in equal rights for people of all religions. He, too, incorporated this idea into his colony’s government. Lord Baltimore, founder of Maryland, was less extreme. He gave equal rights to all Christians, but persecuted people of other religions.
Religion played an extraordinary role in the shaping of the English colonies in North America. It gave settlers the incentives to come to America, caused conflicts that led people to found new colonies, and was used as a basis for multiple governments. Two of the earlier colonies were created because the Puritans and Separatists wanted places to worship without persecution. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were founded by people who were persecuted in existing colonies and wanted safe havens for their beliefs. Religion was the main basis for government in Massachusetts Bay, while Rhode Island had separation of church and state as well as complete religious freedom. The English colonies never would have developed the way they did if there had not been so many religious conflicts and revolutions at the time.
Two of the earliest colonies, Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth, were founded by Puritans seeking to avoid persecution. Massachusetts Bay was originally started as an economic venture, but it was made into a theocracy before the settlers even reached land. John Winthrop, who was a preacher on the Arabella, said that he wanted Massachusetts Bay to be a “city upon a hill.” This meant that they would be watched by the world and could not allow themselves to do anything wrong. He believed that God had created an agreement with the Puritans similar to the one he held with the people of Israel. He also believed that the Anglican church of England had gone astray and wanted to help fix it. As a contrast, the Pilgrims who founded Plymouth were separatists who decided that their differences with the Church of England could not be reconciled. They came to the New World with the hope of creating a sanctuary where citizens could worship in the “correct” way without being persecuted by the Anglicans of England.
Conflict between people with different religious opinions led to the creation of new colonies as havens for settlers with certain beliefs. Although the settlers of Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth sought to avoid oppression based on their beliefs, they themselves oppressed others, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson for their differing beliefs. Roger Williams believed in the concepts of separation of church and state as well as complete religious freedom. He was banished from Massachusetts Bay and eventually created his won colony, Rhode Island, where his views were incorporated into government. Anne Hutchinson publicly expressed her opinion that people could interpret the Bible themselves and that priests were not necessary. After being banished, she helped Roger Williams to found Rhode Island. Other colonies were also created as sanctuaries that provided freedom. Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn as a haven for Quakers, but allowed settlers of many origins. Maryland, created by Lord Baltimore, was originally a haven for Catholics, but ended up being a sanctuary for all Christians because they were all given equal rights.
Religion played an important role in colonial government as well as providing an incentive for creation. Massachusetts Bay created a theocracy. Only adult males belonging to Puritan congregations were allowed to vote. Laws punished those who did not attend church or who did things considered to be sins. Anyone who expressed a differing religious opinion (such as Anne Hutchinson or Roger Williams) was banished. Plymouth had similar laws, punishing those who failed to live by “God’s law.” Rhode Island was the complete opposite. The government was created on the idea of separation of church and state. All residents were guaranteed religious freedom and religion was never incorporated into government in any way. This was very strange at the time because all other governments had specific religions that people were expected to follow by law. Pennsylvania was similar. William Penn, the founder, was a Quaker and believed in equal rights for people of all religions. He, too, incorporated this idea into his colony’s government. Lord Baltimore, founder of Maryland, was less extreme. He gave equal rights to all Christians, but persecuted people of other religions.
Religion played an extraordinary role in the shaping of the English colonies in North America. It gave settlers the incentives to come to America, caused conflicts that led people to found new colonies, and was used as a basis for multiple governments. Two of the earlier colonies were created because the Puritans and Separatists wanted places to worship without persecution. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were founded by people who were persecuted in existing colonies and wanted safe havens for their beliefs. Religion was the main basis for government in Massachusetts Bay, while Rhode Island had separation of church and state as well as complete religious freedom. The English colonies never would have developed the way they did if there had not been so many religious conflicts and revolutions at the time.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Essay 9/6/08: Comparing the Colonies
The English colonies in the New World shared many things, but they were also very different. Some were founded on the basis of religious freedom or tolerance. Others were created for political or economic reasons. Populations varied differed by high numbers and some colonies were much more diverse than others. Many colonies had governments that gave citizens little to no voice, while others allowed all adult men to be involved. Each colony had a completely original history and culture.
The colonies were all founded for different reasons. Many founders were searching for religious freedom. Massachusetts Bay was created by Puritans who sought to escape the persecution they had faced in England. The separatists, also known as Pilgrims, who felt the need to separate from the Church of England due to differences, founded Plymouth. Lord Baltimore, who was given Maryland by the King, wanted to create a haven for Catholics. Roger Williams, after being driven from Salem, Massachusetts for his beliefs in equality, created Rhode Island as a place of religious freedom. Thomas Hooker left Massachusetts because he wanted to practice a freer and more tolerant form of Protestantism. He founded Connecticut as a colony for people with similar beliefs. William Penn, a Quaker who was given land by the King, founded Pennsylvania both on his belief in religious tolerance and his desire to have positive relations with the Native Americans. Other colonies had different origins. Virginia was founded for economic reasons. Many people came from England to Virginia seeking precious metals such as gold. Georgia was originally planned as a place to house English debtors that were in jail, but that idea was never actually put in motion. Delaware has perhaps the most interesting history, as it changed hands between the Dutch and the Swedes several times from 1631 to 1673, before the English took control in 1674.
The populations varied in different colonies. Virginia had the highest number of people, with an estimated 447,000 in 1770. That was over 12 times the population of Delaware, which was only about 35,500 people. The races and religions of these people were also very different in separate colonies. Massachusetts Bay had a population that consisted entirely if Puritans, while Plymouth’s consisted of Separatists. The people of Virginia were almost all Anglicans, although they did not incorporate it into their government as much as the Puritans and Separatists did. Connecticut’s population was mainly Puritans who, like their founder, preferred a more tolerant approach. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were much more diverse when it came to religion because they all promoted religious tolerance. New York had a high number of Dutch people because of the fact that the Dutch had settled there earlier. Delaware’s population was very diverse because there were still remnants of all the different countries that had controlled it before the English. A large percentage of Georgia’s population was African slaves.
Although all of the colonies were part of England, they were each governed differently. Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Delaware were all proprietary colonies. Their individual governments were decided by whoever the King had given the land to. Pennsylvania, however, still had its taxes enforced by the British Parliament. Delaware was only a proprietary colony from 1682 to 1701, before William Penn, its owner, could no longer control it and it became independent. It elected its own assembly in 1704. By the time of the Revolution, all proprietary colonies except for Pennsylvania and Maryland had come under royal rule. The non-proprietary colonies had their own individual governments, allowing for a certain amount of self-government. Virginia had the House of Burgesses, which was the first representative government in the New World. Connecticut’s Fundamental Orders boasted a democratic government following the will of the people. Rhode Island’s charter guaranteed religious freedom, which was very strange at that time. As a contrast, Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay both based laws on religion, forcing people to go to church and punishing people for things that they considered to be sins.
None of the founders of the colonies were seeking the same thing. The Americas were new and each colony could be shaped into something different. Many were diverse while others were created purely for one religion or race. Some were given the right to govern themselves, but many had to obey leaders appointed by the English King. The laws created by these governments were unique in themselves, as they were all created to tailor to specific interests. Through these differences, the colonies created unique cultures and societies.
[Soure for populations: http://merrill.olm.net/mdocs/pop/colonies/colonies.htm]
The colonies were all founded for different reasons. Many founders were searching for religious freedom. Massachusetts Bay was created by Puritans who sought to escape the persecution they had faced in England. The separatists, also known as Pilgrims, who felt the need to separate from the Church of England due to differences, founded Plymouth. Lord Baltimore, who was given Maryland by the King, wanted to create a haven for Catholics. Roger Williams, after being driven from Salem, Massachusetts for his beliefs in equality, created Rhode Island as a place of religious freedom. Thomas Hooker left Massachusetts because he wanted to practice a freer and more tolerant form of Protestantism. He founded Connecticut as a colony for people with similar beliefs. William Penn, a Quaker who was given land by the King, founded Pennsylvania both on his belief in religious tolerance and his desire to have positive relations with the Native Americans. Other colonies had different origins. Virginia was founded for economic reasons. Many people came from England to Virginia seeking precious metals such as gold. Georgia was originally planned as a place to house English debtors that were in jail, but that idea was never actually put in motion. Delaware has perhaps the most interesting history, as it changed hands between the Dutch and the Swedes several times from 1631 to 1673, before the English took control in 1674.
The populations varied in different colonies. Virginia had the highest number of people, with an estimated 447,000 in 1770. That was over 12 times the population of Delaware, which was only about 35,500 people. The races and religions of these people were also very different in separate colonies. Massachusetts Bay had a population that consisted entirely if Puritans, while Plymouth’s consisted of Separatists. The people of Virginia were almost all Anglicans, although they did not incorporate it into their government as much as the Puritans and Separatists did. Connecticut’s population was mainly Puritans who, like their founder, preferred a more tolerant approach. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were much more diverse when it came to religion because they all promoted religious tolerance. New York had a high number of Dutch people because of the fact that the Dutch had settled there earlier. Delaware’s population was very diverse because there were still remnants of all the different countries that had controlled it before the English. A large percentage of Georgia’s population was African slaves.
Although all of the colonies were part of England, they were each governed differently. Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Delaware were all proprietary colonies. Their individual governments were decided by whoever the King had given the land to. Pennsylvania, however, still had its taxes enforced by the British Parliament. Delaware was only a proprietary colony from 1682 to 1701, before William Penn, its owner, could no longer control it and it became independent. It elected its own assembly in 1704. By the time of the Revolution, all proprietary colonies except for Pennsylvania and Maryland had come under royal rule. The non-proprietary colonies had their own individual governments, allowing for a certain amount of self-government. Virginia had the House of Burgesses, which was the first representative government in the New World. Connecticut’s Fundamental Orders boasted a democratic government following the will of the people. Rhode Island’s charter guaranteed religious freedom, which was very strange at that time. As a contrast, Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay both based laws on religion, forcing people to go to church and punishing people for things that they considered to be sins.
None of the founders of the colonies were seeking the same thing. The Americas were new and each colony could be shaped into something different. Many were diverse while others were created purely for one religion or race. Some were given the right to govern themselves, but many had to obey leaders appointed by the English King. The laws created by these governments were unique in themselves, as they were all created to tailor to specific interests. Through these differences, the colonies created unique cultures and societies.
[Soure for populations: http://merrill.olm.net/mdocs/pop/colonies/colonies.htm]
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Summer Vacation
Over the summer, I went went to a drama camp at the University of Chicago with my friends. We wrote and performed a play with a very strange plot (A hurricane named Zoe doesn't want to destroy things, so she moves to the city, where only mental patients can see her). After the drama camp, I went to a debate camp in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)