US History: Module 6 and 7 Class Lectures and Textbook (Through Chapters 14-21, 23A-23C) Module 6 Lecture Module 7 Lecture Module 6 Textbook Module 7 Textbook Module Six Introduction For this module, we will be discussing the process by which the United States government was established, starting with the short-lived Articles of Confederation and ending with the writing of the Constitution. By week's end, you should be able to answer the following general questions: 1. What problems came up while the United States was under the Articles of Confederation? 2. In general, what types of people were involved in the writing of the Constitution? 3. How was the Articles of Confederation different from the Constitution? (How was the Constitution supposed to resolve problems that came up under the Articles?) 4. What basic principles can be found throughout the Constitution? 5. Why was the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution? Textbook Reading for this Module Chapters 14 through 16 US History: Module 6 and 7 Class Lectures and Textbook The Articles of Confederation Reading Assignment I summarize much of this module in essay #28 of Accessible American History (" Why was the Articles of Confederation Replaced by the Constitution?") Structure of the National Government Through most of the Revolutionary War, the United States did not have an official national government. It was only toward the end of the war that they agreed upon a system of government called the Articles of Confederation. As we will see, this system did not last very long because it did not work very well. But here was the basic plan: ● The national government consisted of a Congress ○ Each state, regardless of size, gets one vote ○ There is no executive branch or national court system ● To pass a bill, nine states must vote yes ○ It is hard to get things done because it is difficult to get get this 2/3 majority ● To pass an amendment (which would change how the system worked), all states must vote yes Powers of the National Government By design, the national government was given the bare minimum in terms of powers. ● Negotiate with foreign countries ● Establish a military ● Set up a postal system for interstate communication ● Resolve disputes between states ● Set up a currency system ○ Problem: States are also allowed to create their own currencies if they choose. Five states end up minting their own coins. ● Request money from states ○ The national government has NO POWER TO TAX. Governments of Individual States https://youtu.be/k6h9Iuzj3s8 ● State governments vary. ● Compared to governments around the world at the time, these state governments are often very democratic ○ Some people thought there was too much democracy. ● State governments often, like the national government, do not have powerful, central authority figures (like governors). Problems with the Articles of Confederation The national government under the Articles of Confederation was not a complete failure. As described in chapter 14, section C of the textbook, they did come up with an effective system for organizaing the west into new states. But if you understand how the government was set up, and the minimal powers that were given to the national government, it is easy to figure out why it failed. ● The national government cannot raise enough money to pay off the debts from the Revolutionary War or to pay for the few things it is supposed to do. ● It is difficult for businessmen to trade across state lines ○ Different currencies ○ Different rules for doing business ○ Some states put tariffs (taxes on imports) on goods from other states ● The national government can't protect the homeland from foreign countries ○ The British block American trade in the Caribbean ○ Spain shuts off access to the Mississippi River ○ Pirates in North Africa capture American merchant ships and hold people for ransom ● The national government can't keep order ○ Shays' Rebellion (See chapter 15, section A of the textbook) ■ Below is a painting of Shays and his followers shutting down a courthouse by force Who Wrote the Constitution? In the United States, the Constitution is revered by many as almost a holy document written by the Founding Fathers, men often depicted as national saints. It can be easy to forget that it was written by flawed men responding to the specific circumstances of the flawed times in which they lived. In our effort to understand and follow this supposedly hallowed document, the history behind it often gets lost. Because this is a history class and not a political science class, we will focus on the history behind the Constitution and talk about it in more general terms than in a political science class that digs into more of the details. The John Green, Course Course History video below does a particularly good job of reviewing what we already talked about with the Articles of Confederation and previewing what comes next: https://youtu.be/bO7FQsCcbD8 In 1787, 55 people from 12 states got together with the official purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. (Rhode Island did not send anyone. It was a tiny, still rebellious state that liked to do its own thing.) The painting below is a famous depiction of this 55 men meeting at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. (I will let you figure out the race and gender of all these people.) Notice George Washington, who was quickly named president of the convention, standing to the right. Also notice Benjamin Franklin, who always seemed to be there when something important was happening, sitting with a goofy look on his face in the middle of the painting, with Alexander Hamilton seemingly whispering something in his ear. As the John Green video said, these were not average, everyday people. ● They were highly educated and experienced ○ More than half had legal training ○ Most had served in the Continental Congress during the war ● They were wealthy on average ○ Many were prosperous businessmen, including merchants, investors, and slaveholding plantation owners ● Only eight of them had been signers of the Declaration of Independence 11 years before. ○ This was a new generation of leaders, possibly more interested in maintaining order and protecting people's property rights than in freedom and liberty. Structure of the Constitution Branches of Government James Madison saw this convention as a golden opportunity. This new nation had a chance to create a government from scratch. So Madison studied hundreds of governments from the past to try and figure out from history what worked best. He concluded that every system of government - monarchy, aristocracy, republic, democracy - had its strengths and weaknesses. The best system, therefore, was a mixed government that could incorporate the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of all possible systems. Madison walked into the convention with a radical plan. They should trash the Articles of Confederation and create a national government with real power that was divided into three branches. Amazingly, in spite of the fact that they were not supposed to be creating a brand new government, the delegates at the convention quickly agreed to his basic plan. Historians today call it the Virginia Plan because Madison came from Virginia, and Madison is often called "The Father of the Constitution." George Washington was also from Virginia, and although he did not speak much publicly during the meetings, he threw his support and considerable prestige behind Madison's plan. While some of the details of the Virginia Plan changed, the basic structure is what we still have today. ● Legislative Branch ○ Makes laws ○ Broken up into two chambers: The House of Representatives and the Senate ● Executive Branch ○ Enforces the laws ○ Led by the President ● Judicial Branch ○ Establishes national district courts and a Supreme Court as the highest court in the land Controversial Issues During the Convention After making the biggest, most controversial decision fairly quickly, the next several months were spent largely arguing about the details. ● Selection of leaders ○ Legislative Branch ■ Members of the House of Representatives are chosen by voters. ■ Member of the Senate are chosen by state legislatures. ○ Executive Branch ■ The president is chosen through the Electoral College system. ■ Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the number of people it has in Congress (Senators + members of the House). Each state can decide how to choose the electors who will then vote for the President ■ To win, a candidate must get a true majority (more than 50% of the votes possible). ■ In essay #29 of Accessible American History, I explain why I think that the electoral college system is a dumb way of choosing presidents and should have been discarded a long time ago. ○ Judicial branch ■ Judicial nominees are nominated by the president and then must be approved by the Senate. ● Large states vs. small states ○ Should large states have more representatives in Congress and electoral votes than small states or should they all be equals like with the Articles of Confederation? ○ "Great compromise" ■ House of Representatives is based on population ■ In the Senate, every state gets two members ● Issues related to slavery ○ In essay #31 of Accessible American History, I discuss all of the places where slavery comes up in the Constitution. Each represents a compromise made between the North and the South. Basic Principles of the Constitution Division of Power The main reason power was broken up into three branches was to make sure that no political officials had too much power. But the Constitution went beyond breaking up law making, law enforcing, and legal interpretation into separate branches. It also set up various checks and balances, with each branch having the ability to set limits on the main powers of the other two branches. So Congress writes laws, but the president has the power to veto laws, forcing Congress to now have 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate to override a veto. If the law ultimately passes, the Supreme Court over time asserted the power to declare laws (and presidential actions) unconstitutional. The president is commander and chief of the military, but only the Congress can declare war. These are just a couple examples of the main checks and balances built into the Constitution. Some Distrust of Democracy The only officials in the national government directly elected by voters in the original Constitution were members of the House of Representatives. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were not comfortable with giving the people too much direct power. This is why some historians and political scientists would argue that the Constitution was written by rich people to protect the interests of rich people. I'm not going to argue that this is entirely true. I doubt that all 55 of these guys had the same goal in mind. But I think that it is an argument worthy of discussion. I can speak for myself, however, in saying that I never heard this argument made by an American until I was in college. The idea that the Constitution was actually a step backward for democracy is hard for Americans to wrap their heads around. In essay #30 of Accessible American History, I talk about some of the reasons why the Founders (and many other people at the time) had their doubts about democracy. A Powerful National Government While individual states still had jurisdiction over certain matters, the national government was now far more powerful than under the Articles of Confederation. Here is a list of its major powers: ● Taxing power ● Regulate trade ● Enforce contracts ● Exclusive power to create currency ○ No more state currencies ● Make treaties ● Build a military ● Declaree war ● Can override state laws ○ Sorry all you medical or recreational California marijuana users. Smoking pot is still illegal according to federal law, and that is what matters. So smoke at your own risk. Ratification of the Constitution Ratifying Conventions Technically, the Articles of Confederations was still the government, and it took a yes vote from all 13 states in the Articles congress to ratify the government. But that was going to be tough, especially since Rhode Island didn't even show up. So it was decided that ratifying conventions would be called in each state, with representatives from throughout each state coming together to debate and vote on ratification of this new government. Today, it seems like a no-brainer. But many people throughout the country were nervous about the idea of a powerful national government. Every state eventually voted yes, although as you can see in the chart below, it was very close in some states. The Bill of Rights Some states would have likely voted no, but agreements were made to add some things to the Constitution after it became the government in order to ease people's fears. (As you can see in the chart below, the vote in some of the states was very close.) Ten amendments were added in 1791, with each designed to put limits on the powers of this national government. Today, we call these ten amendments collectively the Bill of Rights, and they have become over the centuries some of the most well known parts of the Constitution. State Yes votes No votes Delaware 30 9 Pennsylvania 46 23 New Jersey 38 0 Georgia 26 0 Connectictut 128 40 Massachusetts 187 168 Maryland 63 11 South Carolina 149 73 New Hampshire 57 47 Virginia 89 79 New York 30 27 North Carolina 194 77 Rhode Island 34 32 Module Seven Introduction For module seven, we will be talking about the major political issues and problems that came up during the first 35 years of United States history. By the time you finish this module, you should be able to answer the following questions: 1. In what ways did Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton disagree? In the competition between the two factions that grew around their ideas, who won? Explain. 2. How did fighting in Europe contribute to the following: the Louisiana Purchase? the acquisition of Florida? the War of 1812? 3. Describe the policy of the United States toward Native Americans. 4. What disagreements arose between the North and South at this time? Textbook Reading for this Module Chapters 17 through 21; chapter 23, sections A and C Political Disagreements and the Formation of Political Parties The Founding Fathers by and large did not like the idea of political parties. (Given the situation in our country today, you can understand why.) They did not want a constant competition to be happening between different factions. Factionalism can promote narrow-minded thinking, demonizing of opponents, and a situation where politicians either consciously or unconsciously care more about the success of their particular faction than the country as a whole. Their vision was that the country would be a place where people fought it out during elections, and then, once winners were declared, people would come back together to make the most of the situation. Needless to say, things did not quite work out as planned. Maybe political parties in countries that elect leaders are inevitable. George Washington, our nation's first president, was the one man when the country started that the nation could rally behind. He was not a member of any political party because parties did not exist yet. When he chose people to be the nation's first department heads, he chose people on the basis of qualifications. He did not choose them because they agreed with him or one another on everything. His two most prominent appointments disagreed with one another about everything (and openly disliked one another). From these two men's ideas, the country's first two political parties would eventually form: the Federalists and the Republicans (who were sometimes referred to as Democratic-Republicans, believe it or not). Alexander Hamilton was the country's first Secretary of Treasury (and practically co-president), and Thomas Jefferson was the first Secretary of State (in charge of foreign affairs). The chart below shows how they disagreed with one another and the beliefs of each party. Alexander Hamilton Federalists Thomas Jefferson Republicans Wants a trade-based / industrial society Wants a society of independent farmers Wants a powerful national government Wants the power to be more at the state level "Loose" interpretation of the Constitution "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution Pro-British Pro-France So who won this competition? When Washington was president, he tended to support the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who had been his "right-hand man" through much of the Revolutionary War. As Secretary of Treasury, Hamilton did a very effective job of getting the nation's finances in order. Jefferson ended up leaving the administration after one term and helping to organize the opposition. After John Adams, a federalist, served one term as our nation's second president, Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in 1800. For the next twenty-five years, Jefferson's Republicans would dominate politically. Jefferson would also have a more successful personal life than Hamilton. He lived into his eighties and died on the 50th anniversary of the Fourth of July. Hamilton, on the other hand, died after being shot in a duel when he was in his forties. Below is a short video that describes the strange death of Alexander Hamilton. I created a version with good captioning Links to an external site. at amara.org. https://youtu.be/VjsqZHb32Gk In spite of the fact that Jefferson's party ended up dominating the elections, you could make the case that Hamilton won in some ways. The basic framework he laid out in the country's early days stayed in place in spite of the fact that the Republicans took control politically. (Plus, Hamilton is now a Broadway superstar!) I write more about Hamilton in essay #32 of Accessible American History. ( I also write a bit about both Hamilton and Jefferson in essay #34: "The Religions of the Founding Fathers.") In essay #33, I discuss the political competition between Jefferson and Hamilton and how this played out during the first few decades of United States history. And finally, here are some additional quick thoughts about these very talented, important, complicated, and flawed men. https://youtu.be/h-X0t5f_gPo Foreign Affairs (The Impact of War in Europe) The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars When the United States began as an independent country, the nation was pretty weak. At times in those early years, the English, the Spanish, and even North African pirates were causing trouble for the new nation. Fortunately for the United States, European nations became distracted (once again) by war. This gave the United States the chance to get off the ground as a country while Europe was busy, and, as we'll discuss soon, it also created some opportunities to add new territory. The warfare in Europe this time was triggered by the French Revolution, which is briefly summarized in chapter 19, section A of the textbook. Suffice to say here that the French Revolution took a much uglier, more radical turn than the American Revolution. France's neighbors, fearing that events in France could trigger revolutions in their countries, attacked France, which set off about 20 years of continuous warfare. A French general, Napoleon Bonaparte, rose to prominence during this fighting, and he was able to eventually become a dictator because people hoped he could restore some order. So a revolution which started with people talking about freedom, human rights, and democracy ended with a new kind of emperor. Napoleon kept fighting to dominate Europe until he was ultimately defeated. George Washington decided not to take sides during this European conflict. (France was understandably upset after helping the United States win independence just a few years before.) He made this choice because he was convinced that the United States was not in a position to get tangled up in someone else's wars. This policy of staying neutral when Europe was at war would remain standard American policy for the next 125 years. As a neutral nation, the United States believed that it had the right to trade with whatever nations it wished. Unfortunately, neither the French nor the British respected the right of the United States to trade with its enemy. If you read through the textbook, you will see that the United States came close to going to war with France at certain times and with Britain at other times depending on which political party was in power in the US at the time and on which European nation was interfering with American trade more. Eventually, the United States did go to war with one of those two countries. The War of 1812 The War of 1812 is discussed in the textbook in chapter 21, sections C, E, and F. And as usual, John Green does a good job of summarizing the war in one of his "Crash Course History" videos below. https://youtu.be/qMXqg2PKJZU Causes ● British interference with American trade (as I just talked about above) ○ In addition to interfering with American trade by stopping and boarding American ships and confiscating goods, the British would sometimes grab people working on these ships and force them into British military service. They claimed that these sailors were British men who had joined Americam merchant ships in order to avoid getting drafted, which sometimes was true. But some of these "kidnapped" men were Americans. ● Some Americans saw war with Britain as an excuse to invade and conquer Canada. ○ Spoiler alert: the American attempt to conquer Canada failed. ● Many Americans were convinced that the British were encouraging Native Americans to fight against the United States by providing them with weapons and other goods. ● Many Americans still hated the British and were convinced that the British would never respect the United States unless Americans stood up for themselves. Results ● Neither side clearly won. As the map below shows, each side won roughly the same amount of battles. The war didn't cause ony significant changes. But for the United States, a young and relatively weak country, a tie was sort of a win. At the least, the United States demonstrated that it could get its act together enough to fight, and it likely earned a certain degree of respect from the British and other nations. On the map, red stars are locations of British victories in battle and blue stars American wins