|  |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Printable Version
E-mail to a Friend
APA | MLA | |
After the American Revolution, a new government had to be established. The Constitution that was written took power away from the people. It led to rebellions from poor people and farmers.
Daniel Shays, a former Revolutionary Army captain, led a rebellion with farmers, against laws which were not fair to the poor. They protested against excessive taxes on property, polling taxes which obtained the poor from voting, unfair actions by the court of common requests, the high cost of lawsuits, and the lack of a stable currency. They wanted the government to issue paper money, since it is cheaper then gold and silver coins.
Once retired George Washington heard of this, he immediately went to Massachusetts to stop it. He was completely shocked to see the people fighting against the country which fought to free those men. “What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious.” (George Washington Expresses Alarm 1786) He said this to the rebels who then stopped and the rebellion was crushed.
After Shays rebellion collapsed, the government realized that they need a new constitution and to strengthen the Articles of Confederation. This was a long and hard decision on whether to give the people the right to voice their opinions or not. Mixed views on the subject were given so it was very difficult to come to a conclusion. Mr. Sherman of Connecticut “opposed the election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the state legislatures. The people, he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government. They want [lack] information and are constantly liable to be misled.” (The Debate on Representation in Congress 1787). Mr. Sherman is saying that people should not have anything to do with what the government has to do. They only get information wrong and can be misled and misdirected into something that can be bad for the country.
Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts believes “the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” While Mr. Mason of Virginia “argued strongly for an election of the larger branch by the people.” The representatives of these states viewed different ideas on democracy. Some wanted the people to have more of a say while others wanted to do the saying for the people.
Thomas Jefferson’s views changed in 1787. At first his comments about Shays rebellion was “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” (Thomas Jefferson Favors rebellion 1787) He was saying that rebellion is good every once in awhile so the government doesn’t think they are omnipotent. Later, he said “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always well informed.” (Jefferson is Unenthusiastic 1787) Here he is saying that America just has to have a rebellion and can’t live in peace. He is right that all the people cannot be always well informed, but attempting to keep them well informed is the key to success, which I believe the government did not, and still does not do.
In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson said “…what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophism for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all metters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations.” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison on the Constitution Dec. 20, 1787) “…greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office and particulary in the case of the President.” Again, he is for rebellion and freedom for men.
George Mason, was an important and intelligent man, but refused to sign the Constitution. He felt that “by requiring only a majority [of Congress] to make all commercial and navigation laws, the five Southern states, whose produce and circumstances are totally different from that of the eight Northern and Eastern States, may be ruined. …will enable the merchants of the Northern and Eastern states not only to demand an exorbitant freight, but to monopolize the purchase of the commodities at their own price, for many years, to the great injury of the landed interest and impoverishment of the people. And the danger is the greater as the gain on one side will be in proportion to the loss on the other.” (George Mason is Critical 1787) Mason believes that the Constitution will only benefit the Northern states and not the South. He does not agree with the judicial system and believes that a person should not stay in office for to long or else it will “produce a monarchy or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy. It will most probably vibrate some years between the two and then terminate in the one or the other.” A little extreme in his views, it seems the Mason believed that the Constitution could be the end of America.
While most of the men who wrote these documents were well educated, some were not. Amos Singletary was of the small-fry group said “we contented with Great Britain – some said for a three-penny duty on tea; but it was not that. It was because they claimed a right to tax us and bind us in all cases whatever. And does not this Constitution do the same? Does it not take away all we have – all our property? Does it not lay all taxes, duties, imposts, and excises? And what more have we to give?” (Delegate Fears for the Little People 1788) Singletary is saying that the Constitution is just like how Britain was taxing all Americans on paper goods, and tea. The only difference is the rich people of America are taxing the poor, who can barely or not afford gold and silver coins.
Article One Section Eight of the Constitution states “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises…” As Samuel Nasson said “We may, sir, be poor; we may not be able to pay these taxes, etc. We must have a little meal, and a little meat, whereon to live, and save a little for a rainy day.” (A Storekeeper Blasts Standing Armies 1788) The taxes that the government makes the poor pay leaves them with nothing to buy food to feed their families, or clothes to keep them warm in the winter, or a roof over their heads. The government was also thought of having a standing army. A standing army is a permanent army maintained in time of peace and war. Nasson said “what occasion have we for standing armies? We fear no foe. If one should come upon us, we have a militia, which is our bulwark…Therefore, sir, I am utterly opposed to a standing army in time of peace…”
Another argument in America was slave importation. Luther Martin said “allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. First, as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen in the apportionment of representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement to this traffic. Second, slaves [through danger of insurrection] weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts are bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. Third, it was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution” (The Argument over Slave Importation 1787). This is a good argument against the Constitution. If the Revolution was to fight for freedom for all men in America, then why are the Americans holding the African Americans as pretty much prisoners? While Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut was for “leaving the clause as it stands. Let every state import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery and considerations belonging to the states themselves.”
Eldbridge Gerry of Massachusetts wrote a letter expressing his objection to the Constitution. “There is no adequate provision for a representation of the people – that some of the powers of the legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous – that the executive is blended with, and will have an undue influence over, the legislature – that the judicial will be oppressive – that treaties of the highest importance may be formed by the president with the advice of two- thirds of a quorum of the senate – and that the system is without the security of a bill of rights. These are objections which are not local, but apply equally to all the states.” (Elbridge Gerry, Letter to President of Senate and Speaker of House of Representatives of Massachusetts, October 18, 1787). Gerry is saying that no government can represent the people, only the people can represent the people. It’s not only in Massachusetts that this problem of representation, it’s all thirteen states.
During the time the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers believed the government was based on property. “Men who have no property lack the necessary stake in an orderly society to make stable or reliable citizens” (The American Political Tradition). While John Adams said there could be “no free government without a democratical branch in the constitution” John Jay felt “The people who own the country ought to govern it.” This proves that there were many mixed feelings about the Constitution, but still, the power went “from the many to the few”. There are only a hand full of people that can run the country during the time the Constitution was written, and even today, but the ratio between politicians and “farmers” is great.
Still looking for the right essay?
Try our Premium Essay collection!
This essay is copyrighted by the author and maintained
by GotEssays.Com for research purposes only!
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
