Our independence had just been fought, and won for. It was a victory over the British Empire and the creation of an American Empire. Our expansion was indeed a manifest destiny that sparked a revolution in the eyes of America and her people. But the unification of the states did not last much longer than the war. As soon as it ended, states started going their separate ways. George Washington stated that we needed a strong central government to manage the states wandering around the continent. It was difficult to give that idea when the government they just escaped was like the one portrayed in Washington's mind.
"The gap between these two political camps was an unbridgeable chasm separated by a fundamental difference of opinion over the true meaning of the American Revolution."
The new effort was to create a form of government that embraced the American dream and a firm ground for all the changes to come.
One major person in the ratification of our government system was James Madison. He exposed the failings of a weak central government and fought to find a new one. Alongside him were Washington, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and Patrick Henry. The fear of Washington and Madison was that the America they worked so hard for was on the edge of anarchy, the fear that the nation would not fulfill its promises. Many situations went downhill after trying to create a solution. Madison, attempting to mend the Articles of Confederation, invested in developments to fix them. But they were somewhat complicated and failed to work out. The one that succeeded involved one man, George Washington. He was the one with most experience and that began his progression of becoming the future President.
Madison and Washington both agreed that "the full promise of the American Revolution could be secured only by a stable and wholly consolidated nation-state." The first development was concerning navigation rights of the Mississippi River. John Jay suggested that they give up American rights in able to use the Mississippi River. But this initiative was only temporary and partial interests, and would not benefit for a long period of time.
The second development was the state of union among rebel farmers in America. Also known as, "Shay's Rebellion", some twelve hundred rebels fought to earn their own land back after they came back from the war. This did not last long nor was it very effective in the struggle for their rights.
The third development was the failure of the Annapolis Convention. There was only five states that showed up to the convention, but its initial failure emboldened him to try a business proposal from Alexander Hamilton.
The last development was the manipulation by Madison to get Washington out of retirement and back to doing what he was great at. What they both realized what was best for the constitution was complete change of the Articles of Confederation.
Madison and Washington both agreed that "the full promise of the American Revolution could be secured only by a stable and wholly consolidated nation-state." The first development was concerning navigation rights of the Mississippi River. John Jay suggested that they give up American rights in able to use the Mississippi River. But this initiative was only temporary and partial interests, and would not benefit for a long period of time.
The second development was the state of union among rebel farmers in America. Also known as, "Shay's Rebellion", some twelve hundred rebels fought to earn their own land back after they came back from the war. This did not last long nor was it very effective in the struggle for their rights.
The third development was the failure of the Annapolis Convention. There was only five states that showed up to the convention, but its initial failure emboldened him to try a business proposal from Alexander Hamilton.
The last development was the manipulation by Madison to get Washington out of retirement and back to doing what he was great at. What they both realized what was best for the constitution was complete change of the Articles of Confederation.
"The Articles of Confederation did not need to be revised, they needed to be completely replaced with a fully empowered national government that possessed a clear mandate to coerce the states in both foreign and domestic policy."
Between March and May of 1787, Madison endorsed a two-pronged campaign in order to prepare himself for the debates in Philadelphia. He was a strong orator and a 'frustrating' opponent because he always had better swaying opinions and relevant information. Edmund Randolph wrote to Madison saying that they would not tolerate the enhancement of the Articles. A radical reform would not appeal to the public opinion and almost surely lose. But Madison was proud; "if not extravagant, absolutely unattainable and unworthy of being attempted." His outline of a answer was made clear to him. There should be bicameral legislature representing instead of the single-house legislature representing the states. This new created federal government was going to be what they hoped for in fighting their battle for independence, a government made for the will of the people.
Strong-headed Madison arrived in Philadelphia on May 5, 1787, determined to face the challenge and a clear vision of the proper shape a truly national government needed to assume. He knew that he was fully armed to fight the political conflicts of the debate. The interests of the people determine the overall thoughts of the government. There is a gap between "will of the people" and the abiding interest of the public. Madison was fighting for a republic. They work best in small geographic areas, where the elected representative remained close to the interests of the citizens who elected them. Larger republics increase the number of competing factors, this made space an asset rather than a liability.
The debate as a whole was another "standing miracle", equivalent to the victory for our independence. It was the typical, "He said, she said" of government arguments. The people deliberating calmly on what form of government would be the best according to their happiness. But having a form of government meant that there would still be some people against it; therefore, there were Anti federalists. They believed they were protecting ordinary Americans from a takeover of the American Revolution. The main goal of the Federalist was to contest that claim by stating that the Constitution was a rescue rather than a betrayal. All the time, debates raged and some Americans were upset with our government, and both Hamilton and Madison were forced to frame their argument on behalf of the constitution.
The constitution became the central government with only enumerated powers essential for preservation of the union. Madison had found the beauty of ambiguity or also shifting sovereign-ties. The argument eventually won out, it triumphed defied logic because the argument itself is the answer. This is how we do or create things all the time, inside or outside the government. We argue to make the best out of something; "thereby, making the Constitution, like history itself, an argument without end."
The debate as a whole was another "standing miracle", equivalent to the victory for our independence. It was the typical, "He said, she said" of government arguments. The people deliberating calmly on what form of government would be the best according to their happiness. But having a form of government meant that there would still be some people against it; therefore, there were Anti federalists. They believed they were protecting ordinary Americans from a takeover of the American Revolution. The main goal of the Federalist was to contest that claim by stating that the Constitution was a rescue rather than a betrayal. All the time, debates raged and some Americans were upset with our government, and both Hamilton and Madison were forced to frame their argument on behalf of the constitution.
The constitution became the central government with only enumerated powers essential for preservation of the union. Madison had found the beauty of ambiguity or also shifting sovereign-ties. The argument eventually won out, it triumphed defied logic because the argument itself is the answer. This is how we do or create things all the time, inside or outside the government. We argue to make the best out of something; "thereby, making the Constitution, like history itself, an argument without end."
No comments:
Post a Comment