Which philosophy did the new American government adopt & do you believe the early leaders chose wisely?
Thomas Jefferson: "a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing"
Sam Adams: "The man who dares rebel agaisnt the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"
Explain your answer using evidence from the reading & class today. Be sure to reply to someone who already blogged and either support or refulte their claim. This will count as your seminar grade.
4 points for a thesis
4 points for evidence
4 points for accuracy
4 points for replying to another blogger
*if you were first go back on later and choose someone to reply to
The new American government chose to adopt Samuel Adams philosophy over Thomas Jefferson's philosophy. I believe it was a hypocritical choice and I strongly oppose such neanderthal thinking.
ReplyDeleteAs a bold faced and brazen hypocrite, Samuel Adams has some nerve speaking his opinion about putting rebels to death, considering his voice in the American Revolution not so long ago... Clearly, not much has changed since the days of King George III besides the fact that now the founding fathers are the ruling elites, not the Parliament and the monarchy. Regardless, the power is still in the hands of the rich and the peasants are still subordinate to the "republic". All the founding fathers did was indoctrinate the middle and lower class to use them to fight against the British, leaving the hands of the elites clean and sparkling. Zinn had pointed out that while the Constitution gave rights to "all" men, it neglected the lower peasants, Indians, mulattos, and negroes. Surely the definition of all doesn't mean ruling elites... can it?
A very obvious sign of the incensed lower class being tricked by the conniving upper class is Shay's rebellion. According to Howard Zinn, the average pay for a farmer fighting the revolution was only $6.66 while the colonel pay was a whopping $75. Think about who sat on their comfy ass and who soiled their shirts and shoes with blood?
One last thing that clearly shows hypocrisy in the Constitution and the founding fathers was the Sedition Act. It was apparently a crime now to state negative thoughts and views against the government, Congress, or president. What kind of blasphemy have they come up with? Was Samuel Adams jailed for deceiving the public during the revolution? What happened to the First Amendment?
The American revolution was nothing more then a mere change in ruling class, from a corrupt monarchy to a vile and equally as corrupt oligarchy.
The new American government, post-Revolution chose to adopt Sam Adam’s philosophy that “The man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Yet in adopting this philosophy the American leaders were unwisely proving that they were merely replacing British colonial rule and not revolutionizing life to better all Americans. The laws of the republic were unjust in many instances to the poor, African Americans, Native Americans and women but American leaders still threatened death if the lower class dared rebel against this unfair treatment.
ReplyDeleteThe Founding Fathers who contributed to the drafting of the American Constitution ensured that the rights and liberties of people with their own wealthy status, as well as those of the emerging middle class, were protected. But still, the lower class and people of color hardly benefitted from the Constitution. African Americans were still being enslaved and could not vote or testify in court. Native Americans were forced off the land deemed theirs by the Covenant Chain. Women were still completely denied representation in government and were still subjugated to men. People, like Gordon Wood, try to justify that the society was revolutionized when America became independent due to a change from hereditary aristocracy to meritocracy. This only applies to the rising middle class, who served as the body of support for the elite American leaders, while the lower class continued to suffer mistreatment.
American government lacked stability due to economic war debt and no centralization. The lower class, taking advantage of this weakness, decided to rebel against the laws of republic which they felt were unfair. One important example is Shay’s Rebellion. During the war members soldiers in the Continental army weren’t funded or payed properly, given redeemable certificates instead of immediate cash and lacking weaponry, and they suffered from disease. These former soldiers rallied poor farmers, under the lead of Daniel Shays, and marched through Springfield protesting and firing. Many of these rebels were sentenced to death as the American government supported Sam Adams philosophy. The Riot Act also resulted from this rebellion in which the American government made it legal to jail people without proper trial.
I completely support Michael’s position. What was resulted from the American Revolution was a replacement of British rule with colonial elite. Michael brings up another very good point, the Sedition Act. As time went on, American leaders began restricting more and more rights. The freedom of speech granted in the Bill of Rights only sugar-coated the fact that people could not speak out against government without consequence. Michael’s point proves that not only the lower class, but many in society, suffered rights violation and thus deserved the right to rebel without the consequence of death.
Cayla Pettinato
The new American government subsequent to the American revolution adopted Sam Adam's philosophy that, "The man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer." This essentially means that the government is in charge and the people of America should listen and abide to all of the new policies implemented.
ReplyDeleteWait...doesn't that sound like Lord Grenville/North/Townshend and the British Parliament. You see the colonist elite in the new government just put themselves in government positions, rather than the British. It was the same government with different people in charge, it was a clone government! Another instance in which the American Revolution wasn't so revolutionary was the society in the post-revolution where the lower class was still subjugated against. Although a middle class emerged in society the lower class was pushed even further down, leaving an immense gap between the rich and the poor. These problems were supposedly fixed by the constitution which claimed "all men are equal" but that obviously didn't mean Slaves, African Americans, Native Americans and the rest of the lower class because they received no equality. Howard Zinn discusses how the constitution only represented groups of the founding fathers not the rest of the lower class America. The vast majority of southern states still used the institution of slavery as they believed it was the backbone of their economy and they thought they had religious and political justification for slavery. The treatment of the lower class in the American society was symbolized by Shay's Rebellion and the Sedition Act. Shay's rebellion occurred when Daniel Shay led an uprising against high state taxes, imprisonment for debt and lack of paper money. Isn't is ironic the same people who rebelled against the British for high taxes are now implementing high taxes in their government? Another act which symbolizes how low the lower class actually was, was the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act doesn't allow for Freedom of Press. But wait, didn't everyone want John Peter Zenger freed after he was imprisoned for speaking bad about the British. Clearly, it is the same government with new people in charge and it is the same society with the same people at the bottom.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I agree, the GREAT Michael Chen wholeheartedly. Michael brought up the point about how he doesn't agree with the American's decision to follow Samuel Adams philosophies. I completely agree because if it weren't for rebellion the Americans would still be being squashed under the sole of England's foot. Rebellion got the Americans in this position and it created good for society, so to be close minded like this startles me. Also, I completely agree with how Michael labels Samuel Adams a hypocrite. Samuel Adams was crying out for revolution and rebellion during the time of war and now he is not going to let others speak their mind the same way he had, that's absurd.
* Ms. Epstein told me to tell everyone that we have to read Ch. 6 Amsco tonight!!!!
Andy Smithline
The new American government adopted Sam Adam's philosophy; "The man who dares rebel agaisnt the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." In my opinion, this was a bad choice for two reasons: it enabled the further separation of classes, which would cause future problems for the country and it was extremely hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteAfter freeing themselves from British rule, the Americans were faced with the task of creating an effective government that changed the way things once were. However, the government that was created strongly resembled the one the Americans worked so hard to overthrow; upper and middle class reaped the benefits while lower class (including native americans and slaves) suffered. The Constitution that supposedly secured the rights and liberties of all people failed to protect women, slaves, and native Americans. This was the perfect setup for the wealthy to retain their power and remain superior to the lower class.
The lower class, not suprisingly, rebelled once they realized they were not being treated properly. For example, Shays rebellion. When the hard working, lower class soliders discovered they were being paid a fraction of the wealthy colonel's salary, they joined forces under Daniel Shays and protested. Staying true to it's policy, the government arrested all the members involved and put them to death.
By this point in time, the ruling elite and lower class were drifting farther and farther apart, dividing society in America and creating more animosity. In conclusion, the decisions made by the rulers of early America allowed for the upper class to continue feeling superior and the lower class to continue feeling neglected.
I agree with Michael and his idea that the revolution was just a shift in ruling class from the British monarchy to the upper class Americans. In reality, what really changed? Did the lower class get more privileges than before? No. Was EVERYONE truly represented? No. The revolution was just an excuse for rich white men to gain control of the land and everyone on it. And they did just that.
Samuel Adams philosophy, " The man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death" was adopted by the new American government. I think that this choice was poorly made because the new laws increased the separation between the social classes. As the white rich men became richer the lower class only became lower and more poor.
ReplyDeleteOnce America became free from Britain they had to create their own system of government on how to rule. The Constitution said that " all men are created equal", but what did the founding fathers mean but ALL men? ALL men included the wealthy upper class who owned land, these were the men who were created equal and were able to vote. While all men were to be created equal, this neglected woman, Native Americans, and slaves, who made up a majority of the population.These rights granted only to the upper class gave power to the wealthy while the lower class was still inferior.
When the lower class realized these differences in power, something had to be done. Shays Rebellion is a key example of the lower class fighting back. Under Daniel Shay the lower class protested the taxes and unfair treatment that they were faced with. The American government killed many of the people who rebelled, which clearly illustrates Adams' philosophy. Ironically many of these events sound familiar. This is because the government that the Americans set up was much like that of Great Britain's government that we fought to overthrow.
I agree with Emily because she made two important points; one being the separation of classes. As stated earlier the rich/ poor gap increased because white men were given power and the lower class had less and less. Emily also states that the problems were hypocritical. This is completely true because many of the problems that the colonies faced from England, they imposed on their own new government and country. This is hypocritical because they fought against the same ideas that they later put in place. I also agree with michael that the new government was made only with the upper and middle class in mind and neglected the lower class.
So, was the Revolution really revolutionary?
-Cassidy Cohen
The New American government that proceeded the Revolution adopted Samuel Adams' philosphical idea that "the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic, ought to suffer death." I find fault in these ideas because if the people of the colonies had not rebelled, further revolutionary change would not have occurred. In addition,these acts of government displayed just how much the colonies were a replica of the British monarchy. These laws became unjust for the lower class whites, the Native Americans, and African slaves.
ReplyDeleteDuring the colonial struggle against the British, representation in the government was a overbearing issue for the colonists. The British were taxing the colonies through various acts like the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, etc. However, they were not getting a say in the government. That is what infuriated the colonists the most. "Taxation without REPRESENTATION" was the problem that catapulted the thirteen colonies into a war against the British. After the conclusion of the war, as America was creating their own form of government, this problem unveils itself once again. Although America had a government of its own, although separate states were capable of regulating themselves, some old habits never changed. The lower class struggled badly for representation in the new government. The consitution only included the Founding Fathers and not blacks, Indians, Africans, etc. For example, the Maryland Constitution stated that the citezens running for governor needed to own a certain amount of land; this eliminated the lower class completely, and most of the middle class as well. The Continental Congress also consisted of a group of RICH men, who were linked from family and buisiness connections. This eliminated any chance of lower class individuals from having representation in government. The heirarchy that existed in England, permanently diffused into the New World, without realization. This "new" government had been giving Americans the same reasons as Britain had given colonists to rebel, and so they did.
The new government was doing everything they could to try and avoid rebellion as well, and trying little things to pacify the unhappy lower class. For instance, the government told poor farmers that they didn't need to repay debts with money, but they could do so with their crops. In addition, the government granted some of the farmers land from the Loyalists old platations, and this pacified these people for a small amount of time as well. However, these small acts of kindness would only last for so long. The lower class still realized that they were being subjucated against by the elites, in replace of the British. Social unrest, once more, led to rebellion even as the government did their best to avoid it.
Acts such as the Riot Act and Sedition Act were issued in reaction to rebellions from the American citezens. As the people began to rebel in riots such as Shay's Rebellion, the government allowed people to be jailed without trial when they issued the Riot Act. The Sedition Act prohibited freedom of the press when people were rebelling against government policies through words and publication. America's new governent clearly gives the people a reason to rebel, and are demonsrating that such rebellious acts will NOT be tolerated.
I agree with Michael Chen's theory that the new government is hypocrtial, because it is true that prior to our independence, we were rebelling against a government that had US subjucated. If we had not rebelled, we would not have developed as an independent nation. Therefore, it is sometimes very necessary to act for what is right, and fight against what is wrong.
The New American Government adopted Sam Adams philosophy, "The man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." This statement was extremely hypocritical and was a bad choice for the new government.
ReplyDeleteThe new government was founded as a result of one of the largest rebellions in the history of the world, the American Revolution. For a leader during that revolution, such as Sam Adams to say that statement, is hypocritical. What makes the laws of a republic and different from the laws of a monarchy or of any other political system of ruling? Just because in the new America, the people had more of a say in government than in most other nations during that time does not mean that everyone agrees with every single decision that the government makes. The people have a right to rebel if their opinions are not being listened to.
One example of a rebellion is Shay’s rebellion. The people were not satisfied with taxes that were being thrust upon them to cover the debt that America was in from the revolution. These taxes caused the poor farmers that were protesting to fall into huge debts that were not their fault. The followers of Shay tried to prevent the courthouses that would sentence the debtors, from opening. They still had the rebellious spirit from the revolution and were putting it to work in showing that they did not believe that the taxes or debt were fair. For the government to then arrest the protestors is ridiculous and unacceptable. Just a few years prior, the leaders were trying to get the colonists to rebel against Britain and fight for freedom. Not that they won their freedom, they turned into the new enemy and did exactly what the British did before. This was very hypocritical of the new American government and this policy should never have been followed to any extent.
I completely agree with Michael Chen’s statement that Sam Adams was a hypocrite. Just a few years earlier, he was rebelling against the British because he wanted to get treated fairly. Now, that he is on top, he is telling everyone that they cannot rebel, even though they are being treated unfairly.
Matt Cysner
America adopted Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of government in saying that rebelling every once in a while was a good thing. I think that although the rebellions of the colonists caused a lot of problems for the government, it helped the government to realize that changes needed to be made in the way they were running things. As Wood said in his argument, the revolution was just the beginning of what colonists would be fighting for in the future. Once the talk of revolution, change, and liberty began floating around in society, colonists latched on to these ideas and began having the mindset that they needed their own individual rights with in the government, and that having a nation of their own was not good enough. Because of this, the revolution was not as revolutionary as it is perceived traditionally.
ReplyDeleteI do not fully agree that the revolution was radical from traditionalist standards, because during the revolution itself, there were not an incredible amount of changes. Although during the revolution more rights were given to the Americans, these rights were only given to landowning men, and no one else! This is where I agree with Thomas Jefferson in saying that sometimes a rebellion was necessary. The Americans needed to rebel in order to get the democracy and rights that were owed to them. The Constitution, as explained by Howard Zinn and Gordon Wood, was only meant to conserve the culture of Americans- the rich, land owning white male Americans. This was the result of rich, land owning white males being the ones who wrote the Constitution, therefore creating a balance among the dominant forces during that time (Charles Beard).
When Jefferson said that a rebellion every so often was a positive thing shows that the government that was created was made for the people, even the people who were poor, or black, or Native American. It shows that there was more opportunity for change because sometimes even the politicians and leaders need to realize that things aren’t fair. This allows for people to fight for what they believe in, and creates a society that truly is based on democratic principles. Because of this I think that the early leaders did do a good job, and were wise because they allowed for rebellions to take place, and there was very little violence resulting from them.
I support Michael in discussing Zinn’s thesis, that the only people who benefited from the Constitution were the land owning men, which is not the same as “everyone”. There was an incredible amount on injustices for the lower class, including the Native Americans and slaves. I also agree with Michael’s clever statement “The American revolution was nothing more then a mere change in ruling class, from a corrupt monarchy to a vile and equally as corrupt oligarchy”, because that is truly what occurred in the American government, therefore creating an environment that should expect rebellions.
-Kevin Song-
ReplyDeleteSam Adams: "The man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death" was adopted by the new American government. I believe that was poor poor choice because this philosophy did of 2 things.
1) It created an even deeper gap between the rich and the poor and the white and blacks
2) If there were no rebellion then there would have been no revolution; which would mean that America would still be under British rule.
During Colonial times, the British were being unfair and unjust toward the town’s people. They taxed the Americans, which was not fair, no taxation with representation. This was one of the many reasons why there was a revolution in the first place. This was good that America broke off from the British however with the new government the constitution created only to benefit the rich and the middle class. The lower class and the slaves were treated even more poorly.
The Economy was stress because of the recent war, the war used up a lot of money so that the colonies could defeat the British. But the rebellions helped change America. For example Shays Rebellion showed how the soldiers were paid properly so the government gave land to the soldiers. However this ticked off the farmers because how could the people just take the land that they earned and worked hard for so that they could make a living. But with the soldier’s taking the jobs there was anger among the people and that started a rebellion lead by Daniel Shay.
i agree with Emily's response about how the rebellions lead to a deeper scar in the gap between the rich and the poor
The new American government adapted to Sam Adam’s philosophy that “the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death”. Prior to the American Revolution, the colonists followed the philosophy that Thomas Jefferson stated upon. During that time, the rebellions that the colonists put forward to the British helped them become an independent state. However, after the American Revolution, the Americans themselves began to imperialize their power in government, and did not tolerate anyone who rebelled. Rather, during this time, the colonists were more restricted and controlled under the new American government than before. The results and effects that the Americans faced prove to show that the early leaders did not choose wisely.
ReplyDeleteThe Shays’ Rebellion is a vivid example that exemplifies the American’s philosophy said by Sam Adams. Occurred during the summer of 1786, farmers under Captain Daniel Shays led an uprising against high state taxes, imprisonment for debt and lack of paper money. The rebel farmers stopped the collection of taxes and forced the closing of debtors’ courts. However, due to America’s lack of toleration, Shays’ Rebellion was broken by the state militia of Massachusetts in January 1787. Many of those who were part of Shays’ rebellion were executed as well. The rebel’s attempt was merely a way to represent their voice in government and shout a complaint about the unfairness of the articles. But the high positioned Americans did not abide these actions and treated the poor with far less respect as the British had done before.
The Americans “attempt” to equalize the power of the people show to be a failure because it did not help the gap between the rich and the poor; but rather worsened it. For example, the Continental Congress, which governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men. Under Morris’s plan, the common soldiers who were dying in the cold without pay were ignored as the civilian profiteers got gradually rich. When the Pennsylvania troops began to realize the unfairness, they defied the orders of their officers and marched, fully armed, toward the Continental Congress at Philadelphia. George Washington negotiated a peace in which ½ the men were discharged; while the other half got furloughs. But it wasn’t long when smaller mutinies began to emerge in places such as New Jersey and PA that prove the American’s lack to be faithful and fair to the people.
Although the numbers of independent farmers grew, the “class structure” as Rowland Berthoff and John Murrin quotes “did not change radically.” Edmund Morgan sums up the very structure of the American government and state that “everywhere one finds inequality”.
I agree with Michael’s last statement that “The American Revolution was nothing more than a mere change in ruling class, from a corrupt monarchy to a vile and equally as corrupt oligarchy”, because through the many facts and historical evidences during the time after the American Revolution, nothing good were resulted from it, and the fight between the grievances of the poor and the power of the rich continued on throughout America.