The general population is concerned that decisions are being made by a majority of people whose interest is not necessarily in maintaining the public welfare of the people. A “factious spirit” has entered into the government system causing a rise in unstable actions and policies.
The problem amounts to this: if we remove the causes of faction, liberty and diversity, the general structure of the nation breaks down. Everything accomplished by the nation up until this point will mean nothing if the concepts of liberty and diversity are removed from the government formula. The thing to do now is to control the effects of faction.
It is in the nature of man to split off into sects of different interests, religions, and political ideals and, in turn, display hostility toward another group that may not uphold the same values. That being said, no one person or group is individually blameworthy for factious behaviors in politics.
In government, the most populated faction is usually the one that comes out on top in a general vote on the issues. There has to be a certain balance between the different governing bodies; a system that upholds not just one faction’s ideals, but all the others also. The system of majority rules may work to secure the feeling of unification and public good, but it cannot always maintain private rights within a population. What, then, happens to the minority’s opinion if majority wins in regular election? The system is broken if the opinions of the average citizen are simply ignored in favor of a more powerful opposing force.
There is a problem with representative government in that elected officials, if the mood strikes them, may choose to betray the trust of the people who voted for them in the first place and implement certain plans of action that may only serve for individual benefit and public detriment. In order to prevent that, it must be ensured that the number of representatives from a given area must be increased. That way, the issues of the people are brought to the forefront, but individual selfishness is no longer prominent. The Constitution provides the notion that delegates on a national level but also on a local level should be appointed. There must be a local voice on a federal stage to ensure that public good is being maintained while not ignoring the point of view from an individual citizen.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Ch 5 and 6 summary (Founding Brothers)
Ch. 5 The Collaborators
In 1796, it was quite clear that in this election, a concept brand new to the country, the choice was between Adams or Jefferson. Both men were complete polar opposites but also were great friends and colleagues with great respect for one another.
When Washington was first chosen as president, Adams became victim to what he is quoted as saying as "the most insignificant office in man's creation": the Vice Presidency. The friendship between Adams and Jefferson was strained throughout his term as VP with many controversial debates in the Senate over choices made by Adams. As the figurative gap between Republicans and Federalists widened, so did the relationship between Adams and Jefferson.
The possible conflict with the currently unstable France was the deciding factor that pushed the two men to opposite sides. Even as Adams' eventual Vice President, Jefferson decided to split from him and implement the Republican party with Madison as his collaborator. The two launched a series of anti-Adams propaganda which all but extinguished the Federalist party. By the 1800 election, Jefferson's new party had established a name for itself in politics, allowing him to clinch the presidency. Before Adams left office, though, he signed a treaty with France that would end hostilities. He could leave his post knowing he put the country on a good course.
Ch6. The Frienship
Adams developed a disdain for his once good friend, Jefferson, further feuled by a feeling of betrayal because of the anti-Adams slander of the last term. This was clearly not on the mind of Jefferson who was busy doubling the size of the states with the Lousiana Purchase. His second term was not as successful and some failed economic policies ended in disaster. The once friendship between Jefferson and Adams took a backseat to the two's desperate want to be immortalized in their writings.
Eventually their correspondence became something of a debate between two separate ideals. After a while, approximately 1820, they were both probably of advanced age and the arguing eventually stopped. They new death was inevitable and both gave into feelings of nostalgia with their last letters to one another.
Thomas Jefferson died on July 4th, 1820, 50 years after the signing of the Declaration. On that same day, Adams fell unconcious then awoke saying, "Thomas Jefferson survives." He, too, passed away then.
In 1796, it was quite clear that in this election, a concept brand new to the country, the choice was between Adams or Jefferson. Both men were complete polar opposites but also were great friends and colleagues with great respect for one another.
When Washington was first chosen as president, Adams became victim to what he is quoted as saying as "the most insignificant office in man's creation": the Vice Presidency. The friendship between Adams and Jefferson was strained throughout his term as VP with many controversial debates in the Senate over choices made by Adams. As the figurative gap between Republicans and Federalists widened, so did the relationship between Adams and Jefferson.
The possible conflict with the currently unstable France was the deciding factor that pushed the two men to opposite sides. Even as Adams' eventual Vice President, Jefferson decided to split from him and implement the Republican party with Madison as his collaborator. The two launched a series of anti-Adams propaganda which all but extinguished the Federalist party. By the 1800 election, Jefferson's new party had established a name for itself in politics, allowing him to clinch the presidency. Before Adams left office, though, he signed a treaty with France that would end hostilities. He could leave his post knowing he put the country on a good course.
Ch6. The Frienship
Adams developed a disdain for his once good friend, Jefferson, further feuled by a feeling of betrayal because of the anti-Adams slander of the last term. This was clearly not on the mind of Jefferson who was busy doubling the size of the states with the Lousiana Purchase. His second term was not as successful and some failed economic policies ended in disaster. The once friendship between Jefferson and Adams took a backseat to the two's desperate want to be immortalized in their writings.
Eventually their correspondence became something of a debate between two separate ideals. After a while, approximately 1820, they were both probably of advanced age and the arguing eventually stopped. They new death was inevitable and both gave into feelings of nostalgia with their last letters to one another.
Thomas Jefferson died on July 4th, 1820, 50 years after the signing of the Declaration. On that same day, Adams fell unconcious then awoke saying, "Thomas Jefferson survives." He, too, passed away then.
Ch 3 and 4 Summary (Founding Brothers)
Ch3. The Silence
This chapter deals mostly with the decision of whether or not to end the slave trade. A discussion of ethics vs. economics arose when the time came to decide what the effects of an end to the slave trade might mean.
Despite any economic reasons to continue slave trafficking, the petition to Congress pointed out that the slave trade was in contradiction with the ideals stated in the Declaration and that Congress did have the power to abolish it considering it affected the general well-being of the people. There was a debate among Congressmen about whether God or the Constitution permitted slavery and also there had to be a consensus about which states depended on slave labor and which did not (this issue would obviously lead to future conflicts).
Basically, most of Congress agreed that a gradual abolition to slavery might be possible, but considering the country was in a vulnerable state, that in order to preserve unity, this issue might be revisited at a later time when people are more equipped to handle the situation. It is said that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton were all against the institution of slavery, but that it was not an appropriate time to address the issue.
Ch4. The Farewell
On Sept. 19, 1796, George Washington published a letter in a Philadelphia newspaper that it was time for a new president to be chosen. His choice in retiring was mostly due to old age and the fact that the media was highly critical of his second term in office. It created a stir among the people and questions arose such as how to preserve unity and also, who would be the next leader?
Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to Britain in order to negotiate a post war treaty, possibly to avoid any future conflicts with the English who proved to be superior in military aspects. The treaty accepted by both parties stated, among other things, that British troops had to be removed from all ports and that America was required to pay back pre-revolutionary debt.
The treaty proved to be extremely unpopular.
When the time came for Washington to deliver his farewell address, he wrote a draft which Hamilton edited and revised. Some ideas did not quite make the cut, like an idea for a national university Washington had, and also, the conclusion of the speech was shortened quite a bit (possibly to avoid a feeling of unwanted nostalgia and increased forward thinking about the future). Some issues were brought to the forefront with his address. The Indian negotiations were still prominent and Washington also stated that trade with the British was helping the economy. Despite minor opposition, the population was generally regretful that such a political giant was leaving office.
Washington officially left in 1797 and died in 1799.
This chapter deals mostly with the decision of whether or not to end the slave trade. A discussion of ethics vs. economics arose when the time came to decide what the effects of an end to the slave trade might mean.
Despite any economic reasons to continue slave trafficking, the petition to Congress pointed out that the slave trade was in contradiction with the ideals stated in the Declaration and that Congress did have the power to abolish it considering it affected the general well-being of the people. There was a debate among Congressmen about whether God or the Constitution permitted slavery and also there had to be a consensus about which states depended on slave labor and which did not (this issue would obviously lead to future conflicts).
Basically, most of Congress agreed that a gradual abolition to slavery might be possible, but considering the country was in a vulnerable state, that in order to preserve unity, this issue might be revisited at a later time when people are more equipped to handle the situation. It is said that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton were all against the institution of slavery, but that it was not an appropriate time to address the issue.
Ch4. The Farewell
On Sept. 19, 1796, George Washington published a letter in a Philadelphia newspaper that it was time for a new president to be chosen. His choice in retiring was mostly due to old age and the fact that the media was highly critical of his second term in office. It created a stir among the people and questions arose such as how to preserve unity and also, who would be the next leader?
Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to Britain in order to negotiate a post war treaty, possibly to avoid any future conflicts with the English who proved to be superior in military aspects. The treaty accepted by both parties stated, among other things, that British troops had to be removed from all ports and that America was required to pay back pre-revolutionary debt.
The treaty proved to be extremely unpopular.
When the time came for Washington to deliver his farewell address, he wrote a draft which Hamilton edited and revised. Some ideas did not quite make the cut, like an idea for a national university Washington had, and also, the conclusion of the speech was shortened quite a bit (possibly to avoid a feeling of unwanted nostalgia and increased forward thinking about the future). Some issues were brought to the forefront with his address. The Indian negotiations were still prominent and Washington also stated that trade with the British was helping the economy. Despite minor opposition, the population was generally regretful that such a political giant was leaving office.
Washington officially left in 1797 and died in 1799.
Monday, November 17, 2008
*Founding Brothers* (Preface and Ch1+2)
Preface
The focus on the term "brothers" rather than "fathers" when referring to the men who played major roles in founding a new nation. The fact that Ellis uses this term is the foundation upon how he will narrate the rest of the book.
He places emphasis on the human qualities of the men who formed this country. Since their personalities were so diverse and they all knew each other personally, they were able to address a wide variety of issues that required different points of view. In a family (hence "brothers") there will always be conflicts of interest because of different personalities, but the important thing is that they have to remain united or else nothing gets accomplished.
The preface sets into motion the story of what kind of mutual respect and cooperation was required amongst these individuals in order to stay true to their responsibilities.
Ch. 1-The Duel
"The duel" being described in the chapter's title is the historic duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. One afternoon, these two men met in Weehawken and after proper dueling etiquette was acknowledged, pistols were fired. Hamilton, who was not planning on firing his gun, was struck in the side by Burr's bullet. He later died because of his injury. After the duel took place, it was discovered that Hamilton's pistol was fired, although Burr remained unharmed. Burr was hence ostracized for being believed to have killed Alexander Hamilton.
Ch. 2-The Dinner
"The Dinner" discusses in great detail the amount of talk involved in where the location of the next capital would be. The actual dinner itself was held at Thomas Jefferson's house and there were several different viewpoints about where the capital should be. Eventually, George Washington decided that the capital should be at the mouth of the Potomac River. This place would eventually be called Washington DC.
The focus on the term "brothers" rather than "fathers" when referring to the men who played major roles in founding a new nation. The fact that Ellis uses this term is the foundation upon how he will narrate the rest of the book.
He places emphasis on the human qualities of the men who formed this country. Since their personalities were so diverse and they all knew each other personally, they were able to address a wide variety of issues that required different points of view. In a family (hence "brothers") there will always be conflicts of interest because of different personalities, but the important thing is that they have to remain united or else nothing gets accomplished.
The preface sets into motion the story of what kind of mutual respect and cooperation was required amongst these individuals in order to stay true to their responsibilities.
Ch. 1-The Duel
"The duel" being described in the chapter's title is the historic duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. One afternoon, these two men met in Weehawken and after proper dueling etiquette was acknowledged, pistols were fired. Hamilton, who was not planning on firing his gun, was struck in the side by Burr's bullet. He later died because of his injury. After the duel took place, it was discovered that Hamilton's pistol was fired, although Burr remained unharmed. Burr was hence ostracized for being believed to have killed Alexander Hamilton.
Ch. 2-The Dinner
"The Dinner" discusses in great detail the amount of talk involved in where the location of the next capital would be. The actual dinner itself was held at Thomas Jefferson's house and there were several different viewpoints about where the capital should be. Eventually, George Washington decided that the capital should be at the mouth of the Potomac River. This place would eventually be called Washington DC.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Chapter 5 questions
1. Was the revival the start of the hysteria surrounding the witch trials in Puritan New England?
2. Were the colonies part of New France and New Spain not doing so well? (because pretty much the whole chapter was about New England)
3. Were the "Old Lights" a group of people or was it an idea system?
2. Were the colonies part of New France and New Spain not doing so well? (because pretty much the whole chapter was about New England)
3. Were the "Old Lights" a group of people or was it an idea system?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress
The author of this selection seems more keen on focusing the attention away from the European settlers who established their colonies in America after Columbus's discovery, but rather on the atrocities committed to establish said settlement.
Columbus and his men more or less pillaged the Native Americans villages, forcing them to work and throwing their lives into disarray. The Europeans considered the Native Americans as a vastly less superior group than themselves and gathered that "they would make fine servants" as though just by looking at them, they immediately knew what purpose they served for them.
The bias seems to be more on the side of the indigenous people, but the author makes it clear that he doesn't want to "romanticize" the struggles of the natives. He also avoids painting Columbus and his men out as monsters. He even emphasizes the point that the exploited people of the Americas were not always innocent victims by describing some morbid practices of the Aztec people. The Aztecs were well known for their methods of appeasing the gods by sacrificing human beings. After addressing that, though, the author then states that despite those practices, they still had some degree of innocence.
In any event, the overall bias is on the side of the Native Americans and does not make any effort to justify the actions of the European settlers against them.
Columbus and his men more or less pillaged the Native Americans villages, forcing them to work and throwing their lives into disarray. The Europeans considered the Native Americans as a vastly less superior group than themselves and gathered that "they would make fine servants" as though just by looking at them, they immediately knew what purpose they served for them.
The bias seems to be more on the side of the indigenous people, but the author makes it clear that he doesn't want to "romanticize" the struggles of the natives. He also avoids painting Columbus and his men out as monsters. He even emphasizes the point that the exploited people of the Americas were not always innocent victims by describing some morbid practices of the Aztec people. The Aztecs were well known for their methods of appeasing the gods by sacrificing human beings. After addressing that, though, the author then states that despite those practices, they still had some degree of innocence.
In any event, the overall bias is on the side of the Native Americans and does not make any effort to justify the actions of the European settlers against them.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
History: myth or fact?
Two good points are presented in the articles; Handlin who insists that history is true and absolute under all circumstances, and McNeill who says that history is more general and different groups of people can have different interpretations.
I tend to agree more along the lines with McNeill's argument. I don't agree that there are massive loopholes in history and that everything is just left to chance, but when it all comes down to it, it's possible that reports of certain happenings have been biased or perhaps twisted to favor a certain person or group. For example, when discussing a subject such as the Civil War, the north and south of the United States are going to have different interpretations and preconcieved ideas about what really happened and what people had key roles.
To say that I'm more on McNeill's side isn't to say that everything he says is exactly correct, but more that his opinion reflects my opinion more than Handlin.
I tend to agree more along the lines with McNeill's argument. I don't agree that there are massive loopholes in history and that everything is just left to chance, but when it all comes down to it, it's possible that reports of certain happenings have been biased or perhaps twisted to favor a certain person or group. For example, when discussing a subject such as the Civil War, the north and south of the United States are going to have different interpretations and preconcieved ideas about what really happened and what people had key roles.
To say that I'm more on McNeill's side isn't to say that everything he says is exactly correct, but more that his opinion reflects my opinion more than Handlin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
