They were saying that the Constitution was didn’t honor the liberty nor the self-government. Wood believes that the Federalists acted more creatively than any other generation in America history. He also believes that the Federalists of the 1790s feared the people, while the earlier Federalists didn’t and knew
Hamilton created his Federalist party to help promote his goals for the United States. Jefferson’s opposition party, the Republicans, “opposed Hamilton's urban, financial, industrial goals for the United States, and his promotion of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain.” Their interpretation of the Constitution also was very different. Hamilton interpreted it very loosely and used the elastic clause to get what he wanted out of it, while Jefferson read and followed if very strictly. This is a reason Jefferson was against Hamilton’s plans. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the idea of building a National Bank in the United States.
The Sedition Act prohibited anyone from insulting the federal government verbally or in writing. This act violated two components of the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. This act ironically simulated what would most likely happen in a monarchial society. The federalists were often accused of being “Monocrats” and wanting a monarchial society. (Document F) One Republican, James Madison, perceived the beginnings of a monarchy as he wrote, “The abolition of Royalty was it seems not one of his Revolutionary principles.” (Document N) These views are exemplified in the picture depicting the XYZ Affair.
Paine also calls hereditary succession an abdominal practice. He criticizes the people who were in favor of British Empire saying that Britain watched America only for economic well-being. He also says that British don’t deserve American loyalty because they have been attacking American colonies. According to him, the solution to this problem is independence from the British and for that he also proposed the form of Government which had equal opportunities for all. Paine directly appealed to colonies to separate from the British Empire.
Disagreements erupted over how the colonies felt that they should be treated and the way they were actually treated by Britain. The British stance was that the colonies were created for the benefit of Britain and the Colonialists wanted more say in their own existence. One main cause of the revolution was that the Colonists wanted more representation within the British government hence “no taxation without representation”, (Hickman n.d.), Britain was unwilling to do this. Another factor was the geographical distance between Britain and the Colonists, this created a sense of independence with in the colonies. Britain therefore tried to tighten control over the Colonists through a series of acts designed to quell any sense of rebellion.
Throughout is powerful speech he uses emotional appeals and rhetorical questions to get his ideas across. Henry uses emotional appeal by expressing how much the colonists have been hurt and wronged by the British government. Simply by expressing how much Britain has placed soldiers and naval fleets around the colonies makes there a perception that Britain does not trust the colonies and must guard them like a prison not giving them any rights. Also, by asking rhetorical questions about simple human rights and freedom he puts the listeners into a mindset that they have been wronged. He does not always say exactly what Britain has done but rather mentions their government and then asks a rhetorical question about the man’s freedom.
Charles was an advocate of the Divine Right of Kings and as his subjects; we feared that he was attempting to gain absolute power. He totally ignored the Magna Carta and showed no respect on ruling lawfully. Charles invaded the House of Common and tried to murder the leader of H.O.C. He also forced people to pay money only for his own needs. Why do we need a king that’s so selfish and disrespectful to rule our country?
Starting with the much-revered English Constitution, Paine presents it as outdated and convoluted. Paine’s largest grievance, however, is with the entire concept of an absolute monarchy, claiming it to be against both nature and scripture. In quoting the scriptures, Paine is able to justify pursuing American Independence and the struggle for a Republic by presenting monarchical rule as ungodly. The exaltation and ‘worship’ of one man above others is, in Paine’s opinion, an ‘idolatrous custom of the Heathens’ and in contradiction to the Bible. Paine also states that hereditary succession inevitably opens the door to the foolish and the wicked and so must be oppressive in its
Edmund Burke believed that the French Revolution was pointless, and that the revolutionist had risen up against a relatively liberal king and that their actions would result in other kings becoming paranoid and tyrannical. Alexis de Tocqueville saw that democracy in America seemed disorganized, but he also gained a sense that it was a stable and prosperous democracy so that he can gain an insight into how it worked. Tocqueville studies show that democratic America, mostly focuses on the structure of government and the institutions that would help maintain a free America, his focus on individuals however led him to say that individuals were affected by the democratic mentality. Tocqueville’s work finds that the main problems of a democracy are a high portion of power in the legislative
Samuel Adams opposed the group’s “odious hereditary distinctions.” John Adams denounced the group as an “inroad upon our first principle, equality.” Benjamin Franklin said the Society’s members were acting “in direct opposition to the solemnly declared sense of their country.” Thomas Jefferson labeled himself an “enemy of the institution.” And George Washington said he would resign from the Society if it did not eliminate its hereditary succession.71 What would the Founders have thought of legacy preferences at state universities? “Selective college admissions were unknown in the eighteenth century,” Larson notes, “but we do know what the Revolutionary generation thought about hereditary privilege.” He argues: “Legacy preferences at exclusive public universities were precisely the type of hereditary privilege that the Revolutionary generation sought to destroy forever.”72 The Founders, Larson writes, would have resisted the idea of state-funded university admissions based even part on ancestry “with every fiber of their being.”73 Some might argue that legacy preferences are constitutional because they give just a boost,