Jeffersonian-Federalist Or Anti-Colonialist Issue Analysis

898 Words4 Pages
Between 1783 and 1800 was a critical time for the American colonist. The relationship between Great Britain and the colonists was strained in multiple ways. The main issue was that the colonists were trying to stabilize themselves into their own government. The government that the colonists were creating would face the same issues that Great Britain saw with governing over the colonists in political, economic, and social ways.Great Britain's issues in governing the colonists were mirrored in the new colonial governments problems with governing their own people. In both countries strong central government was fought against by groups of people almost like political parties. Jeffersonian-Republicans or Anti-Federalists stood in America and believed…show more content…
Both countries had war debts. The French and Indian War, or Seven Years War, left Britain with a huge debt and the colonies had a debt from the revolution just fought with Great Britain, mostly owed to France and Holland. When a country has debt hanging over their heads it is very difficult for an economy to flourish and grow on its own accord. Boycotts were another economic problem that faced either country. A non-importation agreement was established in the colonies pre-revolution towards Britain to oppose the taxes put on them. Some women would not marry because the marriage papers were taxed from the Stamp Act. After the Revolution, the British boycotted the Americans. Prior to the war the colonies exported over 6 million dollars’ worth of goods compared to 1784, post-war, where they only exported around 4.5 million worth. This drop in exports was vastly attributed to the British boycott on American goods. Both countries relied heavily on each other for economic support, and the boycotts did nothing but hurt the…show more content…
In both pre-revolution Great Britain and the budding United States in the 1780's, taxing was unacceptable and representation was a huge deal. Colonists would use the saying "no taxation without representation" to express their feelings that they needed to be represented in parliament. Virginia spearheaded this movement and this was the philosophy that brought along the revolution, so naturally when the articles of confederation were written there was almost no reinforcement on taxes. Taxes are the easiest way for the government to raise money for themselves so this ended up to be a major flaw. The debate over representation would continue all the way to the constitutional convention when deciding how the states would be represented in congress. The Virginia plan was supported by the larger states; this based representation in congress on population, which would give these larger states far more leverage and advantage. The New Jersey plan, on the other hand, was supported by the smaller states; this had every state getting two votes in congress, giving everyone a fair and equal chance. This issue is similar to the one that Britain faced with the colonists. They wanted to be represented literally in parliament and have a representative there, not virtually where an englishman decided their "fate", which wasn't as realistic as what the constitutional convention was proposing
Open Document