1. What were the various problems with the Articles of Confederati.docx

1. What were the various problems with the Articles of
Confederation?
The Articles of Confederation was the first system of
government in the new country of America. After the countless
amount of issues born out of being owned by Great Britain, the
expectations of the new system were as such: that power would
be given through the people, that power would be expressed
through a representative of the people, and that the
representative was one of the needs and interests of the people.
And while that sounds ideal, great almost, it doesn’t work out.
The Articles as described in class, were pretty much bad/not
good. Where the people were looking for the framework for an
actual government, they seemed more like a firm league of
friendship. The Articles, founded in 1778 lasted 10 years. Under
this system there was no president or judiciary, any decision
required a 9 out of 13 votes, so if it came down to 2/3rds there
would be no decision made. The Articles allowed the
declaration of war, conduct of foreign affairs, treaty creation,
but could not tax. But hey two cool positives are that it won
them the war and we also gained Ohio! And it was a tremendous
disaster by the fact that it did not collect taxes, which was
probably because the big debt from the war they had previously
won.
No tax means no power, and inadvertently no money either.
This became a bigger problem because the newfound America
had borrowed money and weapons from the French, and since
they were in debt they couldn’t pay the French back. The
inability to tax left the founders hands tied; they couldn’t tax so
they were unable to address their debt issue. And as the debt
intensified, there was a rebellion in Massachusetts kicking off
known as “Shays Rebellion.”

2. How did Shays Rebellion motivate “the founders” to hold a
convention to resolve the problems of the Articles?
Shays Rebellion was the rebellion of the people (primarily
farmers) against their government and more specifically, the
affects of the Articles of Confederation. The huge debt problem
affected everyone; farmers/civilians couldn’t pay mortgage,
faced debt, and would land in jail. Shays Rebellion occupied
the jails, courts, etc. and while the origins of this movement
started in Massachusetts, movements were being started all over
the new country because Massachusetts wasn’t the only state
facing issues.
At this moment the economic elite realized they needed to
strengthen the central government in order to fight debt/put
down the rebellion. And it is from this realization that the
Constitution was born, the document that laid down the
foundation for “freedom, liberty and rights.” But to whom were
these rights attributed? It is important to note that the
Constitutions original purpose was not about giving us our
rights, but how to control the people. And we must divorce
ourselves from the notion that the constitution gave us any
rights. Eventually in late of May 1787 George Washington calls
the convention into session w/ the purpose of figuring out how
to strengthen the central government, revising or replacing the
Articles of Confederation.
3. Considering the list of problems related to the Articles of
Confederation, how would they have to change the distribution
of power in government?
One of the main issues within the Articles of Confederation was
that the system was strongly imbalanced. While the Articles
wanted to stray from the wrongful government of their past
leaders, they found themselves dealing with some of the same

issues. The question they needed to answer was, “How do we
balance power between the states and central government?”
Under the Articles almost nothing got done because of the 9/13
requirement for decision-making, and there was no president or
judiciary systems, so it was essentially a bunch of people sitting
around in a crowded hall arguing while outside the people of
America struggled.
After George Washington called the conference together in May
of 1787, it took 5 days of going back and forth for the Virginia
Delegation to rise up and pose the Virginia Plan, via James
Madison. And although he was not the man to pitch the idea to
the convention, he was the man who wrote it, and also had
hypochondria. But anyway, the Virginia Plan proposed a
division of the powers, “one branch, and one body.” The
division would create the executive, legislative, and judicial
branch. Long story short, the idea was generally accepted. Only
the legislative branch would be cut in two, the lower and upper
house and would be represented by a population/number of
people a state has. And while this worked out well for the large
states, this created a challenge for the smaller states because
little people meant little representation. This became such a
heated debate in the convention that another plan was born out
of New Jersey known of course as the New Jersey Plan.
Everything stays the same except for the legislative branch, and
the proposition was one single legislature and one single vote,
no split whatsoever. This also became a heated debate because
representation was a key value in this new government, so out
of this debate came the Great Compromise, which proposed half
senate (2 representatives/half population). The Virginia Plan
was the general structure, the Great Compromise finalized that
structure, and it has worked this way from 1787 to 2016.
4. How did each of the three branches of the proposed
constitution limit democracy?

We live in a democratic republic and under the illusion of a
democracy because of the very fact that each of the branches
limits our democratic rights. It may even be right to say that the
Articles of Confederation served as a more democratic system
than the Constitution. The legislative branch sets a limit on our
democracy because we do not have a direct say in who creates
the laws. It was not until only 100 years ago that we were
allowed to vote for our senators who were originally appointed
by our state legislatures. During that time it was only the state
legislatures whom we voted in, which contradicted our
democratic rights. What good did it do for the people if they
could only vote in the people who then decided those that would
create the laws that we must abide? If you aren’t directly voting
for the people making your laws, where is the representation?
We only gained the correct representation a couple 100 years
ago, which isn’t too far. We basically have no say in regards to
our judicial branch, which has not changed at all since its
creation. We do not vote for people in the Supreme Court, they
are appointed by the president and stay for life. This is because
the original founding fathers did NOT want the justices to
reflect the people, which would be the case if we voted for
them. And that has no democracy in it whatsoever. The
executive branch has not changed much either since it’s
installment. We do not elect the president; this duty was
entrusted onto the Electoral College under the belief that the
decision of who would lead the country was “too big a burden”
for the people of this said country. Also the existence of super
delegates where one person’s vote equals 1,000 votes, which
means no solid representation.
5. How did the Constitution create a legal identity for African-
American’s that enshrined inequality?
The men who drafted the Constitution were primarily (if not all)
white upper class males who were Christian, owned land, and
most importantly, owned slaves. If liberty is the theme that runs

the entire thread of the Constitution, there was a matter of
difference between theory and practice in reference to it, which
in that time served as a pro-slave document.
The founding fathers had to ask themselves, if this Constitution
promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, how
do we justify slavery? How do we tell the people they all have
rights while simultaneously owning slaves? Thus, the 3/5s
Compromise was born. Southerners used slaves to represent
people, to get votes, etc., but only counted them as 3/5s of a
person implying their inequality to their white superior. This act
of dehumanization was done so that people would not see
African-Americans as their equals, or as Americans at all for
that matter.
6. What promise did Federalists make to convince Anti-
federalist’s to ratify the constitution?
When the convention in May of 1787 was called to order and
conflict fell on the creation of the Constitution, the house was
split into two sides: the Federalists, who supported the
ratification of the Constitution. This group of people believed in
a strong central government and favored commercial growth.
And the Anti-Federalists (what a straight forward name), who
clearly opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti’s
feared that a strong central government would be an “instrument
of tyranny,” and were obviously not over the breakup with the
British. In order to convince the delegates opposed the
Constitution (The Anti’s) to vote for it, three of the delegates,
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a
collection of 85 essays known as “The Federalist Papers.” This
document was strongly worded and ultimately persuasive
explaining why a strong central government was necessary and
as a whole not a threat to people’s liberty. Within the Federalist
Papers was the Second Amendment, which gave the people the
right to protect themselves by being as equally armed as the

army is.
7. Who did the Bill of Rights attempt to protect individuals
from? How can our knowledge of previous module sections help
us understand why Ant-federalists felt the need for these
protected rights?
The Bill of Rights, which were the first Ten Amendments of our
Constitution were made as an attempt to protect the people from
the government. Should things go south and the wrong people
have say and choice, the people have the right to speak or not,
believe in what they want, own a gun, and so forth. Our
knowledge of previous module sections shows us that big
government systems didn’t always treat the people right or give
them proper representation. The fear of a central government
system turning on it’s people and reeking havoc is completely
understandable as history shows it has happened before. The
Anti-Federalist group was supported by common people, small
farmers who didn’t take place in the political process like the
richer more active Federalists, and who would be most
vulnerable to any laws that they did not agree to or have say
over.

1. What is the difference between the self-sufficient farmers of
the 18th century and commercial farmers of the 19th century?
The main difference between the self-sufficient farmers of the
18th century and commercial farmers of the 19th century was
the newfound characteristic, competition. The 19th century is
most widely noted as the time of the Market Revolution in the
United States, a time of great economic transformation.
“Americans no longer produced goods for self-sustaining needs
but rather for sale to markets. Goods that were made at home to
meet the basic needs of the family were now purchased at
markets.” It was a time of great technological advancement in
transportation, communication, and occupationally. It quickened
the pace of economic growth, and pulled many people out of
self-sufficient work.
Competition began to heavily influence the minds and work
ethic of farmers, because once you make money you want more,
and then more. It’s a vicious cycle. The new era presented great
economic opportunity for these farmers, so where they used to
just focus on feeding the family, now they are able to dream big
and work hard to give themselves and their family the things
they want and need.

2. What is the difference between 19th century private freedoms
during the market revolution and the 18th century public
freedoms during the revolutionary era?
From communal independence to private independence, while
the revolutionary era tells the story of how we became an
independent America, the Market Revolution tells the tale of
what we did with the vast lands of opportunity ahead of us in
our new country. The Market Revolution knit the country
together through the national market. Before the Market
Revolution, people were more isolated in their own regions, this
era aided in the unity of our people through the shared
experience of working in the market. We are able to trace the
beginnings of American Nationalism, and profound changes
American society from this time. New changes we see
specifically were the spread of market relations, westward
movement and increased Political Democracy.
New notions of freedom were economic opportunity, physical
mobility, and popular participation in the political process.
Make some money! Move around! Vote for social change! There
was this whole new concept of “choice” that we gained, and we
have kept it ever since. Before this era we were fighting for the
very existence as a country of our own, and now that it had been
won, people wanted to bathe in the beautiful life and
opportunities that they had fought for.
3. How did the various communications and transportation
technologies help in laying the foundation for the market
revolution?
When we think about communication technology in the Market
Era, we think about the telegraph. Created by Samuel F.B.

Morse, the telegraph was essentially a wired text messenger. It
used the system of Morse code, created by Morse himself,
which was a system that used on-off tones/lights to transmit
messages. This was a big deal because previous to the
telegraph, people would have to literally deliver messages by
voice or hand. Being in a different place while communicating
with the same person was a foreign concept to anyone in the
1800’s and back. This was an even bigger deal in laying the
foundation for the Market Revolution because the ability to
communicate with someone from a far distance created the
concept of a uniform market price/value. People’s ability to
choose and the very existence of choice had just become 100
times stronger because you now have knowledge that “Hey, why
am I buying corn for 10 dollars from Jimmy up North if Sam is
selling it for 5 down south?” In 1830, the telegraph was refined,
and by 1844 it is in commercial use and 50,000 miles of cable
run around the country to connect it.
Before the steamboat, traveling on water was either by wind
power or manpower. Travel and exploration was very limited
because it cost a lot of money and was always dependent on the
always changing weather or the strength of men. It wasn’t until
1807 that man named Robert Fulton created the steamboat and
gave birth to a game changer in water travel. Fulton tested his
boat called the Claremont on the Hudson River, and was able to
go up against currents. This was huge because now people could
go to and move to places like the deeper parts of the state and
country because the water became an easily navigatable space.
The spread of people meant the spread of markets, different
terrains offered different opportunities in production. By the
1830’s (a little before our friend the telegraph hit the scene),
steamboats became so big you could see about 200 people going
up and down the Mississippi River. The steamboat offered the
spread of market relations, westward movement, and saving
some dang money! But for the steamboat to truly be successful,
people needed canals. There was a necessity for longer canals

for more boats to go down and more land to see, and the canal
of all canals was the Erie Canal. The Erie Canal started being
built in 1817, was finished by 1825, and was also in New York
where the steamboat was being tested, and laid 363 miles ling.
Farmers began to populate places along the canal; new cities
emerged (Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo). People were moving
further, creating communities, people could grow and sell to the
big city (NYC) and were able to make some good money
because the boats were able to ship their goods. By the 1830’s,
there were 3000 miles of canals in the country. The Railroad
system gave us the ability to navigate regular terrain because
there was more land than rivers. In 1828, the Baltimore and
Ohio Rail line was completed and by 1860, there was a railroad
network of 30,000 miles of rail lines in the country. During the
time we had more rail lines than the rest of the world combined
movement.
4. How did technological advancement in agriculture help
transform the nations farmers from self-sustaining to
commercial farmers? How did this help create the market
revolution?
Farmers in the 18th century (pre-Market Rev.) were merely
focused on making crops for their families to eat and survive.
This wasn’t really a choice decision as the technology of the
time only allowed them to make enough to keep food on table in
the first place, but producing to sell wasn’t really an idea in the
minds of famers in the 18th century. Before the Market
Revolution people were more isolated in their own regions,
focused on taking care of their own. And while in southern
states market farming had been a thing, in the north it was a
foreign idea. The 19th century/Market Revolution had a
tremendous impact on the quality of life because the given
technological advancements pulled people out of only farming
for themselves, and gave them the opportunity to produce for
the market.

The John Deere Steel Plow helped aide tremendously in the
process of farming because it allowed farmers to lay down more
produce at a quicker rate. This was good because the ability to
make more meant surplus and surplus was good farmers were
able to provide enough for their families and enough to sell out
on the market. The only problem was that the more you grew
the more you needed to harvest. Thus the Cyrus McCormick
Reaper was born. Attach to a horse, this contraption allowed
you to cut and gather the reaped out crops at a quick rate. As a
result of these occupational advancements the north began to
industrialize.
5. In the chart above, write the terms in the left hand column
and then fill out what characteristics of the American Mind it
reaffirmed and/or what characteristics it helped crate.
DEFINED TERMS
CULTURAL NORM REAFFIRMED/EVOLVED
CULTURAL NORM CREATED
Steamboats
Individualism/competition
Economic Opportunity/physical mobility
Erie Canal
Baltimore/Ohio Railing
Telegraph
Economic Opportunity
John Deere
Economic Opportunity
Transcendentalist
Individualism/dissent/limited govt.

Popular participation in the political process
The 2nd Great Awakening
Individualism/dissent/limited govt./competition/separation or
church and state/freedom of religion
Popular participation in the political process
Cult of Domesticity
Competition/progress
Femininity/role of women in society/separate spheres
6. How did the Transcendentalists, the Second Great
Awakening, and the emerging cult of domesticity reinforce old
characteristics of the American Mind and/or create new
characteristics listed in the above chart?
As the environment changed from the Market Revolution, so did
the identity of the American, and as the identity changed, so did
the culture. There was a cultural emergence/philosophy known
as Transcendentalism. As a transcendentalist, your core belief
is: primacy of individual judgment over social traditions, and
primacy of intuition over reason (because social tradition may
invade reason). Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson had
very progressive notion of freedom. He very much believed in it
and took on redefining the very word itself. Emerson believed
that freedom is a self-realizing process. Emphasis on the “ing”
as the process never ends. Henry David Thoreau believed that
“the individual needs to choose their own path” whether it be
politically, socially, or personally. He was kind of a nature man
who had a dope beard who went to the forest a lot because he
thought “why the hell are people not out enjoying the forest
right now?” Thoreau was weird and quirky but politically lived
up to his own words and was against war and slavery. “It is not
desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the
right. The only obligation, which I have a right to assume, is to

do at any time I think right… Law never made men a whit more
just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-
disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.” Thoreau was
saying that law is not inherently just, and anytime one follows
laws that perpetuate injustice you are not as well. Thoreau was
pretty much saying don’t follow laws that are bad. This is also
known as civil disobedience. Gandhi and MLK were fans of
Thoreau. He very much lived by his ideals and was thrown in
jail for not paying taxes toward war/slavery. Both Emerson and
Thoreau embodied the market era notion of individualism,
dissent, and limited government.
The Second Great Awakening was born out of the daunting
statistic of only about 10% of people attending church during
the Market Era. The Awakening consisted of emotional
energetic methods of religious revival in a time where people
were able to move more rapidly which sped the rate of the
Awakening. Charles Grandison Finney, aka “scary face guy with
a powerful idea” was the architect of the Second Great
Awakening. Finney held month long revivals in the forest. He
was a lawyer, schoolteacher and preacher who had a solid
gift of gab. The ideas of this revival were as following: the
belief that we are inherently “alright”, that people are neither
good or bad out the gate, and the whole new idea of humans
being “free moral agents,” which means they had free will. The
choice between sin and salvation vs. the idea that we are born
inherently bad. People of the Second Great Awakening also held
the belief in the correctability of humans, and the huge idea that
“hey, slavery is bad dude.” More people created their own
churches in the Second Great Awakening (just like the 1st one).
There were about 2,000 ministers in the country before the
Awakening, but by 1845 there were over 40,000 ministers.
That’s about 38,000 many more people creating churches and
going against the established churches in power, needless to say
dissent was closely reflected in the Second Great Awakening.
40,000 ministers meant an abundance of new churches and this

meant the churches needed more people to. Churches needing
more people meant churches had to fight for attendance, so the
new notion of competition wasn’t unfamiliar during the Second
Great Awakening. But in order for competition for the people to
take place, the churches needed the government out the loop.
People actively expressed their needs to have a separation of
church and state. The Second Great Awakening pretty much hit
all concepts in American mind except for separate spheres. The
Second Great Awaking influenced individualism, limited govt.,
dissent, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and
competition.
Pre-Market Revolution, the men’s job in regards to the
survivability of the family was farming, and for women it was
making clothes, food, taking care of the children, etc. With the
Market Revolution in place, women essentially lost their role in
family survivability due to the availability of clothing and food
in the market. This posed the question, “what was the women’s
role in society?” The Market Revolution created the argument
that men and women hold separate spheres in society and have
different roles. The role of women was said to be the production
of children and the raising of those said children. The home
became the space for women, an idea called the “Cult of
Domesticity.” Business was the space of men, political world
was for men, and the home was for the women. Business and
politics were corrupt, in an immoral political and work world.
And the women’s job was two-fold; to raise the kids and protect
their husbands from the immoral world they were engaged in.
This familiar dynamic was born out of the Market Revolution, a
belief that is 200 years old and is all based off the belief that
women are naturally moral, more nurturing than men. It is fair
then to say, that “stuff,” literal “stuff” when created, takes away
our purpose. Because of the continued technological
advancements, we continue to render ourselves more useless.
Our social truths are elastic, and while we are on a constant
search for “truth.” We must realize that “There is no inherent

truth except for the truth that we create,” the imposition to
liberate us from a static truth. Everything from the turn of the
19th century through the Civil War is because of the Market
Revolution.

1. What were the various problems with the Articles of Confederati.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from paynetawnya

More from paynetawnya (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1. What were the various problems with the Articles of Confederati.docx