JH-Responses+to+Essentional+Questions

__//25 October 2009//__ Was the Revolution of 1800 truly a Revolution?
 * Question:**

The American presidential election in 1800 pitted the Federalist John Adams and Democratic Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. In the end, Jefferson won out over the other two and declared his election as the “Revolution of 1800.” In reality, however, when compared with what a revolution actually is (or the Revolution of 1776 which Jefferson was alluding to), the Election of 1800 is seen to be quite different from a revolution, especially in its purpose, method, and results.
 * Answer:**

In the first place, Jefferson’s purpose in his “Revolution” was very unlike that of the Revolution that gained America its freedom. He did not wish to break away from a country and start completely over again, he merely desired to somewhat shift the direction within a relatively small boundary of national politics. Although he heralded it as a return to the original spirit of revolution that the country was founded on, in reality he spent the greater part of his presidency trying desperately to prevent such uprisings.

The method of this “revolution” was also contradictory. It was neither a radical restructuring of America’s politics or a bloody coup d’état. The election itself had in fact been quite close (both between Jefferson and Adams, and Jefferson and Burr). The transition between parties was also remarkably smooth, again casting doubt on its “revolutionary” characteristics.

Finally, the results were in many ways anything but revolutionary. Jefferson turned out to be surprisingly (and for some, frustratingly) moderate. Although the power in Congress did shift from the Federalists to the Democratic Republicans and Jefferson did succeed in getting rid of the excise tax, the government’s previous trajectory remained primarily the same. Hamilton’s economic structure was also left almost completely untouched. Thus, any real changes resulting from this “revolution” were minor and not quite as radical as Jefferson thought they would be.

It can therefore be seen in the Jefferson election’s purpose, method, and results that there was little that merited its categorization as a revolution, especially not as one on the scale of the Revolution for independence fought less than thirty years previous.

__//11 October 2009//__ How does the constitution allow for an enduring political debate?
 * Question:**

The Constitution is easily our country’s most important document. It defines who we are, what we need to do, and what we believe as Americans. It is the ultimate authority in our country, and has been used in making all significant decisions our country has faced since it was ratified in 1789. Even still, the Constitution has not eradicated all political debate and many new arguments continue to appear. There are many reasons why the Constitution allows for such enduring political debate, or rather why these arguments are not immediately decided upon having such an authoritative document at our disposal. When boiled down, these causes can be said to have three roots: in history (why it was said), in the text itself (how it was said), and in the content of the text (what is said).
 * Answer:**

First, history contributes to the disputes over the Constitution. The Constitution being a historical document written almost two and a half hundred years ago, there will be many differences in connotation and the way things are said. This creates a need for reading it through a historical lens, taking great heed of the actual context it was written in, and not just how it is perceived now. Compounded on this is the fact that the Constitution must be read with other key documents of our country as well, such as the Bill of Rights and later amendments made throughout the course of history. Thus, these historical ramifications occasionally lead to debate over what the Constitution actually says, making many disputes much more complicated than they seem.

The Constitution also opens itself to debate through the medium by which it is communicated: the written word. One of the greatest distinctions among those who study and use the Constitution is that of how literally it is to be taken. While some read it very literally, paying great attention to exact punctuation and phrasing (such as Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans), others interpret it conceptually, heeding primarily the general idea of what is being said versus taking it word for word (such as Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists). This means that there will continually be disputes over how the actual text and writing of the Constitution relates to these ever-appearing new debates.

Finally, what is actually being said by the Constitution allows for some debate to continue. While there are some that outright disagree with what the Constitution says or means, this decidedly rare. Besides this, however, another problem presents itself. As already stated, the Constitution was written quite a while ago, which means that although it tries to be comprehensive, is not able to anticipate every situation that will ever be encountered by United States courts. New debates are always popping up that certainly did not even exist two centuries ago when the Constitution was written. These must therefore be evaluated using other principles that appear throughout the document. Therefore, this issue of what the Constitution says makes allows for these ongoing debates.

In conclusion, it is the matters of why, how, and what the Constitution says that make for the enduring political conflicts we see in our country today.

__//24 September 2009//__ Justify the actions of the American colonists in declaring and fighting for their independence.
 * Question:**

As tension began to build in the American colonies during the mid-1700s, more and more people began to grapple with one single question: whether Britain’s aggravating and vexing decisions concerning the colonies justified a split and possibly war. The feelings of both sides did, in the end, grow fierce enough that they resulted in fighting, but was this decision of the colonies (as their famous Declaration of Independence stated) warranted and defendable. __It most certainly was so, as the colonists had been wronged and cheated by Great Britain in their politics and economy.__
 * Answer:**

British harassment in the area of politics can be seen following the French and Indian War. Together with the instating of the Proclamation Line of 1763, Prime Minister Greenville’s program of acts, and then the Coercive Acts in 1774, the Americans were given sufficient reason declare themselves independent. During the War, there was a lessening of Britain’s policy of salutary neglect that resulted in more and more political clashes between the mother country and its colonies. Britain attempted to show its political power over the colonies in its restriction of their geographical expansion, their use of and access to everyday household items (such as sugar, currency, and paper), and their treatment in courts and legal matters. This political aggravation contributes to the justification of the colonies’ future actions.

In the same, British regulation and restriction of trade and economy in the colonies motivated and gave grounds for their split. As seen in the Writs of Assistance (1761) and again in the Coercive Acts of 1774, Britain had no qualms with such mercantilist manipulation of their colonies’ economies. By restricting who, what, when, and where the colonies could gain their livelihood, Britain successfully pushed them towards the brink of revolution.

As it can be seen, the colonies were induced by multiple reasons for their split with Great Britain. Although these reasons were many and diverse, two of the most significant are to be seen in the areas of politics and economy. Having created exasperation in these two areas, Britain in effect gave the colonies their justification for war.

__//17 September 2009//__ Why is the French and Indian War a major turning point between British and colonial relations? Cite specific examples focusing specifically the economical and social aspects of the period. (1763-1774)
 * Question:**

From 1754 to 1763, the French and Indian War (otherwise known as the Seven Years’ War) raged across the world. One of the most important battlefronts for this conflict between the British and the French (who were supported by the Spanish and the New World’s natives) was America. While in America, England employed their colonists there to play an important part in the proceedings that led eventually to England’s victory. But this war was significant in another area as well: __The French and Indian War was pivotal in British-colonial relations because of its clashing of societies and mixing of economies.__
 * Answer:**

While in the colonies, the British inevitably had many dealings with the colonists. Just as inevitably was the clash of cultures that resulted between the refined Englishmen and the colonists who had had very little contact for a very long time (one of the results of Britain’s salutary neglect). This tension between societies was nowhere more evident than in their armies. British troops were strict and polished, while the colonists, having more experience in warfare in the New World, were less straight-laced and controlled. This was not helped by the fact that England expected and demanded colonial conformity to British plans and rules. This new aggravation between England and its colonies was one of the most significant effects of the War.

Along with these social ramifications were those of their economies. As a result of the necessary cooperation during the war, colonial and British economic relations were looked into again. When the War effectively caused England to go into an economic depression (because English taxpayers had paid for both English and colonial troops), the pressure on the colonies’ economies was greatly increased. One of the most obvious manifestations of this was in British attempts to stop colonial smuggling. This was especially clear in the 1761 writs of assistance, which not only strengthened the restrictions on colonial shipping, but also subjected colonists to humiliating searches and punishments. Later on, Prime Minister Greenville’s program acts also had the same demeaning effects. Thus these new economic results of the French and Indian War hurt British-colonial relations as well.

The French and Indian War was significant for many reasons, but one of the greatest is its effects on the relationship between England and its colonies. This was especially evident and significant in the clashing of societies and the mixing of economies.

__//30 August 2009//__ English colonization was a difficult and deadly process throughout the Jamestown settlement. Why did these colonists decide to collectively endure the hardships? Was the need to keep pace with Spain on a Global scale the primary motivation or were other factors throughout England forcing the colonists to make the new settlement work?
 * Question**:

At the end of the sixteenth century, England felt many pressures to begin colonization in the New World. However, in founding the Jamestown Settlement, they realized what a costly endeavor this would be. Being struck with disease, attacks from the disgruntled Indian tribes, and harsh winters, it is hard to imagine why the English settlers would ever have stayed. Many of the reasons for their colonization turned out to be nonexistent, but many of them continued to have a certain amount of influence over their decision. Upon closer inspection, it appears that most of the problems encountered by the colonists were ones that affected them personally. Thus, it was maybe a combination of things more important to the colonists (both as individuals and as a whole) than their own physical comfort that motivated their endurance of the hostile New World.
 * Response**:

Even in the way of physical hardships the colonists were not much worse off than they would have been in England. Although many suffered greatly in the so-called “Starving Time” at the beginning of the seventeenth century as testified by Captain John Smith, there was a similar food shortage occurring in England at about that time. Both of these famines forced people into desperation often horrible to behold. Meanwhile, the lack of jobs and land—not to mention the overpopulation England was experiencing at the time—made the spacious and uncharted New World seem a more likely place for future posterity and a new beginning. But this alone could not have kept the settlers in their trying circumstances.

There was something that seemed to have mattered to these English more than their physical welfare, something they believed strongly in that loomed bigger than their own individual lives. It is hard to say exactly what this might have been. It could have been a sense of patriotism that spurred them on, not allowing them to give in to their European competitor, Spain. It might have also been a feeling of religious duty and devotion to what they saw as the will of God. Either of these might have given the settlers as a whole a determination that would not be shaken by the diseases, attacks, famine, dashed dreams, or high death-rate.

Thus, it seems most likely that it was a combination of these rationales that led the English to suffer through the hardships offered by the New World. Along with these patriotic, religious, or optimistic mindsets, there was the simple fact that life back in England did not offer many more chances for a favorable outcome. All these together propelled the colonists to remain in what would later become the United States of America.

__//6 September 2009//__ In which of the colonies from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts would you have preferred to be a settler? Explain FULLY why.
 * Question**:

Of all the thirteen colonies established in the New World during the seventeenth century, my pick to live in would be Massachusetts (or more specifically, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, as it was then called). Many reasons contribute to my feelings toward this matter, especially in the areas of society and economy. One of the first colonies to be founded, it developed several valuable traits. My choice relies on three of these attributes, namely the orderliness of life in the colony, its emphasis on important things, as well as its energy and determination in getting things done.
 * Response**:

One of the qualities most often associated with Massachusetts its so-called stifling structure and orderliness. Through many laws often seen as strict and oppressing, the Bay Colony maintained a steady and powerful hand over its citizens. However, is this an altogether bad thing? These laws produced a tight-knit unity that is very important in any body of people. Massachusetts did this very well through its staunchly Puritan views and governing. Those who wished to thwart this solidarity were not permitted to remain part of the colony, as seen in the cases of Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams. The Congregational Church, which was a monument of Puritan society, bound together people of all ages, classes, and genders. Many could remember the time when they had been so severely persecuted for these treasured beliefs in England, making them all the more dear to them. It should be understand, however that this orderliness and strictness was not as tyrannical and vicious as it is often portrayed. Mere banishment was the punishment for even the most troublesome of citizens like Hutchinson and Williams, while the even the tragedy of the Salem Witch Trials did not exceed twenty lives. Thus, the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s systematic and well-regulated society remains an inviting prospect.

The Colony also put a special emphasis on many of the things we value the most today. Their Protestant work ethic is famous and made them prosperous in many ways (especially economically). They were the first colonists to stress the need for a good education, leading to their founding of Harvard in 1636. It is a common misconception that the Puritans did not allow for any enjoyment. Rather, they just made sure that enjoyment was kept inbounds (i.e. prevented from harming anyone) and did not take the place of the more important things in life. Finally, the Bay Colony was the first to advocate a type of separation of church and state in their decrees against clergy holding political positions. This delineation is one of the most prized aspects of American society today. Hence, Massachusetts appeals to us with its attention to many important and good things.

Lastly, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was singularly effective (for the most part) in getting the things done it set out to do. It was one of the first of the colonies to rebel against English rule and did so with a vehemence that must have been admired by later revolutionaries. This can especially be seen in its overthrowing of the Dominion of New England imposed upon them by their mother country. In 1689, they successfully captured and ousted Sir Edmund Andros (caught embarrassingly fleeing dressed in female attire). This energy and determination towards accomplishing all it sets its mind to is certainly an appealing aspect of the Colony.

It is thus for these reasons I feel I would most prefer settling in Massachusetts if given the choice. It proved to be a strongly built and maintained community, not to mention one with quality priorities, and a powerful agency.