Text: America and Arizona Government for Elementary Teachers

REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS

Text: America and Arizona Government for Elementary Teachers Presentation 4: Revolutionary Origins Audio: Welcome to America and Arizona Government for Elementary Teachers. This is a presentation for revolutionary origins. In this presentation, we will look at the process that led the colonist in America to drift away from the United Kingdom and demand their independence. We'll also look at the revolution itself and the original draft form of the American Government, the Articles of Confederation. Slide 2 Text: Presentation Objectives AEPA Objectives 0005 Understand the history of political thought through the modern era 0006 Understand various governmental systems 0009 Understand the Understand the historical development of government in the United States

AZ Social Studies Standard, Strand 3 Concept 1: Foundations of Government

Audio: This presentation will cover AEPA objectives 5, 6 and 9 which are understand the history of political thought through the modern era, understanding various government systems, and understand the historical development of government in the United States. It also addresses the Arizona Social Studies Standard, Strand 3 Concept 1: Foundations of Government. As always, I recommend you to pause the presentation and review these objectives and standards, particularly the document on Social Studies Standards Articulated by Grade Level for Strand 3, Civics and Government. There you'll see the various objectives that have to be covered at the grade levels K through 8 so that as we go over at the concepts in this presentation, you will know where to plug those in to those standards. And then after the presentation is over, I again recommend that you go back and review those objectives to ensure that you understand those concepts and are able to teach them clearly. Slide 3 Text: Origins of the New Nation French-British wars [Image of soldiers reenacting a colonial battle] Audio: If you look at books on the American Revolution, you'll find arousing debate and disagreements on what the ultimate cause of the revolutionary world was. But I'd like to start the clock at the French-Indian War of 1754. Now, this war was part of a larger struggle between the English and the French for dominance in Europe. This is a struggle that lasted for centuries and

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 1 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS began long before the 1700s and was fought on Europe, it was fought in the Atlantic, it was fought in Caribbean, it was fought in Africa, it was fought in the Indian subcontinent. These two nations competed for dominance of Europe for who would be the super power of the day for centuries. And what we call the French-Indian War was really the new world front for what the British call the Seven Years' War because, well, it lasted 7 years. This war, again, was part of this larger struggle that didn't really end until the defeat of Napoleon. And any even then, didn't fully end until World War I when the English and French ended up being on the same sides. So we want to put the American Revolution in the larger context of this superpower struggle that's occurring throughout the world between the English and the French. Now, it was in this war that a young officer named George Washington gained crucial battlefield experience. Now, like most wars, this was expensive and the British need to figure out a way to pay for this war and their other struggles to maintain their colonial possessions at the expense of the French in this long series of wars.

Text: Origins of the New Nation

 French-British wars  Increased taxes

[Sketch of colonists in a common town square]

Audio: One solution to England's problem of paying for their extended empire was to pass off the cost of the empire to the colonists. The argument on the British side was that the American colonist should shoulder more of the burden of detaining them from the French and the native tribes on the borders of the colonies. Maintaining those borders was very expensive and the colonists were the primary beneficiaries of those defense forces. And so they thought it was appropriate for the colonist to help shoulder more of the burden than they had then. So the British passed the American Revenue Act of 1764, which the Americans called the Sugar Act. And that's because what this act did was it taxed goods that were produced in the America's and from the British point of view that's Canada, the Atlantic Seaport, and the Caribbean, a tax to those goods at a higher than normal rate in order to generate some cash. The Americans didn't like that because it increases standard of living, I'm sorry--It increased the cost of living, not standard, it decrease standard of living and it directly affected their economies, has the goods they exported to other colonies began to be taxed. This was followed by the Stamp Act of 1765, which required stamp indicating that the tax had been paid on a good before that good could be bought and sold in the market place. Now, the colonist took issue with these acts because they did not have any voice in matter, has there were no seats in parliament assigned to British colonial possessions. All of the parliamentary seats corresponded to territories within the United Kingdom itself, not in any of the far-flung imperial possessions. So with the cry of no taxation without representation, the colonist protested these revenue measures. These protests were unsuccessful though and the revenue continued to be generated to be generated and more taxes were imposed. Now, Americans have always hated paying taxes. You only need to look at the current Tea Party movement to see that that impulse in Americans has never really gone away.

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 2 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS

But this anti-tax mood alone would not have led to revolution. To understand why the American elites were so upset at British colonial rule, we need to understand the way the British set up the trade and commerce within their empire. It's a system called mercantilism and so let's look at how British mercantilism operated. Slide 5 Text: Origins of the New Nation

 French-British wars  Increased taxes  British Mercantilism meant the taxes had a huge impact on the American elite

[Map of British Empire]

Audio: Mercantilism is the idea that all trade should benefit the Crown. Now, all imperial powers at this time follow this practice. The British, French, Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, they all had policies designed to maximize the profit from their colonies to the home country in some way or another. Now the British version of mercantilism was to require all shipping to go through England. So for example, a merchant in Boston who wanted to sell silver spoons to the British colony in Jamaica would have to take his ship across the Atlantic, a two to three week journey, to the port of say, Liverpool. There, the dockworkers would unload the cargo. The owner would pay a tax on the cargo. The dockworkers would then reload the cargo and sail the ship to Jamaica, another two to three week journey. There the merchant would sell the spoons, which are now at a higher price because of the time and expense of crossing the ocean twice. The merchant would then buy a load of Jamaican rum, go back to England, unload the cargo, pay a tax, reload the cargo, and sail back across the ocean to the pubs in Boston where they would sell their rum and their other goods. Now, this policy guaranteed employment for the British dockworkers and income for the British Crown. This policy worked well for England but increased the cost of imported goods, which increased the cost of living for the colonists. Remember that these colonies throughout the world, in red on the map here, are not self- sufficient colonies and so they all rely on imported goods to a great degree. So these taxes, this mercantilism policy had a disproportionate impact on them as well as these policies decrease the profitability of trade, which directly impacted the elites in society. Since the economies of the colonies were dependent on international trade, this policy hurt the elites in America in both the North and the South. An additional aspect to this mercantilism put stiff barriers against the trading with colonies that were controlled by other foreign powers because they did want those goods and the profit from those goods going to the other mercantilism policies. So it put a limit on the markets and the profitability of trade. And the elites resented it and tried to get around it. In fact, a good portion of the British navy when they were not busy fighting the French or the Spanish in the new world, was continually parked of the Atlantic Seaboard of the American colonies, hunting for smugglers and pirates who attempted to engage in trade without paying the required taxes or sailing back and forth across the ocean. They try to take shortcut and have bootlegged shipment of spoons or rum. Now, when the British increased the cost of these imported goods through additional taxes after the French in Indian Wars, it was the last draw from many of these elites as well as everyday Americans. Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 3 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS

Text: Origins of the New Nation British Monarchy was deaf to American complaints Unrest escalated with American agitation and British martial law [Image of the Boston Massacre] Audio: The Americans protested the Revenue Acts. They didn't like them. They made it clear that they didn't like them. They sent emissaries to parliament to protest them. They made them refuse to pay the taxes and the British appointed governors of the various colonies struggled to gather the revenues that the Crown had required. British tax collectors were hounded, chased out of town, and colonial legislatures passed resolutions condemning the acts. The British Parliament did repeal the Stamp Act in 1766. Some thought in reaction the protests but Parliament immediately replaced them with ever more harsh revenue acts in 1767. So the protest and the agitation continued and they culminated in a civil uprising in Boston where a mob begin throwing rocks at contingent of British troops who then fired into the crowd, killing a few of them. This was termed the Boston massacre. And while it seems tame by modern standards because a few people died, it outraged the colonists at the time and further galvanized the American colonists, and Boston became known as a hotbed of agitation, unrest, and sedition. Slide 7 Text: 1st Continental Congress

 Tea Act of 1773  Boston Tea Party

 Congress declares the colonies are united in a common cause

 Battles of Lexington and Concord

[Image of Boston Tea Party] [Image of First Continental Congress]

Audio: Another Revenue Act was passed in 1773, the Tea Act. This was another example of imports being taxed and the people of Boston were having none of it. When some ships arrived lain with tea, the people of Boston refused to allow the ship to unload the cargo. Since at that point, the owner would pay the tax, which the citizen viewed as illegitimate. The Massachusetts governor was going to impound the vehicles to force payment of its cargo. Basically, the owner would lose the cargo and the ships and the governor would use the revenue from the sale of the cargo and the ships to pay the tax to the Crown. Now, a group colonist didn't want that to happen. They want to prevent the governor from taking that step. So they dressed as Indians and boarded the ships and through the tea overboard. And this Tea Party infuriated the British who then declared Martial law in Boston. Now, the colonies responded by convening the First Continental Congress to discuss the crisis. You might recall the famous speech by Patrick Henry

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 4 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS where he said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Now, what Patrick Henry was arguing was that all of the colonies should declare common cause with the people of Boston and unite in opposition to the abuses by the federal Crown. The counter argument was that the people of Boston were unto rabble-rousers who deserved the Martial law that they were getting. But Paine and Patrick Henry and others were successful in their arguments. And the first Continental Congress unified in its opposition to what we've seen as the heavy-handed tactics on the part of the British. The British responded to this declaration by a Continental Congress by sending ever more troops to New England and expanding the jurisdiction that was held under Martial law. When a contingent of soldiers left Boston to disarm the local militias, that's when, you probably recall Paul Revere's Ride, "One if by land, two if by sea," that was all about alerting the countryside to when these British troops were coming to assert British control and Martial law over those neighborhoods. When the British left Boston to do that, a contingent of soldiers went to disarm those militias and that led to the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Slide 8 Text: Declaration of Independence 2nd Continental Congress issued Declaration of Independence Audio: The bloodshed that occurred in Massachusetts and the open conflict between the British regular army and the colonists in Massachusetts led to an increase in the crisis. And so a second Continental Congress was convened. And it was at Second Continental Congress that we have the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. Now, this is a remarkable document and so let's examine it in detail. Slide 9 Text: Declaration of Independence

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 Steeped in Enlightenment Thought  Propaganda Instrument

Audio: At this point, you should pause the narrative of the presentation and acquire a copy of the Declaration of Independence yourself. They are readily available online or in the appendix to the text associated with this course. But take just a minute and read through that document. That's something that every American needs to at least once. So before we discuss the document, take a minute and read through it. I'll give you a minute to do that. Okay. Hopefully you've now read the Declaration of Independence yourself. Now, I want to try your attention to the preamble of the declaration. And as you examine that preamble, you'll see that this is a document that is

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 5 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS steeped in enlightenment thought. It's as if Jefferson is quoting John Locke here. He's discussing the laws of nature and of nature's God. There are classic Lockean "state of nature" concepts that Jefferson and the other writers of the declaration are evoking in this. It also highlights the key function of the Declaration of Independence, which is where it says that when a revolution is necessary, that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind require that they should explain themselves, that revolution is not something lightly done. And it highlights a key function of the Declaration of Independence, which was--that it was a propaganda document that was directed towards two distinct audiences. The first was an internal American audience. Now, nobody really knows because they weren't opinion surveys at the time. But historians estimated only about a third of American colonists favored a revolution at this point, which means that revolutionaries in 1776 were minority in the British colonies in the Americas. The declaration is intended to make a compelling argument to convince the rest of the colonists that revolution is something that they should support. So as we look closely at the document, let's keep that purpose in mind. The other audience is external. Now remember that the United Kingdom was the super power of its day. The American colonies were weak and remote and ill equipped to challenge the great super power that was the United Kingdom. And the colonists knew that resistance would be crushed if they did not receive help from some kind, from other powers. In particular, they hoped that the French, that the historic enemies of the British would come to help them. Also, if other countries recognized the revolutionaries as legitimate state actors with the right to fight in open warfare, then colonists would be able to buy arms openly on the international market. This is in accordance with the norms of international law. Countries are not supposed to sell weapons to rebel groups that undermine or seek to undermine legitimate governments. But if there is a civil war where the rebel group is recognized internationally as illegitimate armed combatant, then you can't sell weapons openly to that group. So these documents had so many purposes, internal and external. Slide 10 Text: Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the

establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Social Contract Theory Jefferson is almost directly quoting John Locke

Audio: If we then examine the first portion of the declaration, we see the influence of John Locke even more. Jefferson writes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness," that the purpose of government is to secure these rights. And that if a government destroys those rights rather than securing them, the people have a right to institute a new government. He argues, "It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government." So Jefferson is almost directly quoting John Locke's and his notion of natural rights and reminding his leadership who most of them were familiar with Locke and his theories that the social contract is a contract and if it violated, it is no longer enforced. So by doing this, the founders are using Locke's Social Contract Theory to justify their revolution. Slide 11 Text: Declaration of Independence A list of grievances to show the social contract has been violated To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for

establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: ………Etc.

Audio: The rest of the document is essentially a list of grievances against the Crown to demonstrate that the social contract has been violated. I don't want to go over all of them in this discussion because you have them in front of you there. But it's a long list and so the founders were attempting to make a compelling argument that the social contract had indeed been violate. And that this was not handful or a small amount of violations that had been incurred but that there was a systemic overwhelming burden of proof against the English crown that yet had indeed violated that contract. Slide 12 Text: Declaration of Independence

 Right of Revolution claimed  Many of the signers paid a heavy price

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity,

which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Audio: The declaration concludes with the statement that the Congress solemnly publishes and declares that the United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free in independent states. Having concluded that the social contract is broken in the previous section, the right of revolution is established and a new state is declared. Now the declaration ends with the members of Congress declaring the rightness of their cause which they written and then signing it. Now it's important to note that these men pledged their lives, their fortunes, and honor. And we should remember that several of them who signed this document ultimately did sacrifice their lives, their fortune, and their honor in the revolution. Indeed, many of them paid a heavy price for having signed this document. Well, there is some very rich histories that discussed the signers and what happened to them and their lives after they signed this document. Slide 13 Text: Declaration of Independence

 Document as Propaganda  Raised Public Support  Enabled foreign assistance

[Image of colonial men discussing a document with other town activities in the background] Audio: Now, as a piece of propaganda, the declaration was very successful. It was printed and distributed throughout the colonies and it indeed did convince a majority of Americans that revolution was justified and something that they should support. Now, not all of them, their remains, and again, we don't really know but about 20 to 25, maybe as high as 30 percent of the colonists remained loyal to the Crown. They were not convinced that revolution was justified. Those loyalists as they were called fought on the side of the British, spied on behalf of the British. As part of the ultimate peace treaty, they were guaranteed that they would not be retribution against the loyalists and that they could remain on their properties. That's an Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 9 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS agreement that was ignored immediately after the paper was signed and they were driven out and most of them went up to Canada. But the point to make here is that the declaration did convince a majority of the people in the colonies to support this revolution. It took a while but the French and other foreign governments also acknowledged the revolution as legitimate. Now, whether that's due to the Lockean arguments, in Declaration of Independence, you know, maybe, but they were monarchies and so they probably weren't too keen on the notion of basing their legitimacy on the consent of the governed. But at the very least, they wanted to make life as miserable as possible for their old enemies, the British. And so ultimately, they did help the colonists. They acknowledged the revolution as legitimate and began selling weapons and supplies to the colonists, and the revolutionary war was then ensued. Slide 14 Text: Contemporary Declarations [Photo of Hutaree soldiers in battle] [Photo of armed people walking along a path] Audio: Now let's take a minute here and ask, what separates the Declaration of Independence that we're all familiar with from modern-day attempts to copy it? Now, if you're not aware, there are groups that feel that the federal government has overstepped its balance that it has violated the social contract for whatever the list of grievances each group has. Now, these groups take Jefferson's Declaration of Independence quite seriously. In that declaration, it states that if the government has violated the social contract, then freedom-loving peoples have not only a right but a duty to overthrow that government and establish their own government. And so these groups have issued their own declaration of independence, declaring themselves to be independent states and not recognizing the authority of the federal government over the property they control. The group pictured on the left here is the Hutaree militia which, you know, may or not have been as dangerous as portrayed by the media and the FBI, but are emblematic of these groups that feel that the government is in a press of regime and so they have created their own paramilitary organizations to resist that regime at some future date. Now, the group on the right is a family on a ranch in Texas and they have declared their own independence. They don't recognize the authority of the government. The threatened to shoot any representative of the government that sets foot on their land which they say as a sovereign state. There is more than one of these groups in Texas. There's groups in Montana, in Idaho, that have taken that same step. And this group here is pictured returning to their home after coming out to--I think was get their mail, maybe it was just talk to the media. If you can see they aren't for bare. And the federal government sends the Waco disaster, has a policy of pretty much leaving these people alone unless they're actively committing crimes or threatening their neighbors. They're not really in the business of going after all of these people, wiping out every little group that writes a declaration of independence. So they're out there, several of these groups are. So the question I want you to think about is what difference, if any, is there between our founding fathers and these modern- day militants? Does the Declaration of Independence give any group with the grievance against the government, the right to declare independence? Take a minute, pause the presentation, and think about that question. And write down some similarities and some differences between these modern malcontents and our forefathers who were malcontents in the colonial era. And when you've written that down, continue the presentation.

Text: Contemporary Declarations

 Followed the Rules of War  “A decent respect for the opinions of mankind”

[Photo of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Downtown Oklahoma City after the bombing] [Photo of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber with law enforcement officers]

Audio: Now looking at your list, you undoubtedly have some similarities in that they are armed and they had grievances and they made this declaration that they harkened to enlightenment though at social contracts. Hopefully you've written some differences down as well. And I want to high light a few of those key differences that make what the modern-day militants were doing fundamentally different than what the founding fathers were engaged in. One clear difference between these modern groups and the founding fathers is that several of these modern groups have opted to live in an underground setting, meaning they're engaged in criminal enterprise to fund their arms, acquisitions, or they do not otherwise abide by the regular norms of conflict, what are called the rules of war. Many of these groups have adapted terrorist tactics in word if not in deed due to the strength of the Federal government. Now the advocates for these strategies refer to asymmetrical warfare that when you were fighting against a superior foe, you have to use nontraditional means. And they use that to justify their criminal behavior. Now, while the colonist did engaged in unconventional fighting given the standards of today, they didn't initially stand in line, shoulders to shoulder with bright-colored uniforms. They did generally adapt the international norms of conflict, which, for example, require the combatants wear uniforms. So they did wear uniforms. They abided by the rules of war, accepting surrender, treating their prisoners with compassion, binding their wounds, acknowledging the distinction between armed combatants and civilians, for example. And in all other respects, acted like a normal legitimate government. The Continental Congress collected taxes and use those taxes to buy their weapons and pay their soldiers. The soldiers signed contracts in terms enlistment for the length of time they will be fighting in the army. But they were not a militia group making things up as they went. They--as I said, acted like a normal legitimate government. And they also had a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. Remember that propaganda documented at the Declaration of Independence, they sought the legitimacy from the international community to be able to act openly and buy arms openly. Whereas these modern groups, most of them any ways hold the opinions of mankind in utter contempt and make no effort to justify their cause to an audience larger than themselves. And so that's a fundamental distinction between these modern militants and the founders, Declaration of Independence.

Text: Contemporary Declarations

 Signers were elected representatives  Legitimacy to declare the social contract void

[Image of colonial representatives in session] Audio: The second and more important or fundamental difference is that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were elected representatives. This means that they acted with legitimacy. They could act on behalf of the colonists who they represented. These were men who were sent as delegates to the Second Continental Congress from their respective colonial legislatures. Modern-day separatist don't have such legitimacy. Nobody elected them to represent them. They were not sent as delegates by an elected body to make these decisions. They speak only for themselves or a close group of friends and family. These modern-day separatists simply do not have the right to speak on behalf of the community and declare that the social contract has been nullified. These groups are simply giving voice to their own opinion and their own observation, their own discontent and declaring upright at war. So these groups have attempted to adapt the form of the Declaration of Independence. But when it comes down to what they fail to understand the social contract theory upon which the document is based, because if they did understand that theory correctly, they would not seek to unilaterally declare that a community's social contract was null and void.

Text: Revolutionary War

 Revolutionary War was close contest  Battle of Yorktown ended fighting, Treaty of Paris ended the war  New Nation had to now govern itself

[Image of soldiers marching in battle] [Image of George Washington riding through ranks]

Audio: So let's talk about the revolutionary war itself. It's good to remember that despite of all of the hoopla we give on 4th of July to celebrate that Declaration of Independence, that it was actually a pretty close contest, but we almost lost the revolutionary war. And in fact, we lost almost every battle in the war, particularly, the first--about three fourths of the war. The American would engage the British and be defeated and retreat. And then the British would chase them, find them, there'd be an engagement and the Americans would retreat and then the British would seek to find them again. The British continually looked for culminating battle where they could defeat the revolutionary army once and for all. And Washington's greatness as a general lie in his ability to deny them that culminating battle. He was able to effectively retreat and continually retreat and hold his army together in spite of the losses and defeats that they suffered. This is one of the reasons why Washington really deserves the title of father of our country. If it had not then for the sheer force of his personality, that army would have dissolved. There were several times where the army was about to disband. If you recall, the colonist had signed documents enlisting for the army for a specified term of service. Typically, the Continental Congress failed to pay them the amount that they had been agreed. They failed to equip the army adequately so they were constantly hungry, ill equipped, poorly fed in amidst of these retreats. And so many of them wanted out when their terms of enlistment were out. And so Washington would call them in together and he would give a speech and a rally these men to the cause of the revolution in which they were engaged. And they would then all line up and sign Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 12 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS reenlistment papers to continue fighting this battle. And then it happened over and over again. And so, again, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to George Washington and his ability to maintain the force in the field in spite of all of the difficulties that naturally come when a small tiny remote country challenges a world super power to fight. Now, the revolutionary war here on the American continent triggered another global war between the English and the French when the French joined our side. They gave us equipment, they gave us weapons, they sent commanders to train our soldiers properly. Our soldiers had a nasty habit of shooting twice and running for the hills. And so the--under the French command and training, they were able to hold their ground and maintain their ranks and fire effectively. And that was a turning point for the revolutionary army. They began to hold their own against the British and began to win some battles. So the British did not take too kindly to this intervention and declared war on the French. And so another great power, super power struggle, ensued between the English and the French. The Spanish Crown also joined our side. And this means for the British, the war was fought against the colonist in the Atlantic Seaboard, in Canada, in the Caribbean, and in the waters around and with itself. So a much larger war than we normally think of when we think of revolutionary war battles. The Battle for Yorktown ultimately ended the fighting. The Americans had hold up the British general in Yorktown and the French navy was preventing the general from retreating. And the British navy turned around rather than challenge the French navy. And when the British general saw that there were no reinforcements coming and the British navy was unable to block the French blockade, he surrendered. And the surrender at Yorktown was a huge bloat to the morale of the British. And that ended the fighting and led to the Treaty of Paris and the end of the war. Now unfortunately, I hate to admit but we left our allies hanging. We had agreed with the Spanish and the French that it was an "All for one, one for all" cause and that we would not enter into separate treaties and we did anyways. In the Treaty of Paris, we declared peace and the French and Spanish continue to fight. And so the British were able to redirect their forces after they were no longer fighting the colonies. And they then crushed the Spanish in the Caribbean and ended the fighting with the French on favorable terms. But from the American point of view, the war was over and a new nation was now able to begin.

Text: Articles of Confederation

 No Executive branch or Judiciary, only Legislature  No taxing authority, relied on donations from states  No enforcement authority to back law  1 state, 1 vote  ¾ majority required to pass law

Audio: The first thing for the colonies to do was to create a new form of government because they had formally been 13 independent colonies of the British Crown and they were now a united nation having defeated the British and won their independence. And so they organized what's called the Articles of Confederation. There was a confederacy not a republic. A confederacy is sort of a strict or closely tied alliance really between independent sovereign states. And so because of this confederacy, it had a fairly weak government. To go through some of the

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 13 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS weaknesses of the articles, there was no executive branch for judiciary. There was only a legislative branch. That's because the confederacy did not exist in and out of itself. It was simply a collective force for 13 separate states governments. And those governments would send a representative to common legislature to coordinate the action of those governments but not act independent of those governments. So there was no executive branch. Additionally, it had no taxing authority because there is no central government, which means that the legislature required donations from the states. They would pass a resolution calling for the construction of the naval vessel. For example, how do we pay that naval vessel? How do you pay for the crew? Well, after passing the resolution to create the vessel, they would then have a resolution with pledges from each other state for how much they would contribute towards building that warship or paying the salaries of those sailors. In this regard, the Articles of Confederation functioned quite similarly to the United Nations. For example, where the UN might create a peacekeeping body to go to Darfur to stop the genocide there, where once it passes a resolution to do that, it then calls for volunteers and says, "Who would like to send their troops to Darfur?" And then it passes the head around and says, "Who would like to pay for these troops," because the UN has no independent taxing authority. Well, similarly, the Articles of Confederation had to go hand- and-hand to the states to pay for anything. There was no enforcement authority to back the law so the states were free to take measures passed by the legislature as advised or suggestions. They didn't have to actually do what the legislature said was going to happen. There was a "One state, one vote" premise, so each take out one vote. So there were thirteen votes total that meant that little tiny Delaware could hold up legislation that New York or Virginia, which is where most of the people lived, wanted to have happened, but little Delaware could say, "No, I don't want to do that." And the large states would have to try to get Delaware to sign on to it. This legislature by conformity or unanimity makes it very difficult to actually get anything substantive done. Most elected bodies that have a unanimity rule only pass resolutions. Meaning, gee, maybe we ought to do this, that's what resolution says. It's not a like a lot of that says, "Thou shalt do this." That kind of thing can't pass a body that has a unanimous rule to it. And then it wasn't unanimous but it required the three-quarters majority to pass the law. So that meant that nine of the 13 states had to go along with anything which made a very difficult for anything to happen at all in the new government.

Text: Scope of government

[Line graph with “Anarchy on the left, “Totalitarianism” on the right]

Audio: The Continental government was therefore unable to really function as a government. It could not keep its obligations. And the revolution, as I said before, the French had supported the colonists in their bid for evolution. Well, the French didn't just give away the equipment and weapons. They sold them to the Americans on loan or on discount. And so that debt had to be repaid to the French and there was no money to pay the French or anyone else that the government had borrowed money from. And so the new government was on the verge of having to declare bankruptcy essentially and have back out of its obligations which would make it extremely difficult to borrow money or function financially as a nation in the future. Many of the

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 14 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS agreements that it had given the soldiers such as pay or a pension or access to a particular land, it was unable to make good on those pledges to the veterans of the revolutionary war because they had insufficient funds to pay the pensions. It couldn't care for the widows of the veterans. It couldn't deliver on its promise of land because the lands were controlled by the states, not the central government. And so in many regards, there was no central government under the articles of confederation. Having resisted the tyranny of a king, the new country had gone in the other direction and had such a weak government. They were sliding towards anarchy. What I've drawn on this slide here is a continuum of the scope of government. And on the left we have hierarchy, which is a complete absence of government. People do whatever they want. We return to the state of nature. Feel free to swing your club any direction you want to. On the other extreme, we go the right of the continuum of totalitarianism, which is where the government controls every aspect of your life. There aren't as many examples of that these days as they're used to be. But North Korea would be a good example of a totalitarian state, where the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the job you do, who you marry, who you worship, it's all controlled by the government. And so between these two extremes of no government and totally encompassing government, we have the rest of the world. And what the American colonist had done is they were afraid that they had to slide too far towards the right here, under the tyranny of the king. And as a consequence, they had now slid too far to the right towards this state of nature and anarchy.

Text: Articles of Confederation

States were sovereign Tariffs between states States engaged in foreign policy Skirmishes between New York and New Jersey Government was broke Shay’s Rebellion was final straw

[Woodcut print of “Regulators” Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck, from a 1787 Boston Almanac woodcut, artist unknown]

Audio: In this, we can state that central government was not able to function as a government. The states were sovereign. They were in the independent countries that work collectively united into this confederacy as loose alliance between them. In addition to that problems that I've already mentioned of not having sufficient revenue, the states acted as sovereign entities, which caused problems. For example, states put tariffs on each other. So if you were a merchant in Boston and you wanted to build a shoe factory in Georgia, then you had to take your currency, your local currency, turn it into a gold or some transferable exchange of some kind, travel across the states down to Georgia, use that gold or silver to buy local currency, build your factory, make your shoes, and then put them in your wagon and travel back to Boston with your shoes and have to pay a tax on those shoes every single time you cross a state border, which is not exactly are a rational economic policy. It makes sense if the borders are between countries but not between a

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 15 REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS unified country. For the same reason, states who were engaged in foreign policy, they were sending the ambassadors to other countries. Benjamin Franklin had been sent as the Ambassador for the United States to England and the British foreign minister refused see him, refused to acknowledge his legitimacy as an ambassador and said, "Look, why should I talk to you? I have a representative from Virginia and Georgia sitting at my door with credentials who want to talk to me. Which of you has the authority to negotiate with the British Crown?" And so he just didn't see any of them. That creates problem. Ultimately, there was the danger of war erupting between the states because each state held its own militia force and in fact, there were skirmishes between New York and New Jersey over who controlled the port authority in New York, because that determine which state could collect taxes when ships docked in the port. Would it be in New York to collect those taxes or would it be New Jersey that will collect those taxes, because they shared the port. Well, both states rouse with their militias and sent their militias to the border to secure their right to that port authority and we almost had a war between those two states. These problems culminated in Shays' Rebellion, which was occurred in Massachusetts. And that it was a group of farmers that the banks had come to foreclose on their properties and the farmers refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the courts that it signed the foreclosure documents. It was a credit crisis. And so they drove the representatives of the court, the sheriffs, out of their communities. And as veterans of the revolutionary war, demanded their rights as citizens and rebelled against the state. The state appealed to the central government for help and the central government was in the embarrassing position of not having an army to put down the rebellion. And so what ultimately happened was the Congress asked for volunteers to go put down this rebellion. The state militia was roused and it was paid for by private bankers, basically, to go put down this rebellion. This was sort of a low point for the American government that it did not have the means to put down even a farmer's rebellion. People began to wonder, "How can this government secure our rights when it is so weak that it can't even do that?" So it's kind of the last draw in the Articles of Confederation. And the states agreed to send delegates to a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation and strengthen them so that there would be a government capable of functioning. We now call this meeting the Constitutional Convention and we'll explore that in the next presentation.

[Image of Constitutional Convention in session]

Audio: What we've seen in this presentation is the reason why the colonists felt justified in their active rebellion. Using John Locke's theories of Natural Law and Social Contract, they felt that the British Crown had ended its social contract on its part and that they had the right and duty to set up a new government capable of meeting the terms of that social contract. Now, under the Articles of Confederation, the government failed to do that, failed to secure the rights and liberties of its citizens. And so they met in the Constitutional Convention to do a second draft of the American government. And in that convention, they drafted the constitution that we are still governed by today. At the next presentation, we'll look at the details of that convention and the constitution that it generated.

Text: This presentation is courtesy of Brian Dille, Professor of Political Science at Mesa Community College

[Photo of Brian Dille]

Audio: This presentation is courtesy of Brian Dille. I am the speaker and I'm a Professor of Political Science at Mesa Community College, a college of the Maricopa Community College District in Mesa, Arizona. I hope you've enjoyed this presentation.

Arizona State University | United States and Arizona Social Studies 17