DOCSLIB.ORG

1 the American War of Independence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 the American War of Independence History of the United States of America (1776-1963) Unit - 1 The American War of Independence - The Confederation Period 1781-1789 – Making of the Constitution-George Washington-Domestic and Foreign Policies-Rise of Political Parties-John Adams-The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Unit - II The War of 1812 - The Monroe Doctrine - Andrew Jackson-Rise of Nationalism- Westward Expansion-Sectionalism and Slavery - Cilvil War. Unit - III Role of Abraham Lincoln-Reconstruction - Rise of Big Business-Problems of Big Business- Problems of Big Business- Rise to World - Power 1 (Overseas Expansion) - Rise to World Power II (the American War 1898) - Rise to World Power III (the U.S and the Far East)-Rise to World Power IV (Caribbean and Mexican Policy) Unit - IV Square Deal-Theodore Roosevelt-Administration, Internal Administration of Woodrow Wilson and the First World War- The Depression – The New Deal – Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Second World War. Unit - V U.S.A, Land of immigrants-American Negroes in the 20th century - U.S. In the Cold War era - Korean Crisis - U.S. Involvement in Vietnam War - Circumstances leading to Civil Right Movement - Emergence of U.S. as an Industrial Power. 1 Unit - I THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE A Century and a half rolled by since the early migrants planted their settlements in North America. The sprawling and isolated habitation grew into populous and prosperous colonies. With the attainment of progress in different directions the colonists decided to shape their destiny s an independent nation. Accordingly in 1776 the thirteen Colonies declared their independence and organized themselves into the United states of America. CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION The causes of the American Revolution had their origin from three sources-conditions in America, developments in Europe and policy of England. The American and European factors prepared the ground for the Revolution but what rendered the breach inevitable was the uncompromising attitude of extremists in the colonies as well as in England. Rise of Nationalism: The colonies has been settled mostly by an adventurous and revolutionary section of the European population. Because of the tyranny of kings, they migrated to a strange wilderness, situated beyond the vast seas. In their new home they expected to be free, but what irked them was the determination of the kings of extend their control over their new home land. The descendants of these settlers entertained a bitter memory that their ancestors had been persecuted. They knew little of England except as a distant kingdom, from where the rulers drove away their fore-fathers to the woods of America. The inhabitants of the middle colonies cherished no attachment for England, for they were mostly descendants of the people from Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden. Independent in spirit and bitter in their memory of the past, the colonists in general were not prepared to tolerate an alien sway. Secondly, their strength and resources so vastly increased that the colonists gained a confidence in their ability to manage their affairs, independent of the mother country. Through high birth rate and continuous immigration population increased rapidly. They raised a wide variety of crops, built ships and factories, developed fishing and commanded a large volume of trade. Political training too had been obtained, for the colonies had their own representative institutions. While Spain and France denied to the settlers any share in the administration of their colonies, the rulers of England grated to the colonists and active role 2 in their government. Under these circumstances the continued control by the mother country of a politically conscious and economically independent people appeared illogical. Thirdly, the colonists developed a spirit of nationalism. England was separated from the colonies by 3000 miles of tumultuous sea. For want of intimate association, the racial and cultural ties with the peoples England became decadent. The pioneers of the western wilderness lived for long, free from any governmental control. Warlike and adventurous, they were unprepared to accept any kind of authority. The influence of the Indian way of free life and long association with the conditions in America too had their salutary effect. Under these circumstances the colonists developed a distinct culture, marked by individualism, provincialism and a strong faith in democratic rights. They dreamed of their country as a nation, different from the mother country. Fourthly, the colonists resented the religious policy of England. The Anglican Church was accorded official status in several colonies and was associated with the administration and supported with public money. But the vast majority of the people belonged to other denominations. The puritans of New England bitterly resented the encroachments made by the Anglican Church upon their religious rights. The Presbytarians too raised opposition. The Baptists and the Quakers, who suffered persecution in England, refused to compromise with the restrictions imposed upon their freedom of worship by rulers from abroad. Added to these, the colonies looked upon the British authority as a check on their territorial expansion. Beyond the Appalachian Mountains, lay vast expanses of fertile lands, drained by the sweet flowing rivers and inhabited by the Indians. The tribals possessed no fire arms except those purchased from the whites, and left their frontier ill defended. The greedy settlers covered possession of this territory, particularly the Ohio Valley. The intrusions made by the settlers led to the outbreak of Pontalc‟s Rebllion in 1763. The Indians made a determined but futile bid to check American expansion. For fear of renewal of war, the British administration issued the Royal Proclamation of 1762. It reserved all the territory, situated between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi and between Florida and Canada for the exclusive possession of the Indians and forbade the colonists from making purchases or settlement in this region. The Government, by an Act of 1774, proceeded to incorporate all the territory situated north of river Ohio with the province of Quebec. These two acts guaranteed the security of life to the natives in their home land against the white marauders and offered them a hope of survival. But to the colonists these measures appeared abnoxious. Influence of Europe: Certain causes of the Revolution were European in their origin. Through the works on history, politics and literature, they came under the influence of the 3 eighteenth century European thought. Many a colonist received his education in European universities. From the history of the long struggle between the ruler and the nobles in England they learned how the people protected their liberties against autocracy. When Parliament itself turned absolute and tyrannical, the people involved against it an unwritten constitution, which guaranteed to every man his rights to life, liberty and property. The colonists drew their inspiration from the writings of Locke, Sydney, Harrington and Milton, who asserted the concept that all the English men, no matter where they lived, had certain fundamental rights, which the government should not violate. Rationalism, as expounded in the works of Isaac Newton and Voltaire, rejected the theological conception that earth was a temporary place of misery but maintained that progress in arts, science and social life was essential for happiness. From these conceptions there emerged the doctrines of the law of nature, social equality, no taxation without representation and the rights to rebel against arbitrary authority. Lawyers, editors and publishers wrote articles on these important issues for general circulation and promoted the growth of an intellectual awakening. The European was proved favourable to the colonies in their march towards independence. The period was marked by frequent conflicts between England and France for commercial and colonial supremacy. Not only did they extend their conflict to America but also did draw other powers into their wards. While colonists. Thereby, the colonists received training in army and experience in warfare against the Indians and the French. Also they acquainted themselves with the fighting methods of the British troops. In the French and Indian War [1759-1763] many American generals including George Washington acquired experience. This determined struggle waged against a common foe and under a common banner promoted among the colonists a sense of unity. Inspite of her victory, the position of England continued pre-carious, for the continental powers remained united and hostile. The removal of the threat of French invasion from America and the pre-occupation of England in Europe left the colonists free to organize resistance against the mother country. Policy of England: However the fundamental causes of the Revolution were mercantilism, adopted by England in her attitude towards the colonies and taxation enforced by King George III in accordance with it. As a guiding principle of the colonial powers, mercantilism aimed at building strong and prosperous nation states. To attain this objective self-sufficiency in raw-materials was promoted, home industries were protected against foreign competition, ship building was encouraged for creating a foreign competition, ship building was encouraged for creating a powerful navy and more export than import was aimed at in the interest of favourable balance of trade. As an essential part of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tribal-State Relations
    ISSUE BRIEF August 2012 Tribal-State Relations What’s Inside: • Key factors affecting The United States Congress and Tribal governments Tribal-State relations in have articulated the importance of protecting the safety, child welfare permanency, and well-being of American Indian and Alaska • Components of Native children. Through the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) successful Tribal-State of 1978, Congress stated that there is “no resource that is relations more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children” (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901). • Promising practices in Tribal-State relations This brief is intended to help States, Tribes, and related from across the country jurisdictions find ways to work together more effectively to • Conclusion meet the goals of ICWA. • Resources Child Welfare Information Gateway Children’s Bureau/ACYF 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 800.394.3366 Email: [email protected] Use your smartphone to http://www.childwelfare.gov access this issue brief online. Tribal-State Relations http://www.childwelfare.gov • State jurisdiction over Tribal affairs, for Key Factors Affecting Tribal- instance, through Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), initially enacted in 1953 in six “mandatory” State Relations in Child Welfare States and other “optional” States in 1968 that elected to assume full or partial State jurisdiction on Indian reservations, and Tribal child welfare has had a particularly eliminating Federal jurisdiction for Indian poignant history in the past century. Country (Gardner & Melton, n.d.) Thousands of Indian children were forcibly removed from their homes, families, and • Tribal-State disagreements, especially those Tribes and placed in boarding schools where that end up in court and result in a “winner” a policy of assimilation left them unable to and a “loser” speak their Native language or participate • Availability of funding for child welfare in their Native culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Law Review
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
    [Show full text]
  • The Soul of America by Jon Meacham
    The Soul of America By Jon Meacham Answer the following: Chapter 1 (pg. 23-47) 1. What is the difference between The First Charter of Virginia (1606) and A Model of Christian Charity (1630)? How do each represent a contradiction? Pg. 23-24 2. How is Abraham Lincoln an example of “…birth mattered less than it ever had before…” when it came to the American dream of wealth & happiness. Pg. 24 3. Starting on page 24 and continuing through page 27, Meacham explains why the American presidency is important to the American experience. Give an example of why this is so. Also explain how the competing views of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and practical experience of the Revolutionary War and Confederation period shaped thoughts on government. 4. What fundamental role did president Lyndon Johnson want to accomplish as President? Pg. 27 5. How did Alexander Hamilton curtail his enthusiasm over the role of the President in two of his Federalist essays? Pg. 27-28 6. What began to change in regard to political power by the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency? Give some examples of how Jackson was “the most contradictory of men”. Pg. 29-31 7. Give examples of how Abraham Lincoln further changed the role of the president by expanded on the ideals of both Jefferson & Jackson, especially after is Gettysburg Address. Pg. 31-32 8. How does Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt begin to further define the role of the presidency? Pg. 35-40 Chapter 2 (pg. 51-69) 9. After the Civil War, how did the South try to reimagine the purpose of the war in their terms? Why is this a false narrative of the events? Pg.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy Or Inching Toward Commonwealth?*
    The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth?* On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee proposed to the Second Con- tinental Congress "[t]hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," and "[t]hat a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their con- sideration and approbation."' Lee's resolution reflected the linkage between independence and confederation in the public mind.2 The result was the Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1776-1777 and fi- nally ratified on March 1, 1781, which remained in effect until 1789 and represented the first American experiment with a written na- tional charter.3 The conventional view of this period is that it was dominated by deep factional conflict concerning the amount of power that should be vested in the national government. 4 The text of the Articles, ac- cording to this view, represented a victory for the group favoring minimal national authority, 5 and as a result the Articles government * The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistancc of Professor William E. Nelson of the Yale Law School in providing critical guidance and granting permission to make use of unpublished research materials. 1. 5 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 425 (W. Ford ed. 1906) [hereinafter cited without cross-reference as JOURNALS]. 2. See NEw JERSEY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1763-1783: A DOCUMENT.ARY HISTORY 402 (L. Gerlach ed. 1975) (issues of independence and confederation were inseparable) [hereinafter cited as DOCUIENTARY HISTORY]; cf. Jensen, The Articles of Confederation, in FUNDAMENTAL TESTAMENTS OF TilE AMERICAN RLvoI.UTIoN 62 (Library of Congress Sym- posium on the American Revolution 1973) (politicians who opposed confederation did so because they saw it as step toward independence) [hereinafter cited as Jensen, TESTA ENTS].
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Moments: the Role of Direct Popular Power in the American Constitutional Order
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 139 DECEMBER 1990 No. 2 ARTICLES REPUBLICAN MOMENTS: THE ROLE OF DIRECT POPULAR POWER IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER James Gray Popet INTRODUCTION .................................. 289 I. POPULAR VS. ELITIST REPUBLICANISM ON DIRECT POPULAR PARTICIPATION ............................... 295 A. Background: The Republican Revival ............. 296 t Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, Newark, New Jersey. A.B. 1974,J.D. 1983 Harvard University. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Boston University Legal History Group and the Rutgers Law Faculty Colloquium. The final product benefitted greatly from critical comments by Akhil Reed Amar, C. Edwin Baker, CathieJo Martin, Eric Neisser, Richard Davies Parker, and John M. Payne. I am especially indebted to Vicki Been, Richard Revesz, and Aviam Soifer, who provided detailed critiques on short notice. James C.N. Paul gave guidance and encouragement throughout. Able research assistance was provided by Lisa Buckley, John Cioffi, Angela DiLeo, Nancy Gage, Sandra Levy, Mary Uva, Rosalind Westlake, and David Zuckerbrot. The S.I. Newhouse Research Fund supplied much-needed financial support. (287) 288 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 139:287 B. Direct PopularParticipation and the Problem of Size .... 297 C. The Elitist Solution .......................... 299 D. Back to Square One .......................... 301 E. A PopularRepublican Dilemma .................... 302 II. REPUBLICAN MOMENTS .......................... 304 A. Ackerman's ConstitutionalMoments ................ 304 B. Public Purpose and Creedal Passion ................ 306 C. Republican Moments ......................... 310 D. PopularRepublican Pathologies? ................... 313 III. REPUBLICAN MOMENTS AS A PARTIAL ANTIDOTE TO INTEREST GROUP POLITICS .............................. 315 A. From Narrow Self-Interest to Public Virtue ...........
    [Show full text]
  • The Other Madison Problem
    THE OTHER MADISON PROBLEM David S. Schwartz* & John Mikhail** The conventional view of legal scholars and historians is that James Madison was the “father” or “major architect” of the Constitution, whose unrivaled authority entitles his interpretations of the Constitution to special weight and consideration. This view greatly exaggerates Madison’s contribution to the framing of the Constitution and the quality of his insight into the main problem of federalism that the Framers tried to solve. Perhaps most significantly, it obstructs our view of alternative interpretations of the original Constitution with which Madison disagreed. Examining Madison’s writings and speeches between the spring and fall of 1787, we argue, first, that Madison’s reputation as the father of the Constitution is unwarranted. Madison’s supposedly unparalleled preparation for the Constitutional Convention and his purported authorship of the Virginia plan are unsupported by the historical record. The ideas Madison expressed in his surprisingly limited pre-Convention writings were either widely shared or, where more peculiar to him, rejected by the Convention. Moreover, virtually all of the actual drafting of the Constitution was done by other delegates, principally James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris. Second, we argue that Madison’s recorded thought in this critical 1787 period fails to establish him as a particularly keen or authoritative interpreter of the Constitution. Focused myopically on the supposed imperative of blocking bad state laws, Madison failed to diagnose the central problem of federalism that was clear to many of his peers: the need to empower the national government to regulate the people directly. Whereas Madison clung to the idea of a national government controlling the states through a national legislative veto, the Convention settled on a decidedly non-Madisonian approach of bypassing the states by directly regulating the people and controlling bad state laws indirectly through the combination of federal supremacy and preemption.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment: a Narrow Construction of an Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction Rather Than a Prohibition Against Jurisdiction
    A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment: A Narrow Construction of an Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction Rather than a Prohibition Against Jurisdiction William A. Fletcher* INTRODUCTION The eleventh amendment is one of the Constitution's most baf- fling provisions and, for its importance, one of the least analyzed. Its full text provides, The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign state. In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has treated the amend- ment as prohibiting federal courts from taking jurisdiction over suits brought in federal court against a state by private citizens.2 The * Acting Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berke- ley. B.A. 1968, Harvard College; B.A. 1970, Oxford University; J.D. 1975, Yale Law School. I wish to thank the Boalt Hall School of Law for its generous financial assistance through the Walter Perry Johnson Fund. I also wish to thank my colleagues and friends Stephen R. Barnett, John E. Coons, Ronan E. Degnan, David E. Feller, Dennis J. Hutchinson, Thomas M. Jorde, James H. Kettner, Jean C. Love, Paul J. Mishkin, Stefan A. Riesenfeld, David B. Roe, Harry N. Scheiber, Martin Shapiro, Michael E. Smith, Therese M. Stewart, Preble Stolz, and Jan Vetter, and my father, Robert L. Fletcher, for their valuable criticism and suggestions. Finally, I wish to thank Kevin James for his excellent research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Interpretation and Nation Building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2002 Constitutional interpretation and nation building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900. Charles R. Venator Santiago University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Venator Santiago, Charles R., "Constitutional interpretation and nation building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900." (2002). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2347. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2347 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND NATION BUILDING: THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE AND THE FORAKER ACT, 1787-1900 A Dissertation Presented by CHARLES R. VENATOR SANTIAGO Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2002 Department of Political Science ©Copyright by Charles R. Venator Santiago 2002 All Rights Reserved CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND NATION BUILDING: THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE AND THE FORAKER ACT, 1787-1900 A Dissertation Presented by CHARLES R. VENATOR SANTIAGO Approved as to style and content by: 1 Roberto AlejandrcCv hair Peter D'Errico, Member Dean Robinson, Member >me Milleur, Department Head Apartment of Political Science DEDICATION For Hiza and Ric Townes, victims of this institution’s corporate greed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project began as a paper presented at a Law and Society Association meeting several years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • William Rainey Harper College Business and Social Science Division General Course Outline
    WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER COLLEGE BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE DIVISION GENERAL COURSE OUTLINE HST 111 The American Experience to 1877 (3-0) 3 Course Course Course Title Lec-Lab Credit Prefix Number Hours COURSE DESCRIPTION Survey of the American experience through the pre-revolutionary period, the expansion westward and the Civil War. Special stress is placed upon the social, economic, cultural, political, and constitutional development of the United States. TOPICAL OUTLINE I. Introduction: America and the Expansion of Europe II. The Colonial South, the Colonial System, and New England Puritanism III. The Anglo-French Conflict, British Politics, and the American Revolution IV. The Growth of American Unity; the Revolution as a Social Movement, and Nationalism and the American Revolution V. The Confederation Period VI. The Motives of the Founding Fathers VII. The Federalist Period VIII. Thomas Jefferson: Ideas and Reality, Politics and Neutrality IX. The Causes of the War of 1812 X. Nationalism and Sectionalism XI. The Jacksonian Era XII. American Society During the First Half of the 19th Century XIII. “Manifest Destiny” XIV. The South and the Expansive North XV. Civil War XVI. Reconstruction METHOD OF PRESENTATION 1. Lecture 2. Discussion 3. Films 4. Overhead transparencies (Discussions will include both primary and secondary materials. Pretest will be given to students to determine degree of accomplishment in the course.) STUDENT OUTCOMES (The student should…) 1. comprehend the American experience through the pre-revolutionary period, the expansion westward, and the Civil War. 2. reason effectively and evaluate factual material in their true perspectives through the interpretative analysis of the American past. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourteenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals June 2015 The ourF teenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession Daniel A. Farber Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A. (2012) "The ourF teenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession," Akron Law Review: Vol. 45 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol45/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Farber: The Fourteenth Amendment 12- FARBER_MACRO.DOCM 6/13/2012 3:42 PM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECESSION Daniel A. Farber∗ I. Introduction ...................................................................... 479 II. Antebellum Conceptions of Citizenship and the Nature of the Union ...................................................................... 484 A. Secession and the Nature of the Union ...................... 485 B. Federalism
    [Show full text]
  • Government and Taxation During The
    THE PERCEIVED POWER: GOVERNMENT AND TAXATION DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR A Dissertation by JANE FLAHERTY Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2005 Major Subject: History THE PERCEIVED POWER: GOVERNMENT AND TAXATION DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR A Dissertation by JANE FLAHERTY Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Harold C. Livesay Committee Members, Thomas Dunlap Henry C. Schmidt Pamela Matthews Head of Department, Walter Buenger December 2005 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT The Perceived Power: Government and Taxation during the American Civil War. (December 2005) Jane Flaherty, B.A., Boston University; M.A., Texas A&M University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Harold C. Livesay This dissertation examines how the internal revenue legislation enacted during the American Civil War fostered a new role for government in society. The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention constructed a system of fiscal federalism for the United States. The national government relied on indirect taxes, particularly customs duties, as its primary source of revenue. Concurrently, the states developed an array of unique financing strategies, including taxing citizens directly. The dire need for war funds compelled this “unperceived” government to expand beyond the constraints imposed by this antebellum fiscal structure. Through my research, I found that the taxes imposed during the war represent an attempt to cope with a financial crisis, rather than impart a particular preconceived agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Confederation Period-Brinkley
    The Confederation Period by Alan Brinkley This reading is excerpted from Chapter Five of Brinkley’s American History: A Survey (10th ed.). I wrote the footnotes. If you use the questions below to guide your note taking (which is a good idea), please be aware that several of the questions have multiple answers. Study Questions 1. What big ideas were the foundation of early American government? Why? (This question covers most of the first two pages of the reading.) 2. What were the goals of those who wrote the Articles of Confederation? 3. How do the Articles reflect those goals? 4. What problems had to be overcome before the Articles could be put into effect? 5. The government established by the Articles is often seen as a failure. What are the arguments for and against this position? 6. In what ways did the Northwest land settlement change the landscape of the United States? 7. What do the Northwest land ordinances reveal about the principles of the new nation? 8. Why do you think representatives from slaveholding states would vote to approve a ban on slavery in the Northwest? THE CREATION OF STATE GOVERNMENTS At the same time that Americans were struggling to win their independence on the battlefield, they were also struggling to create new institutions of governments for themselves, to replace the British system they had repudiated. That effort continued for more than fifteen years, culminating in the federal Constitution of 1789. But its most crucial phase occurred during the war itself, and at the state, not the national, level.
    [Show full text]