Thomas Jefferson

A History Of The Louisiana Purchase

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

Imagine hundreds of miles of empty land, ready to be put to use, with thousands of people racing to claim it. That was what the louisiana purchase was like in 1803. The louisiana purchase was a crucial time in history. Some important parts of the louisiana purchase are, the land, the problems they faced, and the important people.


  • 1 The Land
  • 2 The Problems They Faced
  • 3 The Important People

The Land

The louisiana purchase land was eight hundred twenty-seven thousand sq miles of land or fifteen states. It had completely doubled the size of the U.S. and was so important! It happened in 1803, and costed fifteen million U.S. dollars, which is equivalent to 1.2 trillion dollars in today’s money. It was a major part in making the united states what it is today. Also, the united states got control of the port of new orleans and the mississippi river, which were both used by farmers to ship crops. One bad thing about the louisiana purchase is that the united states invaded numerus indian tribes. The indians must have been furious, because united states invaded their land without permission and they later had to leave for no reason.  

The Problems They Faced

        Although the louisiana purchase seemed to be a flawless plan their was a few problems. The purchase made goods go down the mississippi river into the sea. This costed people lots of money. In addition, the louisiana purchase almost didn’t happen at all! Thomas Jefferson was worried about how the Constitution did not allow the executive branch to attain land through treaty. This was the biggest problem to Jefferson, as he was a strict constitutionalist. Also, Thomas Jefferson bought the land not knowing how much was in it. They had not researched deep enough to find the borders of the land . So they could not know if they actually got what they wanted.

Then they were told that the borders were to the mississippi river. But they did not know where the river was so they still did not know.

The Important People

        There were a lot of people who helped out during the louisiana purchase, including Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third U.S. president. Jefferson had dreamed of expanding the united states, and turned out, he got to. Two other people were, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. After the louisiana purchase was complete Thomas Jefferson asked them to take a journey around the louisiana purchase land and map it out, and they did. Lewis and Clark were polite on their journey and traded with the indians in need. This was one case of politeness on their journey A woman brought her child with an abscess in the lower part of the back, and offered as much corn as she could carry for some medicine we administered to it of course very cheerfully this was a journal entry written by meriwether Lewis. Also, according to Author Anita Yasuda, the Senate made the law to let Thomas Jefferson buy Louisiana, it wasn’t on the Constitution to let a president buy land but they made it happen that Thomas Jefferson could buy Louisiana. Napoleon, ruler of France, Sold Louisiana to America, they had Louisiana before America did, France only had Louisiana for two years before Thomas Jefferson purchased it.

        In conclusion, the louisiana purchase was very important, and it took a lot of help to make it happen. I think it’s safe to say how astonishing the louisiana purchase was. What do you think about the louisiana purchase and how it affected the United States now.

Read more

Advantages and Disadvantages Of The Louisiana Purchase

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

The Louisiana Purchase constituted many advantages and disadvantages for President Thomas Jefferson and for the country. Some of the moral dilemmas included were, whether to purchase Louisiana and turning on what the constitution says. Jefferson believed in strict constructionism meaning he found ways to incorporate ideas for certain instances into the constitution’s laws that weren’t initially written in there. So, while he is having a hard time figuring out whether he should purchase Louisiana, he is also worried about what people may think of him if he disobeys the constitution. 

The Louisiana Purchase posed many advantages for the country. Jefferson’s decision to buy Louisiana expanded the U.S. massively. By any measure, it was one of the most colossal land transactions in history, involving an area larger than today’s France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Holland, Switzerland and the British Isles combined (Harriss). If Jefferson would not have made the purchase, the U.S. lands would not be the same. Another advantage to the situation was the underground features. The new land flourished in gold, silver, and many other ores that people would eventually mine and use as currency (Harriss). This meant that more people would immigrate to the United States, increasing the population. With the population increasing, the U.S. needed more housing and jobs available. People began to build up cities and towns until there was more than enough room for everyone. The expansion also led to more agriculture and farming, benefitting the people (paying jobs) and the country (Harriss). As people worked in farming, money was made, and the country eventually acheived wealthiness. This contributed to the building of roads and new businesses. The U.S. continued to grow beneficially because of Jefferson’s decision. Although there were many influencing aspects of purchasing Louisiana, there were also some downfalls.

Since the purchase expanded the U.S. so greatly, they came across problems that affected how the country grew. Thomas Jefferson was a huge public figure and was viewed as a positive influence to many people, but there were some that did not agree with his ways. He was known for being the one to make sure what he wants to do is done in a constitutional manner. When people accused Jefferson as being unconstitutional because of his strict constructionism, he made sure to prove them wrong. Jefferson had always stated his strong belief that the federal government’s powers should be interpreted strictly. Article IV of the Constitution said new states could be added, but made no provision for taking on foreign territories, Jefferson argued that a constitutional amendment was needed. (Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase). Jefferson struggled to convince the government that there were no rules against buying foreign lands. He eventually decided to try to justify the situation. ‘He wrote in 1803, The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it. it has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this.’ (Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase). All of this to say, Jefferson did not have a strong bond with his people, and this negatively affected the way the U.S. grew. Along with Jefferson being frowned upon for his doings, there were other disadvantages to the Louisiana Purchase. Before the purchase, France had just taken control over Louisiana. After the U.S. took over Louisiana, Jefferson found out this information and instantly felt differently about the situation. French-controlled Louisiana would become a point of eternal friction with us, he wrote in April 1802, and would force us to marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation. (Greenspan). This instance created some tension between the two countries. Another complication was that of people of the U.S. having an opinion about buying Louisiana. Fisher Ames wrote, ‘We are to give money of which we have too little for land of which we already have too much.’ (Greenspan). The U.S. had already claimed a lot of land and people began to think that it was too much. Jefferson did not think much about this and still bought it. 

Was Thomas Jefferson a bad president? In my opinion, no, he was not a bad president. Jefferson may have used strict constructionism during his presidency (although some did not like it), but it truly exploited the United States’ future decisions and doings. While Jefferson was president, he accomplished many things. While president, Jefferson’s principles were tested in many ways. But Jefferson stood firm in ending the importation of slaves and maintaining his view of the separation of church and state. In the end, Jefferson completed two full and eventful terms as president. He also paved the way for James Madison and James Monroe, his political prot?©g?©s, to succeed him in the presidency. (Thomas Jefferson Establishing a Federal Republic). As the article says, he did not back down on his beliefs. He stayed loyal to the country and made it possible for others to become president as well. Jefferson will always be remembered for his intelligent decisions. He led his country to great places and is thanked for doing so. 

In the end, I think that purchasing Louisiana had its ups and downs but each one benefited the United States. For better or for worse, I believe that the U.S. would not be where it is today without the Louisiana Purchase. Though we may have had some complications, this decision impacted the country in many ways and could not have been done without Thomas Jefferson. At the beginning, he was not fully trusted but people warmed up to his strict ways and realized that he knew what he was doing. Thomas Jefferson had some moral dilemmas along the way, but they challenged him to be the best president that he could be. He stood strong on his beliefs and never backed down which allowed people of the country to count on him for loyalty.

Read more

Was The Louisiana Purchase Constitutional Or Not?

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

This paper will be about whether or not the Louisiana purchase was constitutional. The purchase would be permissible and implied under the Constitution treaty-making provisions. It would be argued by many that Jefferson stretched the Constitution to justify the purchase. Many people will argue if the westward expansion will cause more slavery and whose political and economic priorities were bound to conflict with those of the merchants and bankers of the north.

        The French have been expanding their land in America since 1862 when Ren?©-Robert Cavelier lead his crew to the Gulf of Mexico and called it Louisiana. In 1722 New Orleans becomes the capital of France’s ‘New World’ empire but 40 years they give part of the west to England and New Orleans and part of the east to the Spanish. The treaty of San Lorenzo which allowed Americans to traverse the Mississippi River and use New Orleans harbor duty-free was written in 1795. In 1803 France offers to sell Louisana to the United States and on December 20th France hands over Louisiana to the United States. Louisiana is not recognized as a state until 1821.

The Louisiana purchase was constitutional because it was enacted as a treaty. The Constitution specifically grants the president the power to negotiate treaties. Though the Constitution does not specifically authorize the executive branch (or any other branch of the government) to purchase land from other nations. Many people had faith in Thomas Jefferson’s decisions involving the French because he spent a long time in France working on diplomacy and relationships with the French people.

Thomas Jefferson is a man that lived by the constitution word by word. When the word got out that he was going through with the Lousiana purchase, it caused a lot of controversies. Many people deemed that the purchase was unconstitutional and call Thomas Jefferson out for being hypocritical. Instead, Jefferson contemplated a constitutional amendment as the best way to close the deal with France. The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it, he wrote. It has not given it a power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems essential for this. His cabinet disagreed, specify James Madison, about the need for a constitutional amendment. With that being said, Thomas Jefferson already had a draft for the amendment and was frustrated with James Madison. Jefferson rationalized his decision for the treaty to be sent to Congress without an amendment by saying that he is buying it for the good of the people. Any deal with France would be lawful and implied under the Constitution’s treaty-making prerequisites.

Many southern farmers saw the Louisiana Purchase as a huge chance to expand farms and increase their profits. Some wanted the land so bad that they wanted the government wage war to be able to secure free use of the soon to be Mississippi. Democratic republicans thought that Napoleon might change his mind given his reputation and choose another nation to take the land or may not even sell it at all. Some of the democratic republicans did not even want an amendment either because they knew that it would take too long it get it approved. They used the 11th amendment to prove their points stating that from March 4, 1794. It was not ratified until January 23, 1795 (over 11 months). Some were even xenophobes saying that the Louisiana Purchase would make the United States safer by getting rid the French, Spanish, and English. Specifically the French because of Napoleon’s expansionist tendencies.

On the other hand, the Federalists had their opinions on why they believed the Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional. They argue that the constitution had no provision to allow the executive branch to purchase land from foreign countries. They also called Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite saying that he was against loose construction and that he had the option of creating an amendment but did not because he knew it would take too long. The Federalists did not want to add on to the growing national debt and was worried that the Louisiana Purchase would sink the United States economy. They were also scared that there would be states carved from the purchase that would ultimately benefit Jeffersonians and would grant Republicans enormous power over Congress. This meant that the south would be able to swing enough votes to be able to do as they please. And there would be more slave states from the purchase too. Some Federalists thought that the expansion to the frontier would somehow decivilize the United States as a whole and other nations would look down on us. For some reason, they argued that the French and Spanish people that live in the soon to be United States territory have not consented to be fused into the United States. Even though they do not have a problem pushing the Native Americans around and incorporating them into the United States. The people that live in Louisiana would so far from the capital of the nation that it seemed that it would be near impossible to control and meet the needs of the soon to be enacted citizens. Federalists thought that this would eventually lead to the separation of the territory and cause a sort of civil war. A major concern was that everyone knew that Napoleon could not maintain control over Louisiana and he is afraid that England will take it over, which leads us to ‘over’ pay. This is because the cost of Napoleon’s war made it necessary for him to offer Louisiana at an compelling price of $15 million dollars or approximately $.04 an acre.

Many of the arguments made against Thomas Jefferson was primarily economic self-interest, not any legitimate concern over constitutionality. But, they wanted it to be posted as such to appeal to the majority and not the minority. The Louisiana purchase opened up a lot of free lands. That means that the newly acquired land is open for anyone to claim their stake. This really made parts of the north upset because they were hoping to sell these lands to farmers, who might go west. So much so that some New York and New England Federalists began discussing their region’s secession from a union that was becoming too large and too different from the one they had helped form barely fifteen years earlier. But at the same time, there were some legitimate worries that with the Purchase comes New Orleans. That means that a lot of the crops that will be made in the southwest and parts of the west do not need the ports in New England anymore to be able to ship their goods.

Federalists criticized the expense, arguing that the island of New Orleans and Spanish West Florida was more valuable and could have been purchased for much less. But they also argued that expansion west of the Mississippi would bring the creation of many hostile nations in North America. Hamilton prompted Jefferson to negotiate a new treaty with Spain to exchange the whole of Louisiana west of the Mississippi for East and West Florida rather Louisiana.

Read more

Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

President Thomas Jefferson expanded the bounds of his time as president and betrayed his republican tendencies by favoring desired results over executive self-control. Those that showed this viewpoint often brag their claim by pointing to Jefferson’s own look on the matter, which held that the Louisiana Purchase was not allowed short of an amendment in the Constitution. But was the Louisiana Purchase truly going against something in the constitution? In 1803, Jefferson sent two very important figures, Robert Livingston and James Monroe to France to talk with them about the purchase of New Orleans.

New Orleans was most desirable because it would allow easy ways to travel up the Mississippi River and the opportunity to expand in the west. This mission was so important to Jefferson that he said to Monroe All eyes, all hopes, are now fixed on you, for on the event of this mission depends the future destinies of this republic.

        Jefferson’s management was shocked when Napoleon Bonaparte offered all of the land of Louisiana to the U.S rather than New Orleans. Seeing the area as wrong and meaningless in comparison to France’s war with Britian, Napoleon’s offer would give up Louisiana for 15 million dollars. After agreeing to terms with Napoleon, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, the peacekeepers sent word of this amazing deal they just struck to the White House. Receiving Louisiana for such a low price seemed like a miracle gift for the U.S. Jefferson didn’t think it was constitutional. Jefferson very firmly maintained the government didn’t have the power to buy foreign territory even though he wanted to buy it.

        However, he admitted that there was a fix available to legalize the Louisiana Purchase by way of adding a constitutional amendment. Jefferson sent a change to the congress that said: Louisiana, as given up by France to the United States is now the United States territory. Its white residents will be citizens and stand, as to their rights and duties, on the same footing with other citizens of the U.S in the same situations. Saved as only a portion of it lying north of an east and west line drawn through the Arkansas River, no state will be established or make money off the land other than Indians in exchange for equal amounts of land occupied by them, until authorized by further change to the Constitution will be made for these purposes. Jefferson thought that the United States did not have the power of holding foreign land and so a change to the Constitution seemed necessary to buy the area. Several of Jefferson’s cabinet members wrote letters that gave a good reason for the treaty on constitutional grounds, and did not agree with Jefferson. As Jefferson remained unwilling to accept the treaty short of the addition, James Monroe made steps to convince Jefferson to drop his objections and accept the treaty. The chief leaders working against the diplomats at this time and after receiving cross continental warnings, Madison became concerned that Napoleon might go back on his word. Unfortunately, the process through which a change to the Constitution was approved was completely opposite to the interests of the hurrying. Even the Bill of Rights in 1791 took over two years to get approved by the states, and the fast mobilization of the states to accept the change couldn’t be promised that something will happen.

        In the end, Thomas Jefferson agreed with his cabinet and James Madison, hoping that the treaty’s benefits are worth it in the end. Just as he did this some Congress members launched a campaign to deliberately destroy the deal. Some alleged that Louisiana belonged to Spain instead of France, but these concerns were calmed when records proved the recent transition between the two. Believing that Louisiana would reduce the power of New England and Massachusetts, Senator Timothy Pickering suggested that his state should break off from the union if Louisiana were bought. Senator James Hillhouse from Connecticut joined, declaring that the eastern states must and will end the union and form a separate government. Even though the senate made anti treaty rumblings from New England, most of the senate thought the treaty was agreeing with the Constitution. The body agreed to approve it by a large margin of 24 to 7 and the treaty started to take affect legally. Among those in favor James Randolph from Roanoke, who would later split with Jefferson over perceived the treaty’s wrong actions. Doubling the size of the country for three cents per acre.

        The federal government often started bad behavior even during the first Congress that interfered with the original plan of the Constitution. Under the Constitution the president has the power to make treaties with the advice and permission of the senate. Working out this power demands a dividing line of two thirds of the senators vote to put any treaty into legal affect. When the Constitution was approved in the 18th century, four types of treaties were common: treaties of friendly partnership, peace, commerce, and land purchase. During the approval campaign in the states the treaty making power was often described in terms that included all types of agreements between countries, but several federalists suggested that the same power held in England by the king would be divided in the U.S. by the president and senate. Of course treaties get land from foreign countries were within the extent of this power.

        In 1795, the treaty of Basal saw the transition of many areas of land between kingdoms in Europe, a result of the French Revolutionary Wars. Just years before the Purchase, Louisiana was sold to France by Spain in 1800. Each of these land based exchanges were proper under and understanding of the treaty’s power as it was related to the laws of nation a set of legal normal behaviors that were accepted greatly. As treasury secretary Albert Gallatin wrote The existence of the U.S. as a nation believes the power enjoyed by every nation of extending their territory by agreements between countries and the power given to the president and senate of making treaties selects the organ through the purchase may be made. Why was an agreement to buy the city of New Orleans was not considered a constitutional deed by Jefferson? Jefferson did not show any constitutional doubts to buy New Orleans before the offer to buy all of Louisiana came up. He never defined a difference between the two, though land treaties were permitted by the Constitution it seemed obvious that it was a constitutional act before Jefferson ever said anything about it.

Read more

Henry Clay and American System

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

After the War of 1812, Republican Henry Clay, a congressional leader from Kentucky came up with an economic plan that called the American System. This plan has consisted of three important parts: promoting products in the American industry and support the tariffs; help finance more roads, bridges, and canals; create a national bank to regulate local banks and unstable state. However, shortly after things began to get worse when the southern and western farmers and the common people had to pay higher prices for the goods produced by the tariff industries.

Many westerners and southerners also feared the Second Bank of the U.S. would become so powerful that it could destroy the nation’s economic future at the expenses from states’ rights. Follow by the Panic of 1819 that drowned the whole economic expansion created the first major financial struggle happened in America. It leads to a surprising rate of foreclosure and bank failures, a huge amount of increase in unemployed, and the downfall of agriculture and manufacturing. These depression panic tensions last about three years and many people blaming the B.U.S. Even though the panic has gone, many from the South and West of America still remained critical with banking issues. By 1819, the president and Congress faced another tough decision on the admission of Missouri state signed as a slave state. By the time, the country had 22 states with an equal number of eleven each of slave and free states.

A brief summary from the document REFLECTIONS ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION (1820), JOHN QUINCY ADAMS by the author named Allan Nevins. Adams’s belief that slavery settled widespread in the South and his worry for the image of slavery to the Union. Thomas Jefferson’s dilemma reviews the conflict with slavery in creating a balance nation had been reflected in his concepts of building one. The slaveholding founder had also expressed a feeling for change in the corruption that slavery dangerously experienced in principle. Adams shared the same conceptions on the matters over slavery and willing to goes against its abolition. In his diary entry on the Missouri Compromise, he settled plans for the removal of slavery. After several weeks, he exposed to prove with a desire that he will stand up to speak with more powerful, efficient, and oratory showing slavery as the great creation from goodness God. Later, Adams became well known in Congress for his logic and oratory on the subject preventing the slavery. In Adams’s braveness to protect and presented as the voice on slavery, he established his great passion for creating the founding. Even though he never experienced the struggles with slavery as Jefferson been through, Adams shared the dilemma to a public servant with the compromises committed into the Constitution.

Throughout all the debates Adams was very strong and stable on the abolition of slavery and hoped to freed African slaves, also willingness striving for the slaves’ rights. Adams’ respect the Africans at a certain distance with a doubt of their purposes as citizens. However, when other people go against the black people and looked down on them by any chance, Adams would defend them with the rights as human being. Throughout the slave petition it had created many objections which makes it more chaos in the House, Adams reprove to other representatives for against upholding equal right to anyone, no matter how differences they may have. On Washington, March 2, 1820, the legislative decision to accepted Missouri as a slave state and the condition of slavery had been prohibited in the rest of Louisiana Purchase north of latitude 36*30′.

Throughout the Union’s chaos with the abolition of slavery, John Quincy Adams was mostly in public offices. He proved to American founders, mainly leaders see an improving on American views in the battle of rights that no others led to do or having the encouragement for making the convictions towards the end. Though he couldn’t enforce for slavery totally banned, however, his sympathy and courageous in turning the nation’s past into brighter future for all citizens with more freedom and basic right as human beings had created a wave that represented the faith of the Constitution.

On August 10, 1821, Missouri became the twenty-fourth state and the twelfth state allowed slavery. Henry Clay demanded Missouri accept the black people to have their own constitutional rights. The Congress decided to let Maine signed as a free state to balance slavery between a country. After all chaos and regulations, nationalists praised the Missouri Compromise on the abolition of slavery which settled the nation in positions between the North and the South.

Read more

Rhetorical Analysis of the Declaration of Independence

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

The Declaration of Independence uses rhetorical devices, such as logos, pathos, and ethos, to justify and define the American people as an entirely separate populace. The precise language paved the way for the freedoms that Americans enjoy today. Thomas Jefferson appeals to the audience’s sense of reason through his use of logos. He presents a clear argument that justifies the American desire to become an independent and free nation by listing the King’s specific offenses against the colonies, such as He has refused to Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.and highlights the shortcomings of British leadership, …the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations As a result of the detailed list of the King’s injustices, Jefferson is able to present a contrasting argument that relies on a logical ?cause and effect’ stance and convincingly justifies the need to declare independence from Britain. The construction of the Declaration of Independence also appeals to one’s emotions through Jefferson’s precise use of pathos. By concentrating the emotional side of the argument on self evident truths, such as …that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable Rights Jefferson is able to inspire his audience to fight for their deserved freedom. Additionally, his writing is driven by a passionate and rallying tone throughout the document, which helps to encourage the audience to approach their independence with similar intensity. Jefferson’s use of pronouns throughout the Declaration promotes an ?Us v.s. Them’ mentality, specifically by defining the American population as one people and Britain as another. This technique creates an emotional response which causes the audience to view British leadership only as an enemy, further justifying the need for independence. Thomas Jefferson’s strong use of ethos creates a credible stance for the entire Declaration. In the beginning of the document, he acknowledges those who doubt the American vision of independence, …a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. By recognizing the counterargument, including the injustices committed by Britain’s leaders, Jefferson is able to create a stronger position that worsens the King’s credibility while strengthening his own reputation. In conclusion, the Declaration of Independence uses convincing techniques of logos, pathos, and ethos to justify the need for American independence. Jefferson’s convincing use of these techniques changed the way that the world viewed personal liberty, independence, and freedom, and ultimately created the American values that citizens honor today.

Read more

The Declaration of Independence On 1776

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

The Declaration of Independence On 1776 one of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Its main intention was to declare the thirteen colonies free and independent from the British crown who had been violating their rights since 1607 when the first colonists established in Jamestown, Virginia. Jefferson not only wrote the declaration for the colonists, but for also any country who has been currently suppressed by their ruler. Jefferson’s use of rhetorical appeals and organizational structure emphasizes all the crude acts that King George III passed through 1765-1776, and the actions that will motivate the colonists to fight back and become a country primarily built on freedom and self-sacrifice. The introduction of the Declaration of Independence illustrates a broad picture to encourage the colonists to refute against Great Britain. For example, when Jefferson begins with his opening remarks, he sets the ideology of separation by stating it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another (1-4). Jefferson generalizes to all people that oppressed countries have the right to revolt against despotic authority. It defines the revolutionary war of 1776 as an act of righteousness separation for the colonies from the King’s tyranny. The word necessary which Jefferson uses in his statement elaborates how the colonies have attempted to compromise with Great Britain, but the inevitable option is to fight against Britain to gain their freedom. In addition, Jefferson builds his previous argument by depicting how the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them (6-7). Jefferson alludes to the Bible how God granted each human being value establishing that all men are created. He continues to imply how King George III has been oppressing the colonists’ natural rights, even though the king himself is not a supernatural being with the power to do so. The phrase nature’s God entitle them alludes to John Locke’s Second Treatise of government which outlines natural rights, that any person norm in the New World is granted with basic given rights. Jefferson’s use of diction implies a paradigm shift from a monarchy governed by corrupt rulers, to a republican-democracy ruled by the people. Furthermore, to create a wider contrast against Great Britain Jefferson states a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation(7-10). Jefferson uses a respectful tone to further distinguish the colonists from King George III himself. Jefferson is preparing to list the causes that Great Britain has done to influence the colonies name themselves as a separate country. Jefferson begins to explain the rights every single person must contain and why they must prepare for separation. Jefferson influences his ideas by commencing with the preamble, stating: 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 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 shown, 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 (11-39). Jefferson begins the preamble by expressingWe hold these truths to be self-evident, which illustrates another allusion based on John Locke’s enlightenment ideals as outlined by his second Treatise of government. Jefferson lists the following premises as inviolable principles, making a deep connection to the colonists of what the king has done to make their lives worse. In addition, Jefferson continues by saying that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson reveals that all men are born equal with natural rights given to them by God, that cannot be taken away or diminished. Thus establishing that God’s given rights cannot be usurped by a king, no matter how highly ranked the person is seen around the world. The declaration continues to say that governments are merely instituted to protect these inherent rights; governments have no more and no less duties than that. Protecting these rights may result in the government to expand beyond an absolute basic structure, serving the purpose to protect the rights of each constituent, whether being from other citizens, foreign countries, etc. Thus Jefferson believing that government has no purpose in everyday life if the people cannot protect those simple rights inherited from God. In addition, the document states that government has no more ability than the people who stand for it, implying that a government in reality is an extension of peoples’ beliefs, and not a separate entity. Jefferson believed that a country filled with liberty ruled the government and prospered; but a loss of balance in power would push a country towards a tyrannical state. The preamble later on states that the common people have the right to change or get rid of the government, providing that the reason is not light and transient. But for a change of government, there must be a long train of abuses and usurpations. This right to overthrow destructive governments was massively important to the founders , that they declared it not as a basic right, but as a civil duty of the people. After the preamble, Jefferson writes the indictment. Which serves as the list of grievances that have led the colonists to break apart from the British Crown. Jefferson begins by stating Such has been the patient sufferings of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government (39-42). The opening phrase serves as a bridge to connect the ideas elaborated in the preamble to the obstacles the colonists are facing during 1765-1776. In addition, there are a total of 27 grievances, which repeats the phrase he has(49-147) with the change of a following verb, such as refused, forbidden, called, dissolved, endeavored, made, erected, affected, combined, abdicated, plundered ,constrained, excited, etc.(49-147). The repetition of he has implies to the actions King George III had done to the colonies, to make wealthier. Specifically, in the list of grievances Jefferson alludes to the Quartering Act of 1765. Which enforced colonists to house British soldiers in barracks throughout the colonies, if the barracks were too small to house all the soldiers, then colonists were forced to house soldiers in their own homes. In addition, the Quartering Act also made colonies provide food and quarters (money) to the soldiers living in the barracks. Also, Jefferson implies the abuses involving King George III’s establishment of tyrannical authority instead of representative government. King George III interfered with the representative government by rejecting legislation proposed by the colonies, replacing colonial governments with appointed ministers. King George III exponentially grew his tyrannical authority by interfering with judicial processes and civil rights. He also made his judges dependent on him for their jobs and salaries, allowing him to make the judges follow every single rule he proposed to be more controlling over everything. Furthermore, King George III kept tyrannical control strictly on the colonies because he kept strong officers (red coats) in the colonies during times of peace, making the British’s military power superior over the civil government, and forcing the colonists to support the military by paying the King’s taxes. The Denunciation immediately follows the indictment, as a restatement of which the Founders had been patient enough with Britain. In this section, the Founders had already petitioned and informed Britain how much King George III has oppressed the colonies, and overall the problem of humanity of Britain. Yet Britain ignored these compromises, and established the colonies in rebellion as a prime enemy against the Crown. The section also implies how the founders did not want to separate from Britain’s rule, but they had no choice since the king did not want to compromise with the colonies. Furthermore, this whole section implies a tone of sadness, depicting that neither party wanted to drift, but it was inevitable that these two countries will drift apart based on different ideologies. Overall, the only action left is to declare permanent separation from Great Britain. Lastly, Jefferson ends the Declaration of Independence with his conclusion implying that the colonies are independent states and that they would not handle Britain’s actions anymore. For example, Jefferson makes the colonies seem as individual states by saying these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states (183-185) and by explaining 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 (190-194). Jefferson ensures to the colonists that by signing the Declaration of Independence, then the colonies would declare their freedom from Britain. Jefferson exhibits all the actions and rights independent states could do, while not being oppressed. Influencing the colonists more to stand up together against Britain’s tyranny over the colonies. Furthermore, the declaration ends by stating we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor (197-199). The Founders of the declaration, were making it known to Britain that they will be a stronger nation than their tyrannical government. Overall, the founding fathers wanted to provide reasons why the colonists needed to separate from their suppressed ruler. In conclusion, Jefferson’s use of structural organization and figurative language, emphasized how the colonists have had enough of Britain’s authority; making separation the only possible way to make the colonies into their country and not become like Britain. After the release of the Declaration of Independence, Great Britain declared the colonies in rebellion and ordered over 50,000 redcoats to stop the colonists. But the colonists refused to surrender starting the Revolutionary War which lasted from 1775-1783. Over 17,000 militia soldiers died serving the cause for separation almost losing the war until France helped the colonies defeat the British. Leaving the colonies free at once from Britain and naming their amount of land the United States of America.

Read more

The Root Of Civil War

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

The years leading to civil war were unpleasant for millions of Southern and Northern Americans. While a few basked in wealth and power, a selected population suffered poverty, slavery, and insecurities. A majority experienced social, cultural, and economic differences.

Political and religious aspects also clashed among colonies and the situation grew profoundly towards civil war. Other than slavery, the Northerners and Southerners had a significant difference in the political arena. Politics was a common agenda that stimulated the economy, drove power, and profoundly affected cultural and religious concepts. During this period, slaves were willing to fight for labor rights while other people sought confrontation due to biased government interferences. Based on Bruce Levine’s book, the Northern and Southern Americans were devoted to their cause in pursuit of political goals. A majority during the antebellum era desired peace in the state as well as better economic times. They also wanted an end to slavery and a new dawn of harmony where color, religios background, or power did not cause chaos (Levine, 2005).
The North and South differed in various ways. Historians identify three significant aspects that set both sides apart socially, culturally, economically, politically, and religiously. They include:


  • 1 Slavery
  • 2 Freedom
  • 3 Development


In the North, slavery was not as common as in the South. Many elite people within the region grew wealthy from the slave trade, but it was not widespread. The situation in the South was substantial such that when the Northern state abolished slavery between 1774 and 1804, the south side remained adamant. The practice was an economic stepping stone for the area because slaves were essential for running agricultural activities. Politically, both sides disagreed about the oppression aspect such that the Northern side began antislavery movements. The Southern region still maintained the practice in that it became a cultural concept and social divide between the rich and poor. Religious wise, opinions clashed among influential individuals. According to Levine, (2005), some northerners considered slavery “repugnant to humanity.” George Washington was among those on the forefront against the practice, but some southerners criticized their ideologies. They even tried to prevent the north side from outlawing the importation of African slaves. Protestant clergies created societies aimed at gradually eradicating slavery.


In both regions, freedom was limited, but it was practiced more in the north than the south. While the northerners expressed their rights in the open, southerners whispered in the dark for fear of government confrontation. The latter had significant limitations such that freedom offer came with many restrictions. According to Levine’s book, the British government of Virginia gave freedom to slaves who supported their movement. In North Carolina, freedom came at a price where masters (slave owners) carried the bargaining chip. Political opinions among poor southerners became disregarded. Economically, the black population lacked trade entitlement. The wealthy considered them handy enough for casual labor such that they had limited time personal and professional development. Regardless, the African-Americans in the south had not freedom for education. The Northern region considered the children of the slaves for fulfilling essential duties. Some slave owners took interest and sponsored their training. Religious groups were diverse before the civil wars and, therefore, both regions embraced the concept. The difference emerged due to political influence. The quakes and Methodists were highly involved in antislavery movements while others cowered.


Cities in the North were centers of trade while most southerners owned large farms. The former was more socially friendly than the latter due to slavery. Workers lived in poor conditions while the elite accumulated wealth. The north did not have a shortage of large towns compared to the south, and therefore, northerners seemed more politically, economically, and culturally advanced. Increased migration to the north led to massive development in education, culture, and art. However, the cities became dirty and crowded, unlike the south side where plantations were self-sufficient and well-tended. Economic differences between the regions existed due to southerners being agriculturally-based while northerners specialized in manufacturing. The former grew cotton which was traded to the other side for production. Ideally, the Northern and Southern development progress emerged due to manufacturing and agricultural practices respectively. The political expansion was more advanced in the North than South because in the latter, the rich held power and influence against the less privileged. Significant decisions became the elites’ responsibility while the poor followed suit.

Levine (2005) explained the differences above grew more profound in the decade leading to civil war than other periods. People had become tired of the oppression by influential individuals. The North no longer considered slavery an ethical practice. They openly condemned slave owners while the victims gained a voice. During the period, newspapers were becoming popular, and opinions could get printed. Movements began to emerge as the oppressed claimed labor and entitlement rights. Levine quotes Thomas Jefferson in his attempt to express how freedom of expression triggered conflict. He initially failed to publish Notes on The State of Virginia because the article would stir issues (Levine, 2005). He was unwilling to share the material in public because slave abolition appeared impossible despite support from fellow southerners. Suffice to say, both regions became devoted to eradicating various issues. After Jefferson became the president in 1800, the tension between the areas spurred to new heights.

Many slaves gathered at the state capital of Richmond where a few were captured and hanged. The rebels were not deterred from their cause such that they proclaimed “Death or Liberty” to show their commitment. While the Northern states granted slaves emancipation gradually, the southerners remained adamant. The tension led to economic differences and the rise of discrimination. The tension between the regions heightened further after validating the constitution officially. The social atmosphere became heavy because the north and south political cooperation was contradicting. Carl Schurz was a political immigrant who observed that the slavery concept rather a struggle between two states rather than the geographic difference. Ideally, the antebellum era had enough tension in the political, social, economic, and social arena to trigger the civil war. Citizens were willing to die than live under oppression. Additionally, many migrated from the south to the north seeking freedom and a better lifestyle.

The root of civil war dates back to the early centuries, and as decades passed, states began to realize ideal ways to coexist. The northern and southern regions had contradicting approaches that caused a rift. As a result, political and economic differences emerged accompanied by social, cultural and religious conflicts. Although slavery was the most significant issue, the political platform triggered more problems than initially intended. Levine’s book explores both regions’ history from a different perspective. He covers the antebellum era at large as well.

Read more

Supporting The Electoral College

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

The Electoral College- Itr’s time to move forward

With intentions of finding a solution, for establishing a federal government along with a central figure in office, the framers of the Constitution constructed the Electoral College. The College was created to simplify the method for electing a president every four years. The philosophy supporting the Electoral College is that each individual state is granted a specific amount of electoral votes in accordance to its population, which were given to the candidate that won the states popular vote. In recent generations, questions are presented as to whether or not this method still proves the most effective for electing this nationr’s most influential office.

The Constitution presented many intelligent checks and balances and compromises, but the Electoral College isnt one of them. Years later James Madison would compose that it endured from hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience.

The system worked as intended only for the two elections won by George Washington, reported from Congressional Research Service. In 1796 the initial parties constructed a campaign for Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The election went to the House of Representatives, predominated by the rival Federalists, many of the party memberr’s viewed Adams as less offensive than Jefferson, and favored him to become president. Afterwards a disorganized process, containing no less than 36 votes, Jefferson was elected president, as for Adams he became Vice President. The fiasco led up to the implication of the 12th Amendment, which dictated that electors determine their selections for vice president and president.

The electors operation rapidly fell apart in the encounter of real world politics and, specifically, the increase of the two-party system. Once the Electoral College settlement was stable, Madison remarked that the president is now to be elected by the people, he told Virginiar’s ratifying convention the updated executive would rely on the choice of the people at large. The states immediately democratized the method. In 1832, South Carolina was alone, in which the state allowed for the state legislature to choose its electors. What a failure the belief was of allegiance electors rescuing the country from a Trump administration- The concept of the electoral college behaving as initially designed is considered too anti-democratic to take flight.

The entirety of this is to pronounce the reverence the Electoral College receives due to the founders brilliance – as well as that accompanying endurance of its failures- is improper. Political scientist John Roche organized it a half-century back, referring to the Electoral College as merely a jerry-rigged improvisation which has subsequently been endowed with high theoretical content. It serves as the appendix of our body politic, a now worthless vessel that only receives consideration when it presents itself as an issue.

Defense for the Electoral College heavily relies on a wish to assure the presidential candidates that they wont have to spend time visiting large cities, in order to gain their vote and deliberately with protecting the political systemr’s federal character. The previous distress is exaggerated. First of all, doesnt require candidates to campaign across a wide variety of states, not even in states that oppose them. It deforms the presidential campaign, by allowing the parties to disregard over 40 states, that they know they either cant lose or cant win. Looking into previous campaigns, there are specific states that will wont receive anything more than campaigning TV ads. Three of the most popular states that represent this are (Texas, New York, California) that will never receive a campaign visit, even though those states contain 25 percent of the U.S. population.
Letr’s not forget, the Electoral College allows for the possibility for a candidate to significantly lose in the number of popular votes yet succeed with electoral votes. This has been presented a least 5 times out of 56 elections, it may seem like not so big of a deal, but when it does it creates a whole lot of chaos every single time. Not to mention it happened so recently with the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton significantly acquired more popular votes than Donald Trump by a difference of 2.8 million votes, despite that significant difference he got elected by gaining 304 electoral votes.

While faithful electors are commonly exceptionally loyal to the party they regulate with, they arent require to vote based on the way the individuals of their state trusted and directed them to. Basically, even if a candidate dominates in the popular votes of that specific state, doesnt mean that your state’s electors have to cast a vote for the same candidate. These electors that voted against their state are known as faithless electors.
Only 29 states maintain legislation that disciplines faithless electors, although there has never been a successfully prosecuted elector yet. This means that 21 states dont enforce that an elector is obligated to vote for their partyr’s candidate. Should the vote of one individual have potential to override the will of millions.
I propose a compromise that will allow for equality and power to the people yet allows for a structure and is to be regulated by the federal government.

The Amendment should be written as the following: Congress is prohibited from utilizing its power and authority to override the will of the people. All individuals are given an equal voice in electing public officials, regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, and religion. No state will be denied the right to participate in national elections under Article V of the constitution.

Read more

The Most Influential Ideology in the Nineteenth Century – Manifest Destiny

July 31, 2020 by Essay Writer

The first uses of Manifest Destiny was believed to be in the colonialism era. Americans believed that their empire had set the standards of how an empire should be. The ideal of what is called exceptionalism was due to America’s longing for political independence from British rule, which help contribute to America’s expansion westward through the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

A big percentage of Americans during that time period considered Manifest Destiny was the key to creating a successful standing empire. It was not until the year of 1845, that a democratic and influential editor who went by the name of John O’ Sullivan gave a name to the movement. He attempted to explain America’s thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America’s claims for new territories. His first first attempt at using the term was in his essay Annexation and the purpose is that he wanted the Republic of Texas to be annexed. He also used the term a second time to address the issue about the state of Oregon which had little influence at the time when the movement was given its name. The movement of Manifest Destiny gave the United States the asserted power that Americans had the right to expand.

Before the rise of Manifest Destiny, one of the major financial crisis in the United States was The Panic of 1837. This crisis was driven by of what is called speculative fever. One major factors, that was affected in this crisis was inflation. The banks begin loaning money to farmers and industrialists, and the banks also begin to printing vast amounts of money which affected led to the actually start of inflation. Is that inflation rose after several federal deposits were withdrawn due to the assumption that the government was selling land for bank state notes of questionable values. The Panic of 1837 was partly caused by economic policies that were created by Andrew Jackson, who created the Specie Circular by executive order and which he refused to renew the Charter of Second Bank. The bank was used to help relieve the debts from the war. In the year of 1836 when it was issued, it was pursuant towards the Coinage Act which was carried out by President Martin Van Buren. It required that when paying for government land the payment must be in gold and sliver. As money value went down in value, businesses also demanded gold and sliver in payment of debts. Until there wasn’t enough sliver and gold to keep the nation’s economy running smoothly. It also prevented working-class Americans from purchasing federal land because of the lack of gold and sliver.

To some extent, some people thought that the Manifest Destiny Doctrine thought of America as a “divine providence”. Manifest Destiny helped encourage pride and also the social perfection through the church and god. People had the belief that the spirt of Manifest Destiny included traveling also it was part of their belief that they thought it was God’s will that the Americans occupy the land and control and do as they see as fit with the land. In the book by Stephen R. Demkin it quotes “ It was a white man’s burden to conquer and christianize the land” (Demkin, Chapter 8). A vast amount of expansionists believed that it was their job to guide human destiny. Is that the negative thing about the Manifest Destiny, was that a white man’s belief revealed that was that his settlement of land and civilization that the Native Americans had, was preordained. In the process of that, it split up American tribes and it confined them to reservations that the government chosen for them.

A form of the Indian Removal was first proposed by one of our Founding Fathers was Thomas Jefferson. He believed that American Indians were equal to whites. Jefferson viewed the Indians as inferior to the whites because of their lifestyle and practices. He also believed that the Indians were using their land “incorrectly” because he thought their style of agriculture was “plain”,and hunting traditions were not good uses of the land. It was assumed that the Indians would automatically adopt to Europe’s style of agriculture and they would change the style of their lifestyle to the European’s form of lifestyle. Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs stemmed from the Enlightenment idea from environmentalism which states that a human’s environment is shaped by their culture. Jefferson realized that the Louisiana Purchase was a great opportunity of starting the process of removing the Indians. Later in the year of 1825, President James Monroe expands on Jefferson’s ideas of the Indian Removal in his speech to Congress quoting “…would not only shield them from impending ruin, but promote their welfare and happiness.” ( SAAM Manifest Destiny and Indian Removal). He thought that he was doing the Indians a favor. During the process of when Indian Removal was a policy James Monroe was the person that drafted it and was Andrew Jackson who helped pushed to become a law.

When the Indian Removal Act was passed on May 28, 1830, many people in Congress in Congress opposed it, such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and, Davy Crockett. The who was outspoken about this issue was Davy Crockett, who served under the command of Andrew Jackson during the war. Davy was a Jacksonian Democrat until the issue of the Indian Removal came forth to Congress and Davy and Jackson debated about the treatment of the Indians until they parted ways. Crockett argued the treatment of the Indians were unfair because he wanted to have equal them to have an share of land. In the next election he lost all support and the Democrats put their support towards another candidate. Andrew Jackson thought it was necessary for the well beings of all Native Americans also and he thought of it as a “humanitarian act” for the good of the American tribes. In Andrew Jackson’s State of a Union Address he is justifying the government’s action of why the Indians were removed and he quotes “ It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free from the power of the States; enable to pursue happiness in their own way and their own institutions; will retard the process the process of decay, which is lessing their numbers, and perhaps gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.” ( SAAM Manifest Destiny and Indian Removal)

In conclusion, the movement of Manifest Destiny was used to make Americans superior to other people, in order to to fulfill their destiny and their uses of the Indians land that they had taken. Americans saw it as their mission to bring civilization to the Native Americans who they thought as “uncivilized” to the settlers eyes. The Americans thought of themselves as the leaders of the world and it helped convey their pride and also their perfect social structure within the church and God. During the Panic of 1837 the rates of inflation therefore inflation increased unemployment, and people took to the streets to protest looking for a way to resolve the problem. One major global effect of Manifest Destiny was seen in the Spanish-American when Spain handed over Guam, Puerto Rico,and the Philippine Islands to the United States. This demonstrated the rise of United States imperialism. The movement of Manifest Destiny showed what the outcome, and how it effected the Native Americans to resolve a major issue because of the condition of the economy. Also how the influence of one person help helped expand the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

Read more
Order Creative Sample Now
Choose type of discipline
Choose academic level
  • High school
  • College
  • University
  • Masters
  • PhD

Page count
1 pages
$ 10