Federalists of New Hampshire
Shelby Lee
Paul Headman
Joshua Hollinger-Lant
Johan Horton
Despite this separation of morality, few people, whether federalist or anti-federalist, were happy with slavery. The issue of slavery and the constitution was not so much an issue of Federalist or Anti-federalists, but more an issue of north and south, where people in the north were mostly against slavery and the south for it. Yet, although the northern federalists were widely against slavery, as eight states had finally ratified the constitution, this political party became desperate for the ninth - and passing - vote. Thus, they were willing to commit almost any act. So, while the anti-federalists wanted nothing to do with slavery and the federalists could begrudgingly cope with it, the controversial issue - a factor in many debates over ratification - could not be solved easily (1). This satisfied most states, both north and south, for the time being. By this mutual agreement of blindness towards slavery, New Hampshire closed the gap in ratifying the constitution.
It was hard to ignore the ethics of slavery, though. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification. Anti-federalists of New Hampshire cried, "hereby it is conceived if we ratify the Constitution that we become consenters to, and partakers in, the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic" (2) amassing a discontent toward the party working for the constitution’s ratification. Yet, the federalists shirked the issue, as they reverted to a safer rebuke, that the state had already decided to refrain from participating in such a "cruel and inhuman merchandise" (2) and they wanted what was best for the whole of American, not just New Hampshire. The sanctity of God's laws were still important in the era, though considerably less than the founding on New England, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws; yet, the federalists countered that they did not want to harm anyone any important in the era, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws. People asked themselves questions about how they would feel if in a slave's position. These types of questions were asked to in the many debates over ratification as they come to the issue of slavery. While New Hampshire did indeed ratify the constitution, the state still struggled to cope with the problems of being united with slave-oriented societies.
Thus, imprisonment of peoples will forever be unjust. Despite federalists' desperation to ratify the constitution, such is not a valid excuse for the continued slavery of an entire population. There remains the liberty of man that he can be under no other will than his own unless by his own consent, that he can give power to no man to take his life, to hold him against his will (John Locke, Two Treatise's of Government, Ch. V sections 22-24), yet continued was such a treasonous event in the United States. The anti-federalists would have easily won this political battle had they called for a compact regarding the dissolution of slavery. They would have gone to war with the southern colonies years before the tensions finally reached the point of explosion and it would not have been known as a civil war. Yet, with that would come true the federalists' fear of the confederacy would dissolving and all hope for union lost. Both of the groups, though, easily settled on bypassing the agreement all together. In itself, that proves the blasphemy of the anti-federalists and federalists alike, for they both praise liberties and unions of the states and better their own environment instead of those who truly need the aid. Slavery should thus have been a larger issue in the constitution's ratification.
Federalists, on another note, knew the new union would favor the rich. Generally, they agreed that those of the elite would be supported in running for office more often than those of the lower classes (3). The group agreed as such merely because they believed those who were economically sound would be able to bring the government more stability (4), in the sense that these peoples understood the ways of financing and taxation so they would be more likely to allow the union to flourish. Moreover, these men were, unlike the lower classes, educated (5). A few of these types of people in New Hampshire were wealthy artisans, lawyers, and merchants. Thus, in the United States, the wealthy would be favored for governmental positions.
Of course, there was much rebuke against this belief. Anti-federalists were quick to deem that allowing the elite to govern them would leave the union in the hands of the few, not the many (5). These small farmers complained that they would not be represented, that they would be smothered under the tyranny of the wealthy (3, 4). Their heated arguments pointed to aristocracy in place of the confederacy, and tempers flared as many accusingly highlighted certain of their fellows’ inability to even vote due to landownership requirements (5). Determinedly, they called for action against the ratifying of an oppressive society that the Revolution had freed them from. Despite the obvious logic in the favoring of the wealthy, anti-federalists claimed it inequality.
These distinctions between rich and poor were clearly logical for the era. When, most often, the lower classes do not have much comprehension of the government, or even an education, it could result in anarchy if the poorer were allowed equal voting rights. Admittedly, some of the poorer men might be those who were once quite wealthy or held great esteem and thus, greatly outraged by their inability to now participate in the rulings of the people. Yet, oft there have been many exceptions of such rules that have been made. Succinctly, only the elite and upper middle classes have knowledge enough to be able to lead the union and republic.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand the responsibilities that come with such wealth, and thus know how to adequately govern themselves in order to sustain those riches while the destitute cannot do so much as even rule over themselves properly to live capably (4). Thus, those who have less responsibility understand less of the morals which would accompany such responsibilities, and should be entitled to rule even the smallest portion of the confederacy when the elite can virtuously rule all into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they could not even support themselves, and thus could not have had views enough to responsibly reign over a segment of the government. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where a government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while the lower classes complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). The farmers of New Hampshire were barely able to sustain themselves and were quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork. Thus, they do not have a strong enough righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy. This governmental system will thus be a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment that governs them. Thus, it would be a despotic, corrupt union that would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
In spite of this reasoning, the majority of New Hampshire decided it would be in their best interest to continue holding onto these moral values, ratifying the constitution. Wisdom and morality led the federalists to victory, for they knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals whom would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not merely individual states. Federalists realized the vital need to postpone controversial issues, such as slavery, in order to unify the colonies in a more resonating harmony. The wealth had by most of the elites, rulers of the government, allowed them to better finance and lead the reformation of political power that had swept through America. With this wealth came the responsibility that helped federalists, of whom a majority were of the elite class, to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than small bodies. Judicious decisions helped to create a new world of government that would withstand centuries.
Sources
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture on Shay's Rebellion.
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government and several different conclusions could be inferred from the subject.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand the responsibilities that come with such wealth, and thus know how to adequately govern themselves in order to sustain those riches while the destitute cannot do so much as even rule over themselves properly to live capably (4). Thus, those who have less responsibility understand less of the morals which would accompany such responsibilities, and should be entitled to rule even the smallest portion of the confederacy when the elite can virtuously rule all into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they could not even support themselves, and thus could not have had views enough to responsibly reign over a segment of the government. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where a government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while the lower classes complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). The farmers of New Hampshire were barely able to sustain themselves and were quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork. Thus, they do not have a strong enough righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy. This governmental system will thus be a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment that governs them. Thus, it would be a despotic, corrupt union that would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
In spite of this reasoning, the majority of New Hampshire decided it would be in their best interest to continue holding onto these moral values, ratifying the constitution. Wisdom and morality led the federalists to victory, for they knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals whom would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not merely individual states. Federalists realized the vital need to postpone controversial issues, such as slavery, in order to unify the colonies in a more resonating harmony. The wealth had by most of the elites, rulers of the government, allowed them to better finance and lead the reformation of political power that had swept through America. With this wealth came the responsibility that helped federalists, of whom a majority were of the elite class, to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than small bodies. Judicious decisions helped to create a new world of government that would withstand centuries.
Sources
1:
Atheron Joshua. 1788. 26 Nov. 2007
There is no specific author of this page or website. It is basically the combination of many authors of many different documents and articles. This source is reliable because unlike many sources I have found, this one happens to be an edu website. It contains many important legal documents from throughout the nation’s history. This specific article is about Joshua Atherton's ideals about slavery at the time. He was one of the people that attended the New Hampshire ratifying convention. It is basically a short speech about what he thinks about slavery during the struggle for ratification. This piece is useful because it gives general information on the anti-federalists view on slavery. It is the anti-federalist position because it said in the first paragraph, "If we ratify the constitution." It has all the information needed to write a portion of this essay.
2:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007.
This site’s validity is a little sketchy, but it has a copyright date and all rights reserved notice at the bottom. As the homepage says, though, this sights contains online copies of all eighty-five federalist papers, and information on the many people whom contributed to the debates in this time frame. For these reasons, the site can be credible enough to be used. This specific page contains information pertaining to James Madison, giving his biography from the early stages of his life and goes on to talk of how he participated in the struggle for ratification. It concludes with his later years in life and eventual death. This is the only page with the federalist perspective on slavery, although it wasn’t much and was thus the only useful source for that portion of the essay.
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
Atheron Joshua. 1788. 26 Nov. 2007
There is no specific author of this page or website. It is basically the combination of many authors of many different documents and articles. This source is reliable because unlike many sources I have found, this one happens to be an edu website. It contains many important legal documents from throughout the nation’s history. This specific article is about Joshua Atherton's ideals about slavery at the time. He was one of the people that attended the New Hampshire ratifying convention. It is basically a short speech about what he thinks about slavery during the struggle for ratification. This piece is useful because it gives general information on the anti-federalists view on slavery. It is the anti-federalist position because it said in the first paragraph, "If we ratify the constitution." It has all the information needed to write a portion of this essay.
2:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007
This site’s validity is a little sketchy, but it has a copyright date and all rights reserved notice at the bottom. As the homepage says, though, this sights contains online copies of all eighty-five federalist papers, and information on the many people whom contributed to the debates in this time frame. For these reasons, the site can be credible enough to be used. This specific page contains information pertaining to James Madison, giving his biography from the early stages of his life and goes on to talk of how he participated in the struggle for ratification. It concludes with his later years in life and eventual death. This is the only page with the federalist perspective on slavery, although it wasn’t much and was thus the only useful source for that portion of the essay.
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture on Shay's Rebellion.
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government and several different conclusions could be inferred from the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment