Essay 3 Reflection

1: Group Interaction

Our contact was, at first, limited to only the classroom. But, as the Thanksgiving weekend came around, we changed our tactic to e-mails. And, during that weekend, the only person to respond to me was Paul. We exchanged ideas and decided the plan for the whole of our essay's draft and waited for Josh and Johan to respond. In that time, we completed each of our segments and turned to the remaining two members of our group face-to-face and assigned them the task of completing the third argument and intro/conclusion. During the following two nights they participated in communications via e-mail.

2: Use of Contract

Our contract, as far as I know, was followed through at all points. We all researched avidly for information on the essay and we all completed our jobs, and completed all tasks required. It states that everyone must do his/her own work, but we never stated that e-mailing over the break was a must-have portion that would be required. Moreover, it also says, "If a person in the group does not keep up on their work, their work will be divided between the other members in the group and the person who does not do their work will loose points from their grade." After unable to find a valid third argument, we were able to split up one of the arguments I had written, Josh and Johan allowing me to write it.

3: Use of Wiki

Every site which I came to (and found a use in) was posted on the wiki, some of which have annotations and others don't. I noticed, though, that I was the only one posting anything for a rather extended period of time, and I suppose Paul was the only other person do so so either (right before we turned the essay in). I suppose this can be contributed to the fact that Josh and Johan were limited to only the introduction and conclusion and weren't sure whether or not to include things for the debate on the wiki.

4: Individual Progress

I thought, in comparison with the last essay, that I did much better in the group. Being as that I better know the people I was working with and knew they had a history of getting everything done on time helped greatly. After several attempted drafts, I eventually re-wrote everything completely even Paul's section of the paper (with his consent) and took more time in doing so. Eventually though, due to the time crunch in the final days when I met back up with Johan and Josh, I was unable to adequately sort out little details and eventually put only a small amount of effort into the essay, just wanting it done. So, I still need to buckle down even more and ensure that I can get in contact with my group members.

Federalists of New Hampshire (Essay 3)

The Federalists of New Hampshire

Shelby Lee

Paul Headman

Joshua Hollinger-Lant

Johan Horton

“With great power, comes great responsibility.” The Federalists in the state of New Hampshire had the power of both wisdom and money two things that gave them standings over the Anti-federalists. All this influence though did give them a huge responsibility and pressure to make wise decisions. Being the ninth state to ratify the Constitution the Federalists of New Hampshire had the most power but also the most responsibility when making the decision to ratify. The Federalists of New Hampshire had more of a perspective on matters and moral values that trumped that of those of the Anti-federalists. The Federalists realized and knew what was better for the people of New Hampshire while the Anti-federalists just knew what was good for them. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. One thing most of the Anti-federalists and Federalists kind of agreed on is the issue of slavery. One thing that separated the Federalists and Anti-federalists was the rich and poor classes of New Hampshire; they each had different views on what was good for the people. The morals of the Federalists are another key factor that really separated them from the Anti-federalists whose morals were a little more self-centered.

Few people, Federalists or Anti-federalists, 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. Generally, people in the south were for slavery while, generally, people in the north were against it. As more states began to ratify, the Federalists became desperate to have a ninth state to ratify. For this reason, they were willing to do almost anything. Unfortunately, Slavery, being the controversial issue that it was, was not something that could be solved easily. It was decided that the issue of slavery and the slave trade would be put off for another twenty years (2.) This was enough to satisfy most of the states, north and south for the time being. It was the Anti-federalists who were most against slavery but since New Hampshire was a northern state, the Federalists were against it as well, though not to such an extent. Because of this, New Hampshire got one step closer to ratifying the constitution.
Slavery's very ethics has been an issue for many a century. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification. United, New Hampshire declared, "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" (1). While the colony did not consider it an obligation to go to other countries or states to abolish slavery itself, they decided - wholeheartedly - to refrain from participating in such”cruel and inhuman merchandise." (1) The sanctity of God's laws was important in the era, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws. 'What would it feel like to be stolen from all that is known and cherished? To be separated from loved ones and sold - like an object - to a man who will own another's soul until death?' These were questions that were asked often during debates over slavery and ratification. And, unfortunately, the issue was resolved neither easily, nor quickly, for it continued many years after New Hampshire ratified the constitution.

(Paul) I would agree with the anti-federalists side. Although both sides were against it, the anti-federalists were more so. Slavery was a horrible and inhuman act that needed to be finished with. Anti-federalists wanted to end slavery as quickly as possible. The federalists, though having similar thoughts, weren’t in quite as much of a hurry as the anti-federalists. What I don’t agree with is the fact that they just let it go for twenty years. All that is was more misery for the slaves. All in all though, the anti-federalists did try and that counts for something. The results may not have been immediate but they did come. Slavery should have been a larger issue, but such a complex issue would have much more difficult to solve right away.

(Shelby) Imprisonment of peoples will forever be unjust. Despite the federalist’s desperation to ratify the constitution, such is not a valid excuse for the continued slavery of an entire peoples. There is 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 such a treasonous event in the United States. The anti-federalists would have easily won had they called for a compact for the dissolution of slavery. They would have gone to war with the southern colonies long before it truly began, and it would not be known as a Civil War. Yet, with that would come to be the federalist's fear that the confederacy would dissolve 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 have been a larger issue in the constitution's ratification.

Federalists 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 leaves the Union in the hands of the few, not the many (5). These small farmers complained that they could not even be represented, that they were being 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 freed them from. Despite the obvious logic in the favoring of the wealthy, anti-federalists claimed it inequality.

(Paul) The poor, because they are poor, have little knowledge of governmental affairs. This means that they can not effectively run a government. Only those who have such knowledge can do this. Therefore it would be the planter elite who could run the government, although, if given the opportunity, the poor might be able to learn giving them the chance to help run the government. The poor cannot run it by nature because they have no such knowledge unlike the planter elite. If given the opportunity to learn they could be able to run it just as well as the elite.

(Shelby)Such distinctions between rich and poor are clearly logical. When, most often, the poor and bedraggled 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, exceptions of such rules might be 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 responsibility, and how to govern themselves, whereas those who struggle in life cannot so much as even rule over themselves capably (4). Thus, those who have weak morals should not be entitled to govern even a portion of the confederacy while the elite can virtuously rule them 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 can't even support themselves, and thus cannot have views enough to responsibly earn even a portion of the government under control. 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 government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while they 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). Barely able to sustain themselves and quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork, the farmers of New Hampshire don't have strong enough of a 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.

(Paul) I do not agree that only the wealthy should have the most power. Greed comes to those who have power, but if those in power already are wealthy, then problems are just going to increase. Morals of the common man do a better job than that of just rich men. If just wealthy men are in control, then the poor and weak will still get stomped on. If everyone has some of the power then there is less chance of greed and one person having supreme control. The wealthy usually take advantage of what they can. If everyone is in on a piece of the pie, then there is less likely to be such problems.

(Shelby) 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, a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment which governs them. It would thus be a despotic, corrupt union which would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
The majority of New Hampshire decided that they would hold tight to their moral values and ratify the constitution. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. They knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals that would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not just as a state. The wealth that most of the elites that would later become part of the government allowed them to better finance and help the union they had helped to create. It has also been said that with wealth comes great responsibility which helped the Federalists who were mainly elites to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than a small body, as the Anti-federalists wanted. They also realized how vital it was to postpone something’s you value to help the majority like the abolishment of slavery. All of these key factors and decisions allowed New Hampshire to become the ninth state to ratify the Constitution and help make the United States we know today.
(Josh) After doing research I feel that I most agree with the Federalist point of view. The Anti-federalists argue that only a small republic of people can provide what they need to be happy and satisfied. I do think the Federalists had it right though that the educated people of the society should be the ones to make the decisions. I feel that the educated people would have a better sense of what was moral and right for the people of the state and nation. They may be richer and use that as a bias sometimes but the reason they are wealthy was because of the decisions they have made in their life. This is why I feel that the Federalists point of view is the right one.
(Johan) I share qualities and beliefs of both a federalist and an anti-federalist and so I stand somewhere in-between. I agree that a government was needed and that the constitution was a great idea that needed to be enacted. I also agree that the government needed to be run by competent, responsible, and trustworthy people who made decisions for a whole and not just a small group. On the other hand, I agree that a slow, cautious approach to signing the ratification to the U.S. Constitution was necessary. This was necessary in assuring that every point outlined in the constitution was fair and gave equal rights to all states and peoples and did not favor some over others. I strongly feel that slavery should have been abolished much sooner than it was. If I had to pick one side to stand by I would say that I lean more towards the anti-federalist side, although I still share federalist opinions.

Sources:
1:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007 http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/fed/mbio.html
2:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s9.html
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: "The American Promise a History of the United States" pages 268-269 "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 I can infer several different conclusions of the subject.

AoD#10: Conflict from lack of Diversity

Art of Democracy

Shortly before Thanksgiving, my brother finally broke the vestiges of a family bond.

My father had lost patience with my brother, who's current sole purpose in life is to hang out with friends and stay in our house. He doesn't have a job, nor does he go to school. The car he has been given was to be used solely for the purpose of work and school, and it broke down under the weight of my brother's full-load of friends. Upon hearing this reason, my father argued to my brother about how little he does around the house or even in life, of course he did this subtley and his words fell on deaf ears. My brother, irritated and annoyed, ignored what my dad said and retorted with "why are you getting mad," as if he had ignored the problems growing in our family. Eventually, my father consented to allow my brother my mother's car for only the night.

They had another argument when my brother returned home, but I was unable to find out the conclusion to their debate.

It is unfortunate that we only have these two views with which to span from, bringing our diversity to a rather meager sum and spouting many conflicts as thus.

AoD #9: Conflicts on 11-20 and their capital

My grandfather was ill and needed emergency care, and my grandmother, who needs someone to care for her - though she's stubborn to admit - is now residing alone until my grandfather returns to her home. My parents offered to fly down to Arizona if she needed help, but she abstained, saying that my grandfather would not only be angry but she would be too. She assured us that all would be fine, but my father tried to insist that she needed to have someone to care for her.

My brother's car broke down and my father finally cornered him. My father, angered, told my brother that his car was only for school and work - of which he had the opportunity to do both but has instead chosen to stay with friends. My brother looked around the room, as if he wasn't listening and gave short rebukes; he refused to understand that the give/take relationship between family had become malformed to the point that my brother took all that he wanted while we had to give up more and more of what we wanted. Then, he left in my mother's car, even after she had refused to give it to him.

In the end, this showed that, through the community of our family, we didn't quite use the talents of anyone - my grandmas ability to entice my brother into doing work, or my dad's ability to go to Arizona. In essence, though we had a small social capital to gain from, there was still much that could have been done to use the talents we had before us.