Federalists vs. Republicans

After learning about the first two political parties in the 1780's, which emerged during the American Revolution, I wondered which party system I would belong to. So, I decided to do additional research to learn about each party. The two parties were the Federalists and the republicans, who were exceedingly different in thought, design, and status of people involved.
The Republicans were known to be strict constructionists who rigorously followed the Constitution, while the Federalists were considered to be broad constructionists who widely interpreted the Constitution, keeping their interests in mind. After much research,  I was inclined to lean towards the Republican Party. 

Imagine it's the 1700's. The Federalist Party is a strong
government, established of a national bank, with a focus on industrialization. The Republican Party advocated states rights, opposition to a national bank with a focus on the common folk, and believed that the Constitution needed a bill of rights. So I ask you this: would you be a Federalist like Hamilton, a Republican like Madison, or belong to no party like Washington? What i find interesting, particularly about Washington's stance on political parties, is the fact he wanted to avoid an inevitable party system in America. Unfortunately, even when saying this, he was part of the first party system in United States politics. The first split of the party system came with the differentiation between the Federalists and the Republicans.

I concluded that I would be a Republican, because I believe in what they stand for, especially the fact that Individual rights are extremely important. Hamilton had his points, but in my opinion, the vision he had would be a corrupt government.

Sources sites: 

photo #1 

The American Revolution

After reading about the American Revolution, I was particularly interested in the Colonist’s reactions to the Sugar, Stamp, and Tea Acts. Not only that, but I was fascinated by both British actions and their motivations behind creating these acts. Because of my curiosity, I decided to take the time to ponder whether or not the Colonists responses were justified or not; and whether or not they were just whiny babies. After extensive thought, I decided, that the Colonists were just whiny.

The first event leading to the revolution was the victory over the French in the Seven Years’ War or the French and Indian War in 1763. This was first a blessing, and then a curse, because England became severely in debt after fighting for seven years. Many English officials believed that only by taxing the Americans directly could the empire effectively meet its debts. This school of thought led to the first taxes on stamps and on sugar. This angered the Colonists because they thought they had no say in the matter. This was that they called “taxation without representation.” The Colonists thought that it was not fair of the English to demand all this money from them. However, England had been fighting in the Colonies defense to protect them, therefore I think it was completely justified for England to tax the Colonists and once again, the Colonists were just whiney. What bothers me the most was how the Colonists reacted to these taxes.

Around 1771, England repelled the taxes, but added a tea tax shortly after. The act infuriated Colonial merchants and revived American passions about the idea of taxation without representation. So, on May 10th, 1773, three companies of 50 men each went masquerading as Mohawk Indians abroad three ships, they broke open the tea chests and heaved them into the harbor, dumping close to a million dollars worth of tea. This irresponsible and unnecessary act was called the Boston Tea Party, which deeply enraged England because they did not understand what they had done to bother the Colonists. They added this tax on tea because Britain’s east India Tea Company, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, could not sell its tea in England. In an effort to save it, the government passed the Tea Act of 1773, which was a small tax on the Colonists to save their company. The British government was incredibly easy going on the Colonists, because the Colonists generally paid less taxes than the British, about 2 shillings a year per person, compared to Britain's 26 shillings per year. The overall tax burden was much greater on British Citizens. However, never once did they act out against this, because they knew that it would be pointless and they would only be hurting their country. The small tea tax on the Colonists should have been no big deal, yet once again, the Colonists made a big issue out of nothing. 

As a result, England formed the Intolerable Acts or, as some know it, the Coercive Acts. With these acts, England punished the Americans for their behavior in the Tea Party. They closed the port of Boston, reduced the powers of self-government in Massachusetts, permitted royal officers in America to be tried in other countries or in England when accused of crimes, and made it a law that Colonists must provide for the quartering of English troops. In my opinion, these acts were justifiable because the Colonists deserved to be punished. One can clearly see how the Colonist’s were whiny and ungrateful towards England. Do you think the Colonist’s were standing up for their rights and for representation, or do you think that they were complainers. Or, are you in the middle and believe that they were standing up for their rights, but in some instances, took it too far?

Sources cited: My photos can be found here

First Photo

Second Photo