ABC University American History Discussion

REPLY to no fewer than (3) and no more than four (4) replies and each one about 100 words

WHY do you agree or disagree with another student’s explanation about the difficulties with political dissent, or factions?

Use examples from your sources in your replies, and again give yourself credit by citing them at the end of your sentences. (Washington video) OR (text, 160) Like so.

This is a graded discussion: 20 points possible
due Oct 21
DISCUSSION: New Nation Experiment
31
34
DISCUSSION BOARD GRADING RUBRIC-new(2).docx
DUE: Original Post is due no later than Sunday night, 10/20; Replies are due no later than
Monday night, 10/21; worth 20 points
For this discussion, you MUST use information from both your text(s) and videos and SEE THE
DISCUSSION GRADING RUBRIC, at the link above.
Post one (1) original post; then post no fewer than two (2) and no more than four (4) replies.
Be sure to give yourself credit for using details and evidence from a source with an abbreviated
citation at the end of your sentence. (Washington video) OR (Text 161) OR (Lyon document) Like
so.
You will see in your text for this module the question posed:
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
I also asked in your study guide:
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the opposing
viewpoints – differing opinions?
This discussion is intended for you to kick around some ideas about these questions. Think about it they have a new country and people don’t agree on how it should be governed. So how do they stay
together? How do they know that someone in their own country won’t do to them what they just did to
Great Britain – have another revolution?
Creating this new country was a daunting and brave and radical task. I’m asking you to explore a bit
WHY it was so difficult. Which events prove to you – or are evidence about – how hard that was? Why
was it hard to be “OK” with someone STRONGLY disagreeing with you? Look at the outbreaks of
violence in this period.
Answer the following in your ORIGINAL POST:
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the
opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
Then REPLY to no fewer than two (2) and no more than four (4) replies: WHY do you agree or
disagree with another student’s explanation about the difficulties with political dissent, or factions?
Use examples from your sources in your replies, and again give yourself credit by citing them at the
end of your sentences. (Washington video) OR (text, 160) Like so.
I WILL BE CHECKING IN AND ASKING SOME QUESTIONS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POSTS.
IF I ASK YOU A QUESTION, PLEASE ANSWER ME as part of your grade
Search entries or author
Unread
Subscribed
Reply
(https://
Moses McCarty
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/365535)
Saturday
It was hard because many Americans wanted to be equivalent to another or the same. Both
Federalists and Republicans feared other parties because they were threatened that they would
use violence during the Whiskey Rebellion.
Reply
(http
Ryan Dibenedetto
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/13346)
Saturday
Hi Moses,
I agree with you that the Whiskey Rebellion was central to the conflict between the
federalists and the republicans. However, I believe another example of this growing rift between
Americans and viewing each other as dissidents would be Washington’s farewell speech. This
speech, having been prepared by Alexander Hamilton, largely promoted federalist ideals. Along
with having delayed the announcement of his retirement, which granted the Republicans no time
to run a presidential campaign, and both Jay’s Treaty and his handling of the Whiskey Rebellion,
all of this combined to give a sense that Washington had become an agent of the federalists,
widening the divide between the two groups (Text 173).
Reply
(http
Janestin Olaru
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/45783)
Yesterday
Hi Moses,
I agree that Americans wanting to be equal to one another was and even still is difficult to have
to this day. In my post, I discussed how highly George Washington was viewed, “He was a
person of great dignity and presence” and recognized as a fast-learning commander (VIDEO:
“The Rise of George Washington”). He led the nation so people naturally put him on a podium
which would vary the “importance” of individuals. George Washington saw himself as an equal
who just had more responsibilities to take on, especially when you have people with different
opinions sharing and believing they’re right but everyone else is wrong. This can undermine the
valuing one sees of another.
Reply
(https://
Bellastar Kassab
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/18794)
Saturday
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
It was hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity due to a time during
the Whiskey Rebellion, which occurred in the 1790’s, see that “the Whiskey Rebellion proved that
the nation could stifle internal dissent but exposed a new threat to liberty.” (History Textbook, XI
Conclusion). As a whole, Americans felt that they lost the connection they had. There were
challenges that “raised complex constitutional issues. The House was claiming a voice in treaty
ratification, a power explicitly reserved to the Senate.” (Text, 169). This left many Americans in fear
that the government would be overthrown.
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the
opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
I believe the events that lead to showcase the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation had
come from the Whisky Rebellion, as stated earlier, seeing that it lead both Federalist and
Republicans in fear. “The Federalists wont stunning tactical victory over the opposition. Had a less
popular man than Washington occupied the presidency, however, they would not have fared so
well. The division between the two parties was now beyond repair. The Republicans labeled the
Federalist “the British party”: Federalists believed that the Republicans were in league with the
French.” (Text, 169).
Reply
(http
Ryan Dibenedetto
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/13346)
Saturday
Hi Bellastar,
I think it’s interesting that you are highlighting conflicts amongst the Congressional
houses as proof that Americans feared their government would be overthrown. I can add this
point in that famous journalists at the time also highlighted the increase in “partisan spirit”. These
journalists believed that these groups would create political “factions” and attempt to depose the
current government. Combine this with the fact that this partisan movement highlighted that
Americans were diverging from their common revolutionary bond, it created a perfect
appearance of deceitfulness and treasonous intentions (Text 172).
Reply
(http
Rujira Jirapalanuruk
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/25513)
3:14pm
Hi Bellastar!
I agree that the event that cause difficulty to leader is about the Whisky Rebellion. Due to the
victory over the opposition, it would hard for the leader to decide which way it good for protecting
the country. Moreover, I would like to add more that because American want to be independent.
Hence, they believe that they have power to protect the country without helping from another
country. Due to that it also hard for the leader to create the new nation. According to text 169,
the author claims that “Under constant threat from a flood of U.S. citizens eager to seize western
lands, and no longer to depend on significant help from any European power, they resisted as
best they could.” (Text 169)
Reply
(https://
Ryan Dibenedetto
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/13346)
Saturday
I think it was so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity
after the revolution because Americans no longer shared the common goals that had united them
during the revolution (Text 172). As Americans began to create political factions to achieve
differing political goals, tensions began to build. Specifically, the ratification of Jay’s Treaty and the
Whiskey Rebellion were big issues that complicated matters. Jay’s Treaty was a weak effort to
resolve ongoing tensions with Britain that strongly divided the two political parties at the time, the
Federalists and the Republicans (Text 169). The bill had support from the Federalists but was
strongly opposed by the Republicans. It’s passage by the Federalist majority in Congress
permanently separated the two parties (Text 169). Next, the Whiskey Rebellion was the powder
keg for the situation. The Federalists expected violence from the Republicans directed at the new
founded government (Text 172). Farmers in western Pennsylvania took to arms to protest the new
excise tax on whiskey, encouraged by the fact that the Republican governor did little to quell the
situation. Washington, believing this was a violent threat to government authority, marched with
Hamilton and an army of 15,000 militiamen to put down the rebellion. The outcome of this event
created hatred between the two parties. The Federalists, and President Washington, accused the
Republicans of inciting violence against the federal government. Thomas Jefferson and the
Republicans insisted that the events were an attempt by Alexander Hamilton to create an army to
intimidate the Republicans (Text 172). With such a divide in beliefs and goals, I believe it was
probably not possible for Americans to ever accept these differing political views as loyal.
Some events that I think show the difficulty that American leaders had in creating the
new nation were Washington’s presidency, the conflicts of Washington’s cabinet, and the passage
of the Sedition Act. Firstly, when Washington became president, he had to set a precedent that
would determine the balance of power between the states and the federal government (Text 160).
Washington, with his “commanding presence”, utilized his years of leading experience from the
revolution to quickly establish a functioning federal government from the newly written constitution
(George Washington video). With little more than the writing of the constitution to guide them,
Washington and Congress established many executive departments, including the State
Department, War Department, and the Treasury, to begin fulfilling governmental duties (Text 160).
Secondly, Washington’s cabinet, consisting of both federalists and republicans, highlights the
ambiguity in choosing a direction for the federal government. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas
Jefferson were major players leading their parties. Jefferson wanted to grant the states more
rights, leave them to settle their debts, restrict the power of the central government, and
emphasize the State Department as the center of Federal power (Power Struggle Video). Hamilton
wanted to grant more power to the central government, centralize all debt to the federal
government through a federal bank, and emphasize the treasury as the basis for federal power
(Hamilton video). With two very different visions of the future, I believe that it must have been
difficult to create this new nation. Lastly, the passage of the sedition act highlights another difficulty
in trying to decide the power of the federal government. To quell criticism and hostile media
towards the federal government, John Adams and the federalists passed the Sedition Act (Sedition
Act document). What I believe was meant to preserve the power of the federal government may
have had the opposite effect, in my opinion. As a result of sentencing Representative Matthew
Lyon to prison on the Sedition Act, he would later be released from prison and cast the winning
vote for Thomas Jefferson, thus setting a new direction for the nation towards a smaller central
government (Sedition Act document).
Reply
(http
Bellastar Kassab
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/18794)
Yesterday
Hello Ryan,
I agree with your discussion post on the topic of why it was hard for Americans, especially
stating that the Whisky Rebellion and Jay’s Treaty played a big factor into the reasoning why. As
stated in the text, they thought they could stop Jay’s Treaty, however, “the challenge raised
complex constitutional issues,” (Text, 169). This treaty seemed to only raise questions. Your post
was well written and informed me more about what events took place that allowed this to
happen.
Reply
(https://
Rujira Jirapalanuruk
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/25513)
Saturday
In the 1790s, Americans people afraid of their safety. According to “Text 159”, the author claims
that “The recently ratified Constitution transferred sovereignty from the states to the people, a bold
and unprecedented decision that many Americans feared would generate chronic instability.”
(Text159). Americans people like to be independent of Britain. Thus, in the new revolution, they
have to think carefully. The new revolution comes with the new government. Nobody welcomes
them at first due to the struggle of political. American believes that political dissent is a sign of
dishonest and disloyal. Also, it a sign of corruption, and in the future, it might be a way to get rid of
the government that comes from the election.
The difficult event that the leader has to face are no money and created a new nation in the middle
of the war. According to “Introduction”, the author claims that “This new central government could
not even collect taxes to fund the war. It had to rely on “contributions” from the states.” The US
government have a heavy debt. Some of the farmers sell their land for the money. Thus, it is
difficult to build land. However, Washington and Hamilton help Americans people to solve the
debt. They both agree that dept needs to be sound on for the international player, so they can
have the money to establish the United States.
Reply
(http
Matthew Parks
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/361568)
12:41pm
Hi Rujira,
I like how you highlighted the transfer of sovereignty from the states to the people. I think that
was at the root of many of the issues between Hamilton and Jefferson. It’s interesting that the
elites assumed the “ordinary voters would automatically defer to their public betters.” (text 160)
It makes me wonder what some of the founders really had in mind as far as public involvement
in American politics. Because it sounds great to give power to the people, and we’re lucky it
turned out that way, but it makes me wonder if some of the founders, including Hamilton, might
reword some of the founding documents to keep the public at more of an arm’s length. Hamilton
didn’t belive the common man should be consulted in political matters. “he(Hamilton) believed
that the British monarchy was the finest government on the face of the earth, and he was not
shy about saying that.” (Hamilton video) With a monarchy the elite rule, the public basically
takes their medicine whether they like it or not, and speaking out against the crown can be
considered treason. Jefferson, however, “had faith in the American people’s ability to shape
policy” and was afraid of a strong centralized government run only by the elite. (text 162)
Thanks for your summary I enjoyed it.
Reply
(https://
Cameron Rollin
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/366720)
Yesterday
The reason why many Americans found it hard to accept many of the political ideas and stances
being proposed at the time was because so many I had to much in common with Britain’s systems.
Americans found it hard to let these British influences in to the American government because
they had just fought for their independence against the British. The influences range from political
ideologies to government structure. One of the many conflicts that arose between the two,
Alexander Hamilton had a strong belief that a centralized bank would bring more stability to the
new nation while Thomas Jefferson disagreed. This created great division amongst leaders as
many feared resorting to a system that’s had created political tension earlier that year (Video:
Power Struggle). On top of that, while the Americans had gained their independence from Great
Britain, this did not end the other conflicts which were brewing. The Americans still had to pay
back France for helping them out during the Revolutionary War while also deciding whether or not
to become involved in world affairs (New Nation pt1). Not only that but at the same time American
leaders had to deal with the racially driven Haitian Revolution and the riled up farmers from the
whiskey rebellion(New Nation pt2).
Reply
(http
Jonathan Garibay
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/371177)
Yesterday
Agreed, and just as in Britain’s political systems, the new nation’s systems gave rise to opposing
political parties. How are Americans supposed to feel united as they witness conflict within their
first ever presidential cabinet? Both Hamilton and Jefferson each believed they were doing their
best to set up the new nation for success. However their philosophies differed greatly. While
Hamilton took ideas from the government of the crown, Jefferson moved to structure
government in the opposite direction and spread out power.
Reply
(http
Matthew Parks
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/361568)
1:15pm
Hey Cameron, I enjoyed your summary. I agree it was difficult for Americans to eliminate
Britain’s influence.
I was surprised to learn of how much Hamilton still admired Britain so shortly after the
Revolution. I can see why he wanted to imitate their banking system. But, he also wanted the
elites to rule and for the common citizen to quietly relinquish control and worry over political
affairs. (text 160) Perhaps he was most interested in independence because it provided himself
an opportunity to gain more power and influence. As he and most of his friends were part of that
elite he was often accused by his political opponents of trying to increase he and his friend’s
“power and wealth.” (text 164)
I also found it concerning that Hamilton sabotaged Jay’s Treaty by tipping off the British to
America’s intentions prior to negotiations. (text 168) But even more interesting, when it comes to
Jay’s Treaty, was how the failure was misinterpreted by the Spanish to America’s benefit. That
lead to the very one sided Pinckney Treaty where America’s land was increased and we gained
access to the Mississippi. (text 170) Funny how sometimes a defeat can lead to a surprising
victory.
Reply
(http
Rujira Jirapalanuruk
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/25513)
2:36pm
Hi Cameron!
I agreed that it hard for the American to accept the new systems. They didn’t want the same
system (Britain’s systems). Due to the influence of the political can lead to have an issue in the
government. Also, independent was the common thing that people want. They want to be
independent, so they find the way to pay their dept. I also found another concern that it not only
hard for them to concern about the political. Moreover, they were concern that the problem
would be about their import or export especially in the agriculture. According to Text 161, the
author claims that “The secretary of state assumed that the strength of the American economy
lay not in its industrial potential but in its agricultural productivity.” (Text 161).
Reply
(https://
Janestin Olaru
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/45783)
Yesterday
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
Creating a new foundation for a country is a high-stress situation as is and having to deal with
others who think differently, make it even more difficult. The idea of disagreeing with others means
that they do not support the cause but, to others, it means they are showing concern for what is
happening. Americans found it hard to accept political dissent as a loyal political activity because
the idea of disagreeing with the new changes/suggestions to go a certain way could resemble too
close of the nation they were trying to break away from. Just within the first Senate meeting of the
United States, they stir up controversy within the room of what to address George Washington as:
“His Highness”, “Protector of Liberties”, “His Elective Majesty,” even “His Excellency” (text, 159).
To me, the majority of those referrals would remind me too much of the original ruling I was trying
to escape from. This kind of discussion could create seeds of doubt in the minds of others that
those people could be unloyal to the new nation they are trying to build. With a leader like George
Washington who was selected to be better than the King and described as, “He was a person of
great dignity and presence” as well as admired for his quick-learning as a commander, it could
raise eyebrows if someone doesn’t follow along with the ideas that Washington presents or others
that go in the opposite direction of the progression at hand (VIDEO: “The Rise of George
Washington”). Even Patrick Spero from the American Philosophical Society explained how
untouchable Washington seemed or was, “[. . .] when Jeffersonians and others need somebody to
attack as a monarchist, someone undermining revolutionary values – they can’t attack Washington.
Washington WAS the revolution” (VIDEO: “Biography: Alexander Hamilton: Founding Father
and American Statesman”). Washington is looked upon so highly that practically anyone who
tries going against him feels they’ll be prosecuted as it’s like they are going against the nation aka, are being disloyal.
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the
opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
Right when I read “opposing viewpoints” I thought of Lin Manuel Miranda, the creator and lead role
of the musical “Hamilton: An American Musical”, saying how Alexander Hamilton would get into a
fight with practically every other founding father and was relatively true. Hamilton and Thomas
Jefferson were constantly at each other’s throats as they always had opposing views. The biggest
clash they had was about creating a national bank where Hamilton was all for it but Jefferson
wasn’t, “[. . .] Washington had a cabinet in which [Hamilton] was developing these sophisticated
quasi-modern ideas about a national economy, while on the other hand he had [Jefferson] who
was reverting to an earlier year where just that kind of development created political threats”
(VIDEO: “Power Struggle Between Federalists and Republicans”). Even in a lyric of “Cabinet
Battle #1”, Hamilton says to Washington how Jefferson -and Madison- don’t have a plan yet
continue to just hate his similar to the statement in the text where it says, “On almost every detail,
Jefferson challenged Hamilton’s analysis” (text, 161). But Jefferson and Hamilton were not the
only two who hashed out differences, there were many many MANY more but for the sake of how
long my post is already, I’ll explain one more example. Rather than verbal difficulties, these two
escalated to a physical altercation –Matthew Lyon and Roger Griswold. Lyon and Griswold kept
egging on back and forth like middle schoolers, throwing schoolyard insults at each other until
Griswold hit the last straw which caused Lyon to become “The Spitting Lyon” (“Matthew Lyon,
Vermont’s Spitting Irishman”). When you’re trying to discuss the future of a new nation and
there’s a childish breakout like this can create tension, as well as frustration within the workplace,
how can people expect to be fair and open to ideas? George Washington sure had a lot to deal
with on top of the pressure of the new nation he was leading.
Edited by Janestin Olaru (https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/45783) on Oct 20 at 8:36pm
Reply
(https://
Cory Jacobson
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/8763)
Yesterday
One of the most challenging tasks of creating a new nation was bringing together opposing sides.
Hamilton, Head of the Treasury Department, proposed a banking system funded by the federal
government and to fund the national debt. I think this proposal was one of the most important
issues of the time. I agree with Hamilton’s proposal because this gave the federal government
control over the economic growth of the new nation. It also created stability which was a goal of
President Washington. I also agree with Hamilton, regarding the selling of bonds to help with the
national debt because this allowed the general public to invest in their new country.
The opposition felt that creating a national bank, modeled after a British institution, was not a
constitution right. The constitution said nothing about chartering financial corporations.
(Democracy and Dissent: The Violence of Party Politics 1788-1800 163)
Reply
(http
Jonathan Garibay
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/371177)
Yesterday
I agree that the most challenging task of creating the new nation was bringing together the
opposing sides. It’s sad that it seems to still be true till this day. Back then it must have been so
frustrating. Especially seeing so much inner conflict within in the first ever presidential cabinet.
Both Hamilton and Jefferson had good enough intentions for the nation, just very different ways
of implementing structures for it. Hamilton openly praised the government of the crown, as
Jefferson wanted to remove the new nation from those same practices. A great divide in a
country barely forming.
Reply
(https://
Jonathan Garibay
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/371177)
Yesterday
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
Dissent is by definition, holding varying opinions from what is commonly held. This variety of
opinions post-revolution created conflict. A newly formed nation appeared to be dividing already as
leaders showed signs of partisanship in voting as Federalists or Republicans (Text 172). This
division is further evidenced by the tensions between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.
Americans had a hard time seeing political unrest inside of George Washington’s own cabinet.
How could leaders be politically loyal to their constituents if they cannot agree amongst
themselves (Federalists and Republicans Video).
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the
opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
One conflict that showed difficulty in creating a new nation was the disagreement in where the
capital should be. Jefferson thought it important to have the capital be removed from established
cities, so as to limit national power and spread it out (Federalists and Republicans video). Another
event that showed difficulty was the Whiskey Rebellion. The rebellion came about as the
Republican governor of Pennsylvania refused to suppress farmers that were upset over the recent
Whiskey tax that threatened to put them out of business (Text 172). This led to violent resistance
when it came time to collect the tax. Ultimately the rebellion ended when President Washington
met the rebels with a militia.
Reply
(http
Janestin Olaru
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/45783)
7:51am
Hi Jonathan,
I agree that the division of voting sides, Federalists vs Republicans, created tension that has
carried on even to this day. Nowadays, some people feel like they can’t express their beliefs
without being judged or attacked. There were many conflicts in the past of people expressing
their opinions such as “The Spitting Lyon” incident where Matthew Lyon and Roger Griswold
were exchanging insults to one another until it escalated into Lyon spitting tobacco juice onto
Griswold’s face which led to a physical brawl (“Matthew Lyon, Vermont’s Spitting Irishmen”).
It’s interesting to see how altercations, such as this that happened in the past, still reflect
modern society.
Reply
(https://
Carissa Parra
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/2936)
Yesterday
The pressure is on for the Americans when creating this fine nation. There were so many moving
parts, and so many differing opinions, that it was quite difficult to come to an agreement. George
Washington had to make a decision. That decision was hard because , “Both sides are
represented in Washington’s cabinet” (Power Struggle Video). He had Jefferson on one side,
skeptical and doubting big government, fearful of failure by placing trust in the ruling elite to make
decisions. Hamilton, on the other hand, was advocating for what he thought was the perfect
solution: a necessary, centralized bank. Then there was the issue with the national debt. Jefferson
felt it safer to pay it off, while Hamilton urged to keep the debt. Furthermore, the Jeffersonians and
the Federalists were arguing back and forth on keeping a strong national institution or smaller
institutions run by each state. While both sides knew America was going to be a great power,
“They differed, however, on how best to manage the transition from an agrarian-household
economy to an international system of trade and industry” (Democracy and Dissent 159). Each
side just wanted the best. So much so that there were fights breaking out left and right. The Jay
Treaty left the people feeling betrayed. The Whiskey Rebellion showed that people weren’t going
to back down without a fight. All in all the best plan was chosen, and here we are, still growing
today.
Reply
(https://
Isaias Mancilla
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/347902)
Yesterday
Although the American Constitution claims the rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the
Press, and Freedom of Assembly, the New Nation faced difficulty progressing with these ideals.
The conflict between political parties stemmed from the belief that their (American’s) political party
was working in the best interest of the Nation as a whole. In an attempt to show their patriotism,
Americans really just damaged their Nation. While written in ink (in the Constitution), the idea of
hosting a growing economy with such contrasting views was difficult to grasp. We can see this in
the “Jeffersonians” rejection of a National Bank (Text 163), Response to foreign affairs (Text 166),
and the Whiskey Rebellion (Text 172). As a whole, the inability to compromise among common
people “suggested that Americans had lost the common purpose that had united them during the
Revolution” (Text 172). It is difficult to say whether as a country we have “overcome” this division
or not, but we can be sure that the divide does not have nearly the same effect as it once did.
Reply
(https://
Nicholas Jackson
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/53174)
Yesterday
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
In the 1790s, many Americans equated political dissent with disloyalty. During the Whiskey
Rebellion in 1791, both Federalists and Republicans feared the other party planned to use
violence to crush political opposition.
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the
opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention. How the Articles of Confederation failed and
delegates met to create a new constitution. The major debates were over representation in
Congress, the powers of the president, how to elect the president, slave trade, and a bill of rights.
Reply
(https://
Nicholas Jackson
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/53174)
Yesterday
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
In the 1790s, many Americans equated political dissent with disloyalty. During the Whiskey
Rebellion in 1791, both Federalists and Republicans feared the other party planned to use
violence to crush political opposition.
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the
opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention. How the Articles of Confederation failed and
delegates met to create a new constitution. The major debates were over representation in
Congress, the powers of the president, how to elect the president, slave trade, and a bill of rights.
Reply
(https://
Emran Alfaouri
Emr
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/58063)
Yesterday
During the 1790s, most people in American considered political dissent to amount to disloyalty
towards the American government. During this time, the Americans also lamented the fact that
they had lost unity. During the independence struggle, this unity had held them together.
Furthermore, since political dissent amounted to disloyalty, the Americans feared that their partisan
politics would result in a conspiracy to topple the government that had been elected legitimately.
During the creation of a new nation, there are events that took place that show the difficulty faced
by the leaders. These events include Shays’s Rebellion, the Fries Rebellion, and the Whiskey
Rebellion. Shays’s Rebellion took place in Massachusetts and was an uprising led by
Revolutionary War Veterans. It was difficult for both the national and state governments due to the
lack of centralized military power. The Whiskey Rebellion took place in the year 1794 after the
United States government imposed a tax on liquor. This rebellion took place in Western
Pennsylvania and was led by distillers and farmers. The Fries Rebellion was started by Dutch
farmers in Pennsylvania who were protesting taxation on slaves, land, and houses.
Reply
(https://
Juliette Kelsey
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/374693)
Yesterday
In Post Revolutionary War America, many Americans believed that the political dissent from
having two separate political parties would lead to revolution and anarchy.
“Popular writers equated “party” with “faction”, and faction with “conspiracy to overthrow legitimate
authority.”
(From Textbook chapter New Nation Dissent & Party Politics Violence Part 2 Sec 7.4)
They had felt unified in their political efforts before so seeing this split was largely unsettling. When
they had a common goal of freedom, their separate political ideologies were set aside. I think that
beyond the actual party divides, there was a division between the people who wanted the stability
of a sense of unity and those who were still ready to fight for their political beliefs.
The many conflicts between federalist and republican ideologies show in detail how difficult it was
to handle putting together a nation of former rebels. From Rich to poor, Urban to rural, and elite to
working class, the divide between the parties was vast. They disagreed on practically everything.
The federalist paranoia over republican violence is a recurring feature in dissent between the
parties. An example could be made of the Whiskey Rebellion, where Washington’s troops were
unable to hold convictions on any protesters as they lost the supposed rebel insurrection . (From
Textbook chapter New Nation Dissent & Party Politics Violence Part 2 Sec 7.4.1)
Another example being the experiences of Mathew Lyon, who after an altercation with another
congressman where he spit in face another congressman and was subsequently referred to by his
federalist as “a ‘kennel of filth,’ [that] should be expelled from Congress.
“Another called him a ‘nasty, brutish, spitting animal.’”
(From ‘Matthew Lyon – Sedition – The Fight’ PowerPoint Lecture)
Despite this, Griswold, the other congressman m, would be the one to employ actual physical
violence by later beating him with a cane.
Reply
(http
Juliette Kelsey
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/374693)
12:38am
I just wanted to add in something because I’m not sure that I covered enough of the second
prompt looking back. I really just found that pattern of prejudice from the federalists very
interesting. I thought that kind of elitist perspective to be a sort of reflection of the European—
and more specifically the English imperialist mindset in the American colonization. I just felt like
there were so many topics to cover that I could’ve wrote an essay, but I needed to stop myself
somewhere.
Reply
(http
Omar Torres
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/46187)
11:09am
I agree with your argument on the factions people were afraid of because they would become to
powerful. Most Americans were worried that these Rebellions would affect almost all colonies.
Though I was kind of confused on the Matthew Lyon part, he was part of the Jefferson’s so his
ideology was different from the others.
Reply
(https://
Brock Kammerer
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/346758)
Yesterday
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity?
I feel the reason why it was hard for Americans is because they had just endured a war for
several. Some British troops were still on American land. Creating a new nation takes times and
corporation. There were many topics to consider what would be the best move and direction for
America.
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation, considering the
opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
George Washington was a very skilled leader, he had a great task to endure creating America
and moving in is a direction that would keep the country safe and economically stable.
(Washington video). In the rise of George Washington it states, that George Washington was
a man of great dignified and people listened to him (Washington video). With so many
opposing topics George Washington had to continue to keep the peace and continue to move
the Nation forward. (Power Struggle Between Federalist and Republicans).
Federalist had power for the last 12 years – Hamilton wanted to build up the nation to make it a
sound economical country. He wanted to develop an strong national bank to give stability to
the government and establish credit. Hamilton wants to consolidate the national debt after the
war. (Power Struggle Between Federalist and Republicans) Hamilton was able to have the
grant of power for the assumption of the state debt and national debt. (Power Struggle
Between Federalist and Republicans)
Another group of Government arises that is envisions a modest approach. – Jefferson saw
suspicious of a strong central government and felt the states should have more power (Power
Struggle Between Federalist and Republicans). Jefferson wants to pay off the national debt
and move forward. Jefferson was able to move the national capitol to Washington D.C. which
was more central to the North and the South. (Power Struggle Between Federalist and
Republicans). Jefferson also believed agriculture productivity and saw framers being able to
expand international markets. (Text 162)
Who would protect America Who would America trade with. There was fear that the British
might attack again, as they were stopping America from trades with the west indies. (text
166). In 1973 France declared war with Britain. Jay’s treaty helped to have the British leave
American Soil and allow trade with the west Indies, However the French was not happy that
America as sighting with the country France is at war with (Text 168).
Reply
(https://
Matthew Parks
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/361568)
Yesterday
The Americans had been unified in fighting the British to gain independence. However, the
decisions they had to make in how they would govern their new nation eliminated much of the
unity developed during the Revolution. This reminds me a bit of what happened after 9/11. If
anything positive came out of that terrible event it was how we all came together and shared a
common pride in being an American- most of us anyway. Years pass, tough decisions are made
(war), economies falter (2008), leaders change, and before you know it, we’re bitterly divided.
Before reading this week’s material, I would have said we are divided more now than ever before.
But, it’s probably more appropriate to say that we’re divided again.
Things were pretty partisan from the beginning starting with Washington’s own cabinet. Hamilton
(treasury) had an “elaborate economic plan and wanted a strong central government.” ( power
struggle video) Hamilton viewed industry and centralized finance as the future. (Text 161)
Jefferson was suspicious of a strong centralized government and wanted to pay off debt.(power
struggle video) Jefferson was very concerned with states rights and saw agriculture as the way
forward. (Text 161) Two very different visions for the future. Washington managed the contrast in
his cabinet with dignity but more favored a strong central government particularly to protect their
hardfought liberty. (Washington video)
The fights in congress over Hamilton’s financial plans show some of the difficulty leaders had in
creating a new nation. Hamilton’s report on public credit (Text 163) was argued and eventually
passed into law. His proposal to create a national bank was more thoroughly vetted, specifically on
constitutional grounds- which eventually led to an expansion of constitutional scope with the
“doctrine of implied powers.” (Text 165) His third report on manufacturing hit some turbulence with
a combination of waning political capital and perhaps a bit of jealousy. There were heated
arguments, led by Madison and Jefferson over consolidation which they argued, “threatened to
concentrate power in the federal government leaving the states defenseless” (Text 166)
Leaders were also dealing with the demands of foreign affairs. France was embroiled in a bloody
revolution that some worried could inspire similar bloodshed in America. (Text167) Britain had not
lived up to their responsibilities outlined in the Treaty of Paris which led to the embarrassment of
Chief Justice John Jay’s Treaty. (text 168) Hamilton, who was keen on staying friendly with the
British, actually colluded with Britain to ensure John Jay’s efforts were thwarted. (text 168)
Then there were arguments regarding taxes and which led to the Whiskey Rebellion where the
Federalists and Washington went to Pennsylvania with 15,000 troops to stamp out an insurrection
over a tax on whiskey. (text 172) This was an example of violence being threatened over what was
more of a political dispute than anything else.
The most alarming response to opposing viewpoints was the Alien and Sedition Acts which were
laws passed by congress to in part “suppress criticism of the federal government…” (text 176) This
naturally led to arguments over the true meaning of the First Amendment while also revealing a
potential problem with the level of power possessed by the federal government.
Reply
(http
Omar Torres
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/46187)
11:18am
During the rebellions the factions took advantage of the people who were outraged to gain
popularity in the party. These factions had different ideology on what was the best choice of
actions for certain things, Lots of people were divided by these government powers that watched
over and decided what was the best for the people.
Reply
(https://
Lawrence Frierson
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/375995)
12:08am
Reply
(https://
Lawrence Frierson
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/375995)
12:24am
Federalists and Republicans feared other parties because they threatened to use violence during
the Whiskey Rebellion. It was hard because Americans wanted to be equivalent to another. As a
whole, Americans felt they lost the connection they had. The house was claiming a voice in treaty
finalization, those were challenges that raised compound constitutional issues. A newly formed
nation appeared to be dividing as leaders showed signs of partisanship in voting as federalists or
Republicans (Text 172).
Reply
(https://
Omar Torres
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/46187)
11:03am
History Discussion,
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political activity? During the
video I learned that Americans were used to the politics with Great Britian that they were worried
about groups becoming to powerful (Washington video). Most of people during the time did not
want to view it as political activity because they lost the common purpose that united all of them
during the revolutionary war (text, 172). Overall this affected Americas because they did not trust
those factions because they feared a lot of problems … Which events show the difficulty leaders
had in creating a new nation, considering the opposing viewpoints – differing opinions? Shay
Rebellion showed how difficult it was in creating a new nation, their viewpoints on certain subjects
changed them.
Reply
(https://
Courtney Soto
(https://gcccd.instructure.com/courses/24398/users/371368)
12:44pm
There were many reasons that it was hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal
political activity. Americans were used to a federal bureaucracy; Washington’s government
seemed extremely small compared to what was accustomed. (New Nation Dissent, pg 161). They
instated new tariffs on imports which caused strife especially with Southern planters and Northern
merchants. (New Nation Dissent, pg 161). Hamilton then proposed a consolidation of the state
debt into one, national debt even though some states had already paid their revolutionary debts.
These same states also thought it was ridiculous that they would have to bear the brunt of another
state’s debt because they did not know how to manage their finances. (New Nation Dissent, pg
162). Hamilton also called for reform of the loan certificates sold before and during the
Revolutionary War into government bonds that would be accepted at full face-value. (New Nation
Dissent, pg 163). Already many people because of financial hardships had to sell their certificates
for much cheaper than the purchase price, and since there was no records of the people that
purchased them, this angered a lot of Americans. (New Nation Dissent, pg 163-164). There were
also constant complaints and criticisms of Hamilton’s financial plans; so much so that many people
believed that he only wanted his circle of friends to profit from such endeavors. (New Nation
Dissent, pg 164). When Hamilton then proposed a national bank, of course everyone was weary of
that as well. He wanted it modeled after Britain’s parliamentary institution. (New Nation Dissent, pg
165). Even Washington considered vetoing it; all involved were worried about a governing body
focused solely on monetary gain would be detrimental to the country. (New Nation Dissent, pg
165). In reaction to all the new financial laws going into effect, citizens bought up loans at cheaper
rates all over, and this in turn led to several bankruptcies in 1792. (New Nation Dissent, pg 165).
As far as the political parties were concerned, there was constantly an underlying suspicion that
one side was secretly aiding the British, and the other the French. (New Nation Dissent, pg 166).
In Hamilton’s efforts to make the U.S. an international, economic superpower, he wanted to merge
small towns into more industrious urban centers. (New Nation Dissent, pg 166). Jefferson argued
that, from his time that he spent in Europe, densely populated urban centers cause poverty to rise
just like it had in Europe. (New Nation Dissent, pg 166). Jefferson argued that Americans should
focus on agriculture instead. (New Nation Dissent, pg 166). When war broke out between Britain
and France, of course America needed to decide their position on it because of trade and
shipping. (New Nation Dissent, pg 167). The people in the U.S. wanted neutrality, but in reality, the
U.S. was just thrust into the middle of it because the trade lines were at stake. (New Nation
Dissent, pg 167). The Americans were also worried about old Franco-American treaties from 1778
that would obligate U.S. to support France in times such as this. (New Nation Dissent, pg 168).
Britain did not like the stance of neutrality the U.S. was trying to take, so they began seizing
American ships in the West Indies. Because of this, Jay’s Treaty was born, and this infuriated the
American people: it called for repayment of debts to Britain before the Revolutionary War, and did
not accept the position of neutrality. (New Nation Dissent, pg 168). And it is because of this war
between France and Britain that the idea of political parties was no longer an idea; they were
solidified into being. (New Nation Dissent, pg 166). The American people did not like the idea of
political parties. They felt that with the fights between parties, they had lost their feelings of unity
they had so much of for the Revolution. (New Nation Dissent, pg 172). Taxes were another highly
criticised event for the American people. The Whiskey Tax affected those distillers in Pennsylvania
especially, so much so that they rebelled and because the governor of Pennsylvania would not do
anything to quell the revolts, Washington went in with 15,000 militiamen only to find none of the
revolters. (New Nation Dissent, pg 172). During the XYZ Affair, the American people became
offended and the French because of the allowance of Britain to blatantly set the terms for
America’s neutrality. (New Nation Dissent, pg 174-175). The French set ridiculous terms for a
treaty that caused Americans to believe that there would be impending war with France. (New
Nation Dissent, pg 175-176). There was pressure put on President Adams to declare war and
build up the army. (New Nation Dissent, pg 176). The army was built up and forces mobilized, but
Adams would not declare war, and this caused Americans to think that “an idol army was an
expensive extravagance”. (New Nation Dissent, pg 176). And last but not least, there was the
Alien and Sedition Acts, the “Federalists first major crisis over civil liberties”. (New Nation Dissent,
pg 176). The Alien Acts gave the president power to deport foreigners during war or of suspicion,
expulsion of foreigners by executive decree and a 14 year probationary period for citizenship.
(New Nation Dissent, pg 176). The Sedition Act was a direct hit to the 1st Amendment: criminal
charges and punishment for criticism of the government. (New Nation Dissent, pg 177).
There were many events that happened during this time that showed difficulty for leaders in
creating the new nation. The recently ratified constitution put power in the states and in the people.
(New Nation Dissent, pg 159). The tariff of 1789 with a 5% tax on imports put a damper on many
people, especially Southern planters and Northern merchants who felt like they were specifically
being targeted. (New Nation Dissent, pg 161). Hamilton’s Report on Public Credit going into action,
was the consolidation of the state debt into one for the whole nation, although some states had
already paid their state debt off. (New Nation Dissent, pg 163). Next came the funding of foreign
and domestic obligations at full face-value: loan certificates that were purchased before and during
the Revolutionary War could be changed for government bonds, but this caused an uprise
because many people due to financial hardships had to sell theirs for much cheaper prices, and
they hadn’t kept any records of who had bought loans. (New Nation Dissent, pg 165). This caused
people to go out and purchase loans en masse, and then in 1792 several bankruptcies ensued.
(New Nation Dissent, pg 165). There was the Bank controversy: the American people feared that a
money-centered nation would cause corruption in high places, as was witnessed in Britain and
other countries in Europe. (New Nation Dissent, pg 165). Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures put
too much power in the federal government and left naught for the states. (New Nation Dissent, pg
166). Once the war between Britain and France broke out, political parties were no longer just an
idea, they were solidified into being. (New Nation Dissent, pg 166). Britain outright refused to
adhere to the Treaty of 1783 and refused to leave the Northwest Territory. (New Nation Dissent, pg
166). In France, the French Revolution was making moves toward Britain because the “war of all
peoples against all kings”. (New Nation Dissent, pg 167). The U.S. wanted a neutral stance, but
this position became difficult because of shipping and trade. (New Nation Dissent, pg 167). From
this came Jay’s Treaty: after Britain blockaded French ports to neutral shipping, and seized
hundreds of American vessels in the French West Indies, this treaty was supposed to help placate
the cause and America’s position. (New Nation Dissent, pg 168). But it ended up a political
humiliation for America. (New Nation Dissent, pg 168). Britain agreed to abandon the frontier and
allow trade in the British West Indies, but rejected the U.S. stance of neutrality and would continue
to search American vessels, and demanded repayment of debts from before the Revolutionary
War. (New Nation Dissent, pg 168). Before the British finally left the frontier, British soldiers
encouraged native tribes to attack American settlers and traders. (New Nation Dissent, pg 169).
One of the good things that came of all this was that the Spanish opened up travel on the
Mississippi: through the Treaty of San Lorenzo, (Pinckney’s Treaty), Americans now had the right
to deposit goods in New Orleans without paying duties, the Spanish promised to stay out of Indian
affairs, and provided a secure southern border at the 31st parallel. (New Nation Dissent, pg 170).
Just south of the U.S., the Haitian Revolution was taking place, and this caused fear in the south
that slaves would also start revolting. (New Nation Dissent, pg 171). The Whiskey Rebellion was
another event that leaders had to contend with. (New Nation Dissent, pg 172). A tax that especially
affected distillers in Pennsylvania, led to protests and revolts that the governor of Pennsylvania
would not quell. (New Nation Dissent, pg 172). In reaction to this, Washington gathered 15,000
militiamen to march on the protesters but found no protesters when they got there. (New Nation
Dissent, pg 172). Washington announced his retirement from office, and the events during the
latter part of his presidency led people to believe that he was now a spokesman for Hamilton’s
Federalist Party. (New Nation Dissent, pg 173). The XYZ Affair with France was another
unfortunate event, caused by the Quasi-War of French privateers seizing American ships, and they
saw that Britain claiming the terms of the neutrality was the U.S. siding against France. (New
Nation Dissent, pg 174-175). Because of this, the Federalists started pushing Adams for
declaration of war and mobilization of the army. (New Nation Dissent, pg 175). Lastly, the Alien
and Sedition Acts, for deportation, expulsion of foreigners and probationary period of citizenship,
and the Sedition Act which was seen as a complete strike against our first amendment. (New
Nation Dissent, pg 176).
Reply
DISCUSSION: New Nation Experiment
•
•
For this discussion, you MUST use information from both your text(s) and videos
and SEE THE DISCUSSION GRADING RUBRIC, at the link above.
Be sure to give yourself credit for using details and evidence from a source with an
abbreviated citation at the end of your sentence. (Washington video) OR (Text 161)
OR (Lyon document) Like so.
You will see in your text for this module the question posed:
Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal political
activity?
I also asked in your study guide:
Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation,
considering the opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
This discussion is intended for you to kick around some ideas about these
questions. Think about it – they have a new country and people don’t agree on how it
should be governed. So how do they stay together? How do they know that someone
in their own country won’t do to them what they just did to Great Britain – have another
revolution?
Creating this new country was a daunting and brave and radical task. I’m asking you
to explore a bit WHY it was so difficult. Which events prove to you – or are evidence
about – how hard that was? Why was it hard to be “OK” with someone STRONGLY
disagreeing with you? Look at the outbreaks of violence in this period.
•
Answer the following in your ORIGINAL POST:
o Why was it so hard for Americans to accept political dissent as loyal
political activity?
o Which events show the difficulty leaders had in creating a new nation,
considering the opposing viewpoints – differing opinions?
THE SEDITION ACT. Approved July 14, 1798.
“To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false,
scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or
either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either
into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the
United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the
government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.”
Grade of offence: A misdemeanour
Punishment: Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding
two years.

Matthew Lyon, Vermont’s Spitting Congressman

Matthew Lyon, Vermont’s Spitting
Irishman
Much about Matthew Lyon of Fair Haven, Vt., is unclear, but one thing is certain.
He started the first congressional brawl on Jan. 30, 1798 when he spat tobacco juice
into the face of Roger Griswold, a Federalist from Connecticut.
The Brawl between Matthew Lyon and Roger Griswold
Matthew Lyon, a Jeffersonian Republican-Democrat, had arrived in Philadelphia
half a year earlier ‘full of himself and seething with aggression.’ He had finally been
elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after several tries, and he was there to
‘take the side of the democrats against the aristocrats.’
One aristocrat said he felt, ‘ grieved that the saliva of an Irishman should be left upon
the face of an American.’
MATTHEW LYON
Matthew Lyon was born on July 14, 1749 in County Wicklow Ireland. His father
may have been executed for treason against the British. Whatever the case, he worked
to support his widowed mother and started to learn printing and bookbinding.
He emigrated to Woodbury, Conn., in 1764 as an indentured servant. Ten years
later he joined other white settlers and moved to Wallingford, Vt. (then the New
Hampshire Grants). In Wallingford, he bought cheap land and organized a militia.
When the American Revolution broke out, Matthew Lyon joined the Green Mountain
Boys and took part in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga. But then Gen. Horatio
Gates court-martialed him and had him dishonorably discharged.
There are two versions of what actually happened. According to Lyon and others,
he and his men were told to guard a cornfield, and he asked to leave Gates and
join Seth Warner. According to others — his political enemies — he was cashiered for
cowardice and forced to wear a wooden sword to show his shame.
Matthew Lyon did join Warner’s regiment and later rose to the rank of colonel in the
Vermont militia. He also received an appointment as deputy secretary to
Governor Thomas Chittenden, whose daughter he married.
He parlayed that connection into a seat in the Vermont House of
Representatives. In 1779, he founded Fair Haven, Vt., and finally won election to
Congress on his fourth try.
In Fair Haven he established the first store, built several mills and started a
newspaper that eventually became the Rutland Herald.
THE FIGHT
Feelings ran high in 1798 between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.
As a Jeffersonian, Matthew Lyon viewed himself as a champion of the common man
against the wealthy, well-educated Federalists.
During a ballot count on the House floor on Jan. 30, 1798, Matthew Lyon began
to bait Roger Griswold. He told him the Connecticut Federalists didn’t represent ninetenths of their constituents. If he ran a printing press in Connecticut, he said, he would
start a revolution there in six months. Griswold leaned over and asked if he would fight
with a wooden sword. Lyon spat tobacco juice in his face, earning him the nickname,
‘The Spitting Lyon.’
RETALIATION
The Federalists excoriated Lyon. One Massachusetts Federalist said Lyon, a
‘kennel of filth,’ should be expelled from Congress. Another called him a ‘nasty,
brutish, spitting animal.’
Lyon retorted he had no choice because Federalist newspapers would bandy him
about as a ‘mean poltroon’ if he had said nothing to Griswold.
On Feb. 15, 1798, Griswold retaliated. While Lyon retrieved his mail, Griswold
jumped up and began beating him about the head with a wooden cane. Lyon grabbed a
pair of tongs to defend himself. Other congressmen managed to pull them apart,
grabbing Griswold by the legs to separate him from Lyon.
The House Ethics Committee later recommended censure, but the full House
rejected the motion.
JAIL AND REVENGE
Later that year, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into
law. They criminalized criticism of the federal government, and Matthew Lyon was the
first to be tried and convicted under the Acts.
Lyon spent four months in a Vergennes, Vt., jail. The Green Mountain Boys
threatened to destroy it, but Lyon urged them not to. He ran for Congress from the jail
and won.
Two years later, Matthew Lyon got his revenge: He cast the deciding vote
in the election of Thomas Jefferson over John Adams.
VIDEO #2 OF 3:
Below: “Power Struggle Between Federalists and Republicans” (6:31)
•
•
•
•
•
For twelve years, control of the new government remains firmly in the hands of
Federalists – those who believed in a strong central government.
Gaining strength in the 1790s is a group that favors a weaker, smaller central
government – the “Jeffersonians,” also known as “republicans” – but nothing like
the Republican party of today. They were believers states’ rights and the rights of
the people and their local power. They were “republicans” with a small “r”
Both points of view are represented in Washington’s cabinet.
o Alexander Hamilton, an avowed Federalist, has an elaborate economic plan to
build the resources of the nation.
o Thomas Jefferson is suspicious of a strong central government.
The two sides argue over the concept of a national bank, the national debt issue,
the permanent location for a capitol, even the French Revolution.
Washington is the unifying force, but after eight years as president, he announces
his intention to leave public office.
Transcript of the above 4:12-minute video is below:
Now that there is a Broadway musical and people are falling in love with Alexander Hamilton, I
think it’s important for people to realize that most politicians have mixed legacies, and that certainly is
true for Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton could be a difficult person. He’s a complicated person, so clearly he had
friends and people who loved him and he was seemingly charismatic and high energy individual.
There were two Hamiltons – the public Hamilton who was guided by virtue and only wanted to serve
the public good; and then there’s the private Hamilton – somebody who has extramarital affairs and
whose values might seem to contradict the public good. But Hamilton argued that his private life
should not impact the way people see his public life.
One of the things to know about Hamilton is that at a very early point – during the Revolution, he
became convinced that there needed to be a stronger national government. So he becomes a really
early and loud nationalist. He was called a monarchist for a long time. His response was –no, I’m not
a monarchist, and people are being elected into office and if you don’t like them then you can elect
them out.
On the other hand, he really was trying to give as much power as possible to the government.
Hamilton was a lightening rod for the first party system. Part of the reason he’s the focus is
because nobody can attack Washington. And so when the Jeffersonians and others need somebody
to attack as a monarchist, someone undermining revolutionary values – they can’t attack Washington.
Washington WAS the revolution. It’s Hamilton that they can focus on.,
Hamilton, when he became Secretary of the Treasury, had a daunting challenge in front of him.
There was massive amounts of debt and no national structure of finance. Now he was the perfect guy
for that job because what he was really good at was administrating.
Washington and Hamilton both realized that for the country to be an international player, their debt
needed to be sound. So Hamilton had the essential but unpopular idea to unite the debt as one
common debt that was shared by the nation. And that, more than anything else helped established
the United States.
Hamilton has a mixed legacy, especially as Sec’y of the Treasury. On the one hand he was a vital
force for establishing national credit. He also was someone who was trying as hard as he could to
empower the national government, not trying to necessarily create a monarchy, but he believed that
the British monarchy was the finest government on the face of the earth, and he’s not shy about
saying that.
So that’s an extreme guy. He was not the only person who believed that, but he was a person who
had a lot of power, and was working toward that point of view. So some of the impact of that was
good, and some of it was scary. His policies were so polarizing that people began to rise up and
protest against them.
Hamilton, and our perception of him, has changed over time. He was reviled in his own time and
immediately afterward. But then, as the economy changed, and as the institutions that support this
economy have changed, so too have our perceptions of Hamilton.
It was important to have his voice there pushing. It was also really important to have other voices
pushing against him. We don’t often think of the founding as a dialogue, as a debate, but it was.
Many different voices needed to be part of that for whatever came out of that moment to be somewhat
balanced.
DISCUSSION BOARD GRADING RUBRIC
I: Original Posting
Discussions in this history class are like quizzes. They are worth significant points because you need to
prove you learned the material and are thinking about the significance of the stories. Find your own details to
prove your point, or look for connections between information you learned in different sections of a chapter, or
between lecture and the reading. Sometimes you find connections between the current week’s material and a
previous week. All of that make your postings worth more points, because it shows your own critical thinking.
Criteria
Grade A:
Uses 4 or more
Details/Examples specific details; uses
and Critical
information from all
Thinking
sources: lecture,
reading and if
applicable, video.
Thoughtful and
analytical
Connections
Makes clear
connections between
the sources and fully
answers the question
Grade B:
Uses 2-3 specific
details; uses
information from
some, but not all
sources: lecture,
reading and if
applicable, video.
Thoughtful or
insightful
Makes no
connections between
the sources but
answers the question
Uniqueness
New ideas, new
connections, made
with depth and detail
New ideas or
connections, lacks
depth and/or detail
Stylistics
Writes in complete
sentences. Few or
no grammar,
punctuation or
spelling errors.
Writes in complete
sentences. Some
grammar,
punctuation or
spelling errors.
Length
1-2 paragraphs; 8 or
more sentences
1-2 paragraphs; 6-7
sentences
Grade C:
Vague and lacks
details but refers to
one source: either
lecture, reading or
video. Information is
thin and
commonplace
Grade D:
Rudimentary
and superficial;
lacks details,
insight and
analysis
Makes no
connections between
the sources but
makes vague
generalities about
source material
Few, if any, new
ideas or connections;
rehash or summarize
other postings
Incomplete
sentences. Style
errors interferes with
content
Makes no
connections and
does not answer
the question.
Off topic.
1 paragraph, 4-5
sentences
No new ideas;
uses “I agree
with…”
statement
Incomplete
sentence
fragments;
errors make
understanding
impossible
Fewer than 4
sentences.
II: Reply to Others’ Postings
1. Discuss one point you agree with, OR disagree with, and explain why.
2. Make a connection between a point the student made and information you discussed – what is
the EVIDENCE—what is the primary source or analysis from a historian? Why is the
information important for answering the discussion question? Support your statements. Use
evidence from your sources and provide a rationale for your points.
3. Length should be about 4 sentences