Here's a fun quiz, 33 questions on US Civics and Economics. I took the quiz, but the page which I hoped to show me the answers didn't load. I see if I register with the website, I can get the quiz and the answers, so I'll. I think I did good on the civic's part...it's the economics that I'm not so sure about. What about you? How do you think you did?
BTW, an online article states that 60% of the incoming college freshman fail the quiz, but what's even worse, only 54% of GRADUATING seniors pass the quiz. Yale, Duke and Princent grads actually lost points, while those attending small or state schools, like Rhodes College or Colorado State, improved their points.
Get the whole article on the dismal state of Civics Classes in US colleges at Colleges Get Failing Grades on Civics.
I'm going to join the website, so I'll post the answers later....don't want you cheating....lol.
Take the Civics Quiz now.
Anna Kathryn Lanier
Where Tumbleweeds Hang Their Hats
http://www.aklanier.com/
Showing posts with label U. S. History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U. S. History. Show all posts
February 21, 2010
Shay's Rebellion - Final Part
Continuing with the posting of my Government Honor's paper on Shay's Rebellion, here's the last of the paper about a little rebellion helped Alexander Hamilton was able to get the constitution for the new United States government that he wanted. Part One can be found on Seduced By History's blog and parts two and three can be found below.
Alexander Hamilton, also greatly concerned by the lack of central power and money the Confederation had, hammered away his points in the Federalist Papers, eighty-five essays written by Hamilton, John Madison and John Jay. The country needed “a strong, stable government; a regular source of income for that government; and a constitution granting such powers,” Nathan Schachner says in his essay “Alexander Hamilton,” (91).
In Essay No. 6, Hamilton refers directly to Shays’ Rebellion. In it, he warns the public about the dangers of a war between the states, explaining the treachery that did happen and is happening in Europe. As if realizing these examples may not be understood, he says:
"Perhaps, however, a reference tending to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be made to a case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not been a desparate debtor, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into civil war."
Congress officially recognized the Philadelphia Convention on February 21, 1787, months after it had received Hamilton’s report on the Annapolis convention. By then, five states, in direct response to Shays’ Rebellion, had appointed their delegates.
Lindop says, “The delegates in Philadelphia, Congress stated, would meet ‘for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,’” (36).
Hamilton, Washington and Madison desired to do more than just ‘revise’ the Articles, especially since they knew all thirteen states would need to approve such revisions and Rhode Island was refusing to attend the convention. They and others knew that only by taking a potentially treasonous step to replace the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation with a new and stronger government would the continuation of the union be guaranteed.
In the Spring of 1787, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton joined Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, George Mason, Roger Sherman, Rufus King, the Pickneys of South Carolina and others in Philadelphia to pound out a new doctrine.
Virginia’s delegation proposed fifteen resolutions which would create a completely new government. Though many of the other delegates saw the need for these resolutions, not all of those present felt the same. New Jersey proposed their own resolutions which would preserve the Articles. After much heated debate and Edmund Randolph’s proclamation, “When salvation of the Republic is at stake, it would be treason not to propose what we find necessary,” the Virginia Plan prevailed and in less than one hundred days, the delegates of the Constitution Convention created a new government.
Shay’s Rebellion, a ‘civil war’ lasting less than a year, where no one was killed, was more than a “Little Rebellion.” The fear over the danger of a powerful, distant government was overshadowed by the fear that the recent Revolutionary War would be for naught.
The rebellion’s importance is not seen so much in how it shook Massachusetts politics, but in how it threatened and shaped the government of the nation. Thus, a new, better and stronger government, which has lasted more than 225 years, was framed and advocated until it was ratified by the “thirteen sovereignties” to form a more perfect union, because, as stated in the forward for The Constitution Convention, “This incident [is what] convinced some previous supporters of the Articles of Confederation that the current system was inadequate to deal with potentially devastating crises,” (42).
Anna Kathryn Lanier
http://annakathrynlanier.blogspot.com/
Shays’ Rebellion: Shaping the Constitution - Part 4
Alexander Hamilton, also greatly concerned by the lack of central power and money the Confederation had, hammered away his points in the Federalist Papers, eighty-five essays written by Hamilton, John Madison and John Jay. The country needed “a strong, stable government; a regular source of income for that government; and a constitution granting such powers,” Nathan Schachner says in his essay “Alexander Hamilton,” (91).
In Essay No. 6, Hamilton refers directly to Shays’ Rebellion. In it, he warns the public about the dangers of a war between the states, explaining the treachery that did happen and is happening in Europe. As if realizing these examples may not be understood, he says:
"Perhaps, however, a reference tending to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be made to a case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not been a desparate debtor, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into civil war."
Congress officially recognized the Philadelphia Convention on February 21, 1787, months after it had received Hamilton’s report on the Annapolis convention. By then, five states, in direct response to Shays’ Rebellion, had appointed their delegates.
Lindop says, “The delegates in Philadelphia, Congress stated, would meet ‘for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,’” (36).
Hamilton, Washington and Madison desired to do more than just ‘revise’ the Articles, especially since they knew all thirteen states would need to approve such revisions and Rhode Island was refusing to attend the convention. They and others knew that only by taking a potentially treasonous step to replace the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation with a new and stronger government would the continuation of the union be guaranteed.
In the Spring of 1787, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton joined Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, George Mason, Roger Sherman, Rufus King, the Pickneys of South Carolina and others in Philadelphia to pound out a new doctrine.
Virginia’s delegation proposed fifteen resolutions which would create a completely new government. Though many of the other delegates saw the need for these resolutions, not all of those present felt the same. New Jersey proposed their own resolutions which would preserve the Articles. After much heated debate and Edmund Randolph’s proclamation, “When salvation of the Republic is at stake, it would be treason not to propose what we find necessary,” the Virginia Plan prevailed and in less than one hundred days, the delegates of the Constitution Convention created a new government.
Shay’s Rebellion, a ‘civil war’ lasting less than a year, where no one was killed, was more than a “Little Rebellion.” The fear over the danger of a powerful, distant government was overshadowed by the fear that the recent Revolutionary War would be for naught.
The rebellion’s importance is not seen so much in how it shook Massachusetts politics, but in how it threatened and shaped the government of the nation. Thus, a new, better and stronger government, which has lasted more than 225 years, was framed and advocated until it was ratified by the “thirteen sovereignties” to form a more perfect union, because, as stated in the forward for The Constitution Convention, “This incident [is what] convinced some previous supporters of the Articles of Confederation that the current system was inadequate to deal with potentially devastating crises,” (42).
Anna Kathryn LanierWhere Tumbleweeds Hang Their Hats
http://www.aklanier.com/ http://annakathrynlanier.blogspot.com/
February 20, 2010
Shay's Rebellion - Part 3
This is Part Three of my honor's paper on Shay's Rebellion. The Part One can be found at SEDUCED BY HISTORY. Part Two is just below, on this blog. This post will most likely more sense if you've read Parts 1 and 2 first.
Shays’ Rebellion: Shaping the Constitution - Part Three
Conventions where formed and town hall meetings held in attempts to find peaceful solutions. “Firm instructions were sent...to have the courts suspend judgments on debtors until more hard money was available,” says Stearns. The spokesmen for the conventions and meetings also asked to allow “personal property [to be] a legal satisfaction of a claim, or to issue paper money and make it legally acceptable for payments of debt and taxes,” Stearns continues (11).
These peaceful efforts failed, however. The merchant class, which dominated the Massachusetts legislature, did not want more useless paper money on the market. Unfortunately, in ignoring the pleas of the farmers, they underestimated the anger of their debtors.
The Court of Common Pleas was set to sit on August 29, 1786 in Northampton, Hampshire County. Five hundred men, including militiamen, with swords, muskets and hickory sticks marched on the court and effectively stopped it from sitting in judgment on fellow debtors.
This first of several civil disobediences shocked many a man, including the state Governor James Bowdoin. He proclaimed the act treasonable and ordered the leaders to be seized and tried. In his exasperation, however, he made several mistakes. The biggest being that many of the protesters were the very militia he ordered into action against the insurgents.
When this was realized, he called upon the Federal Government to help squash the rebellion. Congress, who had only seven hundred soldiers at its disposal, authorized the call for a new militia and appropriated $530,000 for it. Since they had no funds to pay for this new army, they requested the states to send in just portions. Twelve of the states refused. Only Virginia promised to support congress in this endeavor.
Through private donations from the wealthier Massachusetts citizens, a militia was finally raised and by February 4, 1787, Shays’ Rebellion had been put down.
However, the problems exposed in the Articles of Confederation by congress’ lack of authority showed the inherent weakness of the document. Edmund Lindop in Birth of the Constitution remarks:
Many Americans...were terrified. The same conditions that lead to the insurrection in Massachusetts existed in other states, too. Similar rebellions could breakout anytime, anywhere. If the national government could not crush Shays’ Rebellion, there was no reason to expect them to maintain law and order in other parts of the country. (34)
With a convention already planned to discuss the Articles and its problems, those wanting a change went on the offensive.
The rumblings of rebellion making their way across the country disturbed war hero General George Washington. In a letter written to John Jay on August 1, 1786, he writes, “I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power, which will pervade the whole union in as energetic a manner, as authority of the state governments extends over several states,” as quoted in The Constitution Convention (59). He questions the wisdom of having such a weak government, which, to his great horror, is giving rise to talk “of a monarchial form of government,” (60).
In a second letter written to James Madison on November 5, 1786, Washington continues his concerns for the government. “Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expense of so much blood and treasure, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!” (60). Washington ends his letter with, “Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head will soon bring ruin to the whole...,” (62).
Washington had dreamed of a peaceful life as a gentleman farmer after retiring as Commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. Shays’ Rebellion and its exposure of the Articles’ flaws drew him out of his short-lived retirement.
Thus ends today's lesson. Tune in tomorrow for the final installment on Shay's Rebellion - Shaping the Constitution.
Thus ends today's lesson. Tune in tomorrow for the final installment on Shay's Rebellion - Shaping the Constitution.
Anna Kathryn Lanier
Where Tumbleweeds Hang Their Hats
February 18, 2010
Shay's Rebellion - Part 2
This is part two of Shay's Rebellion: Shaping the Constitution. The first part was posted on the SEDUCED BY HISTORY. It would probably be best to read it first, then come back here to read this section. This only gets us onto page four of a nine page Honor's paper, so I'll post additional sections of it over the next few days. Come back by and learn how "A Little Rebellion" shaped the Constitution that we know and love so well....
Though the Annapolis Convention exposed that some were willing to consider the amending of the Articles to strengthen its weaknesses, the individual States held close their own powers and they were reluctant to give up those powers to a National government. Thus, the Philadelphia Convention may very well have gone the way of the Annapolis Convention of not for a little rebellion.
Shays’ Rebellion in 1786-87 opened the eyes of many to the fallacies in the Articles of Confederation as well as the Federal Government then in place. Though the leading fathers had looked upon a similar rebellion only a few years earlier as “logical, virtuous and nobly patriotic [they] now looked aghast,” at what was happening in Massachusetts, says Starkey (3).
George Richard Minot explains the situation facing Massachusetts in his book History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts in 1786. “Their private state debt, when consolidated, amounted to upwards 1,300,000£, besides 250,000£ due to officers and soldiers of their line army,” (6). The amount Massachusetts owed the federal government was another 1,500,000£. In addition each town had its own debts from supplies and requisitions for men it had given to the state on credit.
All the states owed similar amounts, but Massachusetts in particular was anxious to be rid of its debt. Therefore, it passed higher land and poll taxes to help pay for the loans which wealthy Boston creditors held. The taxes, however, seem to fall more on farmers and the general poor.
The problem was further compounded by the fact the Continental Army veterans, mostly farmers who had let their lands lay fallow as they fought in the War of Independence, had still not received their army pay or promised bonuses. These debtors did not have the money to pay their mortgages. The banks began to foreclose on their farms. Merchants, who had loaned them money or extended them credit demanded payment as well. Shortly thereafter, with the urging of the merchants and the backing of the legislature, payment was required to be made in specie (coin money), something in very short supply in the days after the Revolutionary War.
Men, who were unable to pay their debts because they themselves had not been paid, saw their homes or farms confiscated and auctioned off for as little as twenty percent of its value. In a two year period (1784-86) nearly one-third of males over sixteen were involved in a debt case in Hampshire County, Massachusetts and seventy-three men were thrown into prison—crowded, ill-ventilated and filthy places.
According to Monroe Stearns in Shays’ Rebellion 1786-7: Americans Take Up Arms Against Unjust Laws:
"Upright, but insolvent farmers were confined with thieves and murderers. These criminals could get out of jail, but debtors could not [because] his creditor paid the cost of his board there...as long as he wished or until the debtor paid his debt." (10-11)
Circumstances continued to deteriorate as more and more farmers were jailed and their lands confiscated. Those who first defended this practice soon found themselves victims and their respect for the law soon changed to outrage at the courts.
Stayed tuned for Part Three, which I'll post on Saturday, Feb. 20th.
Anna Kathryn Lanier
Where Tumbleweeds Hang Their Hats
http://www.aklanier.com/
http://annakathrynlanier.blogspot.com/
Shay's Rebellion: Shaping the Constitution. part 2
Though the Annapolis Convention exposed that some were willing to consider the amending of the Articles to strengthen its weaknesses, the individual States held close their own powers and they were reluctant to give up those powers to a National government. Thus, the Philadelphia Convention may very well have gone the way of the Annapolis Convention of not for a little rebellion.
Shays’ Rebellion in 1786-87 opened the eyes of many to the fallacies in the Articles of Confederation as well as the Federal Government then in place. Though the leading fathers had looked upon a similar rebellion only a few years earlier as “logical, virtuous and nobly patriotic [they] now looked aghast,” at what was happening in Massachusetts, says Starkey (3).
George Richard Minot explains the situation facing Massachusetts in his book History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts in 1786. “Their private state debt, when consolidated, amounted to upwards 1,300,000£, besides 250,000£ due to officers and soldiers of their line army,” (6). The amount Massachusetts owed the federal government was another 1,500,000£. In addition each town had its own debts from supplies and requisitions for men it had given to the state on credit.
All the states owed similar amounts, but Massachusetts in particular was anxious to be rid of its debt. Therefore, it passed higher land and poll taxes to help pay for the loans which wealthy Boston creditors held. The taxes, however, seem to fall more on farmers and the general poor.
The problem was further compounded by the fact the Continental Army veterans, mostly farmers who had let their lands lay fallow as they fought in the War of Independence, had still not received their army pay or promised bonuses. These debtors did not have the money to pay their mortgages. The banks began to foreclose on their farms. Merchants, who had loaned them money or extended them credit demanded payment as well. Shortly thereafter, with the urging of the merchants and the backing of the legislature, payment was required to be made in specie (coin money), something in very short supply in the days after the Revolutionary War.
Men, who were unable to pay their debts because they themselves had not been paid, saw their homes or farms confiscated and auctioned off for as little as twenty percent of its value. In a two year period (1784-86) nearly one-third of males over sixteen were involved in a debt case in Hampshire County, Massachusetts and seventy-three men were thrown into prison—crowded, ill-ventilated and filthy places.
According to Monroe Stearns in Shays’ Rebellion 1786-7: Americans Take Up Arms Against Unjust Laws:
"Upright, but insolvent farmers were confined with thieves and murderers. These criminals could get out of jail, but debtors could not [because] his creditor paid the cost of his board there...as long as he wished or until the debtor paid his debt." (10-11)
Circumstances continued to deteriorate as more and more farmers were jailed and their lands confiscated. Those who first defended this practice soon found themselves victims and their respect for the law soon changed to outrage at the courts.
Stayed tuned for Part Three, which I'll post on Saturday, Feb. 20th.
Anna Kathryn Lanier
Where Tumbleweeds Hang Their Hats
http://www.aklanier.com/
http://annakathrynlanier.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)