American War of Independence: Freedom from British Rule - Essay Sample

Introduction

The American War of Independence involved between the thirteen colonies of America and Great Britain. The states wanted to be freed from British rule. As a result, the growing political variations regarding economic recession attracted protests against taxation without representation. The voting for the independence declaration offered an overview of the reason the thirteen colonies of Great Britain were at war with wanted to be out of the British Colonial Rule. Therefore, this paper seeks to cover the post-Revolutionary war problems and the proposed constitution and the new government. It also addresses Antifederalist Smith and Hamilton's view on the Three-Fifth compromise and the general opinion of federalists and antifederalists on the Revolutionary war in America.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

America had several problems that were plaguing her as a country as a result of the American War. For instance, he preferred that focus be addressed more on the political power at the local and state levels of government. Williams argued that traditional values were losing interest among the people (Document 7.8). As a result of this, the loss of hard work and thrift tradition made the nation vulnerable to international investments. Additionally, Williams says that the country had lost it in the war since it had never experienced such a critical point in her political affairs as it was after the revolutionary war. The country experienced expelling economy, frugality, and industrial recession that had been exhibited after the end of the American war. John claims that the country people had been left loaded with debts by the war. Again, he added that if the situation continued, they would be worse than it was in the current condition. Americans had abandoned their locally manufactured products for those made in Europe. Besides, Williams says that people in the country overindulged themselves in luxuries and pleasures and were not ready to work hard (Document 7.8). Because of this, eight-tenths of the commonality would make unnecessary purchases even before their products could become marketable.

John Williams was opposed to the constitution and the new government because he felt the revolutionary war had depreciated the economy. This would have left the country worse than it was at that time. He opposed the constitution because he suspected that it would not readily observe human rights. In essence, he was not sure that it would constitute the principles that would promote liberty and security to civilians' rights (Document 7.8). This was why he insisted on the evaluation of the constitution first before making the necessary alterations and amendments. Further, Williams reasons that the number of representatives was too small to resist corruption. Therefore, the law was not adequately guarded in this dimension. Besides, he explains the disparity in the number of state and house of representatives' representation proposed in the constitution. Ideally, the number was too small to represent America's aggregate population effectively.

Melancton Smith and Alexander Smith worked together to stimulate the gradual changes in the governance of the American people. However, Hamilton supported the proposed constitution for central management while Smith agitated for the civilians' local representation. Smith reasons that it was not a good idea to embrace the proposed constitution but instead maintain the traditional way of governance where people were led through smaller governmental bodies (Document 7.6). There was no proof that the proposed constitution would be a good one. Smith added that it would be possible that it may lead to a worse government than before the declaration of independence. Ideally, he did not know whether it would be possible to counteract any evil that may come with the new constitution (Document 7.6). The law did not provide an avenue for the representation of the interest of the civilians in the government. In addition, it gave the wicked people who did not know how to exercise power to lead others, giving them a chance to continue enslaving the vulnerable. Therefore, Smith wanted an increment for the representation of ordinary civilians in the government (Document 7.6). He said that limiting the powers of congress and increasing the representation would enable the state government to consider the Americans' interests and liberties. On the other hand, Hamilton supported the constitution saying that powers should be maintained in a single body of the government, which in essence would be the central government (Document 7.7) He added that the country's situation was so critical and in a divisive dimension in terms of the interests of the people. Therefore, there was a need to compromise the three-fifths constitution. Ideally, Hamilton disapproved of the representation of locals into the government. He argued that the South had a substantial population of the blacks, and thus, adopting the three-fifth strategy would give them a privilege to the governance (Document 7.7) It is like he did not consider it worthy to enjoy their rights because they were black Americans

The state governments were the ones that would address the liberties and interests of the civilians. The proposed national governments in the constitution did not provide an avenue for the representation of the vulnerable. Instead, it concentrated the powers to congress. Limiting the powers of the central government and increasing state governments would help address the interests of American Civilians (Document 7.6). Therefore, he wanted the representation of typical Americans to be given priority so that their liberties would be protected.

The most considerable disagreement between the federalists and antifederalists was that federalists advocated for a stable central government and a weak state government. In contrast, the antifederalists wanted powers in the state governments and limited authorities in the central government. Federalists were focused on strengthening the national government and overlooked the state governments that wanted local representations. According to the antifederalists who opposed the ratification of the constitution, the aim was to force congress to establish a bill of rights (Document 7.7). This way, they would ensure that the interests and liberties of the locals were observed.

Madison brought the idea of disparity between the powers of the central government and the state governments. In essence, the National government should have powers that surpass that of the states. He added that since state representation would involve every marginalized group, there would be possible discrimination when electing representatives of the groups (Document 7.5). Besides, once these powers are equally shared, there would be a problem in agreeing on the universal suffrage in sending people to the central government. Therefore, he discouraged the sate representation saying that even if they are accorded the opportunity, the congress would still maintain powers to interfere with elections to the national government leaders.

If I were one of the delegates, I would support the antifederalists who opposed the proposition of the new constitution. In my opinion, sharing of powers ensures that people enjoy the fruits of their government. Ideally, it would take a longer time to distribute resources from a centralized place to the civilians than when the source is close to the people. In essence, the antifederalists wanted to oppose the ratification of the constitution to ensure that the liberties of the civilians would be protected. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of locals in the governance through the house of representatives. In my view, sharing the powers to two houses would be of great help to the civilians, and therefore, I would be an antifederalist.

The Resolution of Independence was the second continental congress avenue that involved all the thirteen colonies of Great Britain. Mainly, the conference was convened in Philadelphia for the states to adopt voting for the declaration of independence from Great Britain. This way, the declaration attracted twelve votes out of the total count of thirteen delegations. Hence, Congress considered it significant to proclaim the unanimous independence of Great Britain. Among the reasons for the convention of the congress meeting was the slave trade. Congress agreed that the slave trade would not be interfered with for 20 years (Exploring American Histories, 219). Delegates in Philadelphia had the issues on slavery in their minds.

Conclusion

In summary, the delegates supported the federation, in which the state and central government shared powers. However, they failed to agree on the way they would balance the power between the two. Additionally, they did not come into consensus on the degree of universal suffrage during the election of national leaders. Also, the states retained their rights to determine who would be eligible for voting through the constitution. However, the state government would control the elected leaders in terms of vetting the elected leaders into the central government. The delegates concluded that if the constitution were supported by at least nine states instead of the thirteen states, it would become America's law.