Forming a New Nation

After reviewing such topics as the 'branches' or bias of a collection of opinions and choices available to the congress in the late 1700's and early 1800's when our country broke free from British rule and decided to start up a land and nation of their own, I've collected data and general facts about these two groups. They were called the Federalists and the Antifederalists. For example, the Federalists focused on a strong, central government, and wanted to gain revenue from the debts they had made during the Revolutionary war by taxing Alcohol and putting high tariffs on products. The Antifederalists on the other hand were against a strong central government, had the 'agrarian ideal', believed local representation was the best choice, and decided that that as farmers (which most of them were) they would vote for their own best interest, and will improve where it is most needed.

Although there was an inkling of republicanism, the 'Republican' party had yet to assemble in the way they are today. In addition, there was no 'Democratic' party either. To me, it seems that the Federalist party would advance to become mainly what is considered the Republican party these days, at least for the most part. Made up of wealthy people who want to charge high taxes for making up debt seems to be quite prevalent in today's society as well. That being said, it would be natural to call the Antifederalists the Democratic party. They're generally more peoples' choice based, which also seems to be a general thought process of today's society, with the people as the main focus.

Personally, I've chosen not to join a political party, unless you'd like to group Independents together. I have yet to find the sense in voting for someone because they're on the same 'side' as you. Was it like this as well in the past as it is now in the present? Will it be like this in the future? I believe we should take everyone at face value, let them present their issues of concern and concentration, and evaluate from there. These prejudices have built walls around our society, and I'm nearly positive they would have back then as well. There's my five cents.

Cruelty of many Faces

Now we all know the story of how the British taxed the colonists so heavily that they weren't making a profit off of their work nor were they hardly even scraping by. And then, after the people had enough of that, we brought the pain on the British and joined together, took a long hard trip through the wilderness in the middle of winter, sacrificed a lot of our men to poor nutrition and ill health, but then we decided to cross the Delaware river in mid December, attack the opposing side in their drunken stupor, and eventually we overcame British rule by kickin' their butts.

But that story makes it sound like the Americans didn't do anything out of the question, or at least questionable. But as a matter of fact, there were certain colonists who, in my own opinion, took their suppression a little out of hand. Not all of them were involved in these radical groups, or more commonly known as mobs, but still, this doesn't weaken the impact of what was performed.

Yes, I understand that the British had the best military in the world, that they had the best equipment and weapons, and the colonists only had clubs or very weak guns and such to fight in combat. I also realize that the British were unfair in charging the colonists for their own debt that tripled over the Seven Years War, but that doesn't mean that acting out in violence that causes personal harm or death is acceptable. I still believe that there could have been non-violent to go about protesting instead of tar and feathering people, burning and beheading effigies of certain members of Parliament or tax collectors, and then coming after them, destroying everything in their way.

I know that many people think that since I wasn't there, I wouldn't really know the answer to this, nor do I have evidence that it would have worked, but I do believe in violence as a last resort. Did the think to all join in as one united force and protest these people? They could have surrounded Parliament and protested, either silently or verbally, but they didn't need to lead to such extents to end up in a British Massacre. Maybe we wouldn't look as glorious as we Americans now perceive our history to be, but if it did work, and we still had Washington to lead the small army across the Delaware River, and we did successfully overrule the British rule, would that change the way we handle situations now? Would we turn to protests and non-violent action before we thought of punching someone in the face?

I know this is a stretch and a half, but its food for thought. These small bits of history, if only they were changed or erased, could they make a difference today?

Misconceptions and Preconceptions

The French and Indian War had been quite a befuddling notion to me before I took this class. Heck, any history class I've been in has always led to confusion as to what really happened. The professors (most of the time) seemed to start up on a rant about what they thought it was about, and their view on it, mumbling on and on about something that turned out to be nothing about the original concept. This may explain why my strong suit has not been in my History classes.

Interestingly enough though, I find it relieving and enlightening to find out interesting facts about this war, especially through the simplest of things such as its name. Despite my childhood favorite PBS show, Liberty Kids, I still had failed to understand who was on who's side. I had figured that the French and the Indians were against each other, and somehow the British and the pioneers and settlers were coming in for the fight as well. I have found out through lecture though, that my conjecture was not even the slightest bit right. According to our history lecture, it was the British's point of view on the war, and chose to exclude their name in the title. They also excluded the people of which originated from Britain; the settlers. Still, the name sounds vague, and is often confused (but considering the British, they may have wanted it that way.) Instead I found out recently that it were the French and the 'Indians' that worked together to fight the British for more of the unclaimed, or previously claimed land. An interesting way to word the title of a great war, though, as if excluding yourself from the title would show less blame on your part.

That's just one misconception that I've had fixed and figured in my mind. With all luck, there will be more misconceptions and preconceptions reversed and set right in the lectures soon to come.