Category: American history

What constitutes a right? This is a controversial topic in today’s America and one that it seems many Americans are confused by. Part of the confusion has to be credited to manipulative politicians and their influence on the susceptible. The other part, simply put, is ignorance; those who do not know better either because they have yet to learn the facts or were otherwise ill-informed. Plainly stated, a right is an inherent ownership by the nature of a person’s creation, whereas a benefit is a payment or a privilege granted at the cost of another.

Many people today think that birth control or even healthcare is a right; this is not the case. These are benefits in that they require some form of confiscated payment in order to be acquired, largely at the cost of another. Rights, on the other hand, may require a cost to protect them, but they do not require payment at the cost of another. Rights are something that cannot be created by legislation nor are they granted by the government but rather, they precede it. Governments were only established to protect rights as depicted in the Declaration(s) of Independence, The Rights of Man and of The Citizen, and The Right of Woman and The Woman-Citizen. The Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (p 18), which was meant to convey to the British Monarchy that they possessed certain rights that government could not govern nor confiscate. Not only does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist prior to government establishment, but the right to protect it from forced confiscation or oppression is indivisible from the rights themselves. Benefits do not require protection, rather they must be taken because they are not inherently rights. Benefits can be anything from subsidies, healthcare, or any assistance granted by the government in which the payment comes from the collection of taxes. In The Rights of Man and of The Citizen, the National Assembly declares “All citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves or by their representatives, the necessity of the public tax, to consent to it freely, to follow the employment of it, and to determine the quota, the assessment, the collection, and the duration of it” (p 23), which depicts that rights do not depend on taxes or any form of payment but rather, it is the right of the people to regulate it as they see fit.

In short, rights apply to all people while benefits are only available to a defined group, subject to terms decided upon by an authority. As a matter of natural law, rights belong to all people which is why the first ten amendments were fused into the constitution, to serve as aides-mémoires. If they were fused with clauses pertaining to healthcare, birth control, or welfare, they would be known as the “Bill of Benefits” rather than the “Bill of Rights”. We have the right to pursue education, but we are not entitled to it.

The United States of America is one of the longest and leading democratic nations in the world. It thrives among many nations socio-economically. It boasts freedom of speech, religion, and property for the citizens, and enticing living conditions for immigrants wanting a better life. Separated from the Pacific Ocean is one of the few countries still practicing communism: The Republic of China. According to World Atlas, the Communist Party has been ruling the politics and economics of the country since 1949 when the group overthrew the Nationalist government. China has a growing economical influence around the world including in the United States. China and the United States are two examples of contrasting types of governments. The United States has long practiced representative democracy in which some people are elected by the citizens to govern the country in the interest of the people. China, with its long traditional Chinese culture, has evolved in adapting a few democratic systems to the government and has kept its communist governing. Communism is defined as a “political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control,”(Britannica). Communism, thus, opposes the means of political power of representatives. With opposing government styles, both somehow continue to prosper similarly. The type of governing style has split many people into supporting one or the other as they believe one is more effective and just than the other.

What makes a government good exactly? Oxford English Dictionary defines “good” as describing that the object described is up to satisfaction and worthy of approval. When describing governing as “good governing”, we are saying that the way of governing is satisfactory. But to whom should it be satisfactory? A country is ruled by the people. The government serves the people. Good governing means that the government is satisfying the citizens of the nation. Under the Declaration of Independence, it is stated that people are equal under the law. The excerpt, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men

The United States of America is one of the longest and leading democratic nations in the world. It thrives among many nations socio-economically. It boasts freedom of speech, religion, and property for the citizens, and enticing living conditions for immigrants wanting a better life. Separated from the Pacific Ocean is one of the few countries still practicing communism: The Republic of China. According to World Atlas, the Communist Party has been ruling the politics and economics of the country since 1949 when the group overthrew the Nationalist government. China has a growing economical influence around the world including in the United States. China and the United States are two examples of contrasting types of governments. The United States has long practiced representative democracy in which some people are elected by the citizens to govern the country in the interest of the people. China, with its long traditional Chinese culture, has evolved in adapting a few democratic systems to the government and has kept its communist governing. Communism is defined as a “political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control,”(Britannica). Communism, thus, opposes the means of political power of representatives. With opposing government styles, both somehow continue to prosper similarly. The type of governing style has split many people into supporting one or the other as they believe one is more effective and just than the other.

What makes a government good exactly? Oxford English Dictionary defines “good” as describing that the object described is up to satisfaction and worthy of approval. When describing governing as “good governing”, we are saying that the way of governing is satisfactory. But to whom should it be satisfactory? A country is ruled by the people. The government serves the people. Good governing means that the government is satisfying the citizens of the nation. Under the Declaration of Independence, it is stated that people are equal under the law. The excerpt, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,”(Declaration of Independence). All men are created equal. Freedom of speech, religion, property, and of the pursuit of happiness are some of the many rights inherent in the people born in the nation. When the citizens’ rights are honored and protected, the citizens are satisfied. Plato and Karl Marx are among the many authors that believe that the government should be created for the good of the people. Plato believed in the creation of a republic or representative democracy which is the type of government the United States has. In Plato’s “Republic”, he talks of the creation of a republic country to his student, Socrates. He talks of the inherent characteristics of men and the education they will gain to lead a country. From his work “Republic” is the quote “And in this way, the State and constitution of which we were speaking will soonest and most easily attain happiness, and the nation which has such a constitution will gain most,”(Republic 25). The quote concludes Plato’s idea of a prospering nation. He believes that when wise leaders govern a nation, the country will grow beautifully and that the people in it will be happy. On the other hand, Karl Marx believed in communism, in which the working class people collectively govern themselves. Marx protested that the bourgeois, or the “working class”, should have the right to lead the country as he believed that the working class people are the main contributor to a country’s survival and prosperity. His beliefs are written in his work “The Communist Manifesto” in which he argues that with the booming Industrialization, it is clearer that the bourgeoisie is the center of the growing economy. This is shown in the quote “We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange(Marx 15). Karl Marx believed that working citizens should have the right to property and lead the country, not a small group of representatives. He did not believe in a government ruling the people, he believed that the people rule themselves. Throughout history, we see that Plato’s republican system has made many countries, not just the United States, grow and continue to, over time. Therefore, I believe that having representatives to lead a country is a good principle. However, the political system of the United States, the country we live in, still has its flaw when it comes to the economic gap between the rich and the poor which is why I agree with the principle of Marx. Among the principles that these authors believe in, the three principles I agree to be essential to good governing are the principle of Plato that a good government should have a good leader, the principle of Marx that private property should be limited, and a mutual principle of these two authors that the people have the power over the government.

Good governing means that a country is governed by great leaders. In Plato’s work “Republic”, he talks about educating the minds of those who will lead the country. Throughout the reading, Plato explores the natural tendencies of human beings when it comes to decision-making. The excerpt opens up with the metaphor of a man born in a cave who sees sunlight after a long time. Plato reasons that a man has lived his life in the dark and finally sees the light, a man who becomes educated after being left in the dark, will see both sides of situations. He quotes “Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds…will not be too ready to laugh,”(Republic 7). This means that a man who experienced the same as any other person, who sees what another sees, will not be quick to judge and hastily make decisions that will not only benefit him alone. Plato also brings in the idea that a man who is taught righteousness will not give in to personal desires. This is seen in the quote “There are also opposite maxims and habits of pleasure which flatter and attract the soul but do not influence those of us who have any sense of right, and they continue to obey and honor the maxims of their fathers,”(Republic 23). As young men are shaped to be the leaders with the knowledge and morals they will form, Plato believes that they will be wise and selfless to make laws that will not benefit them selfishly but the people. Furthermore, Plato says “And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other,”(Republic 2). Plato’s argument here connects to how a man, or of many, will rule a government. He believes that with education and humility, these men will be brought up as unprejudiced and will make decisions that will benefit others and the majority. Additionally, Plato makes another point that women will also be treated equally under the law which is seen in the line “There you are right, he said, since we have made them to share in things like the men,”(Republic 24). Plato brings in equal rights between men and women in a country that will be governed by wise leaders. A great leader is wise, humble, selfless, and just. These are some characteristics Plato believes a great leader will gain as they are shaped to be. With great leaders leading the government, the people and the nation itself will be able to grow and be happy.

A country should have private properties limited. We have witnessed in history that the practice of pure communism has failed in countries like China and the Soviet Union. Even now, North Korea, one of the very few that still has a communist government, has not been able to grow its economy and its general way of living. While pure communism may not work, Karl Marx’s idea of limited private properties will help the economic gap we are witnessing in the country. Since Industrialization started, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased over time and still has a long way to be minimized. Society in America has been divided into classes based on their economic abilities. While the middle class earns a fairly average income, the lower middle class struggles to finance their basic needs and the upper class continues to earn largely more than their living needs. According to Washington Post, the income of the richest 20 percent of families in America is ten times more than the average of the poorest fifth. Just like what Karl Marx strongly believes in, the middle class makes up the majority of the economy, and yet the middle class and the lower class are barely able to earn enough to sustain their basic human needs. Marx quotes “But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few,”(The Communist Manifesto 22). Marx argues that private ownership is a way of exploiting the majority for the few to gain from. In a capitalist country where there is very limited government intervention, the middle class makes up the majority of the workforce but struggles financially and the few who own the large corporations that make up the economy continue to earn more and more from the labor of the lower class. Certainly, the collective ownership of the businesses among the citizens will not work now, limiting private ownerships will help minimize the gap in which the working class people would have a fair chance of competing in a “winner takes all” world and lessen, even remove, the concern of meeting their family’s basic human needs.

Ultimately, while Plato and Marx clash on what kind of government they support and on what basis will they operate, the two still share the same sentiment that the people have power over the government. In the Declaration of Independence, it mentions that “It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government,(US 1776). People, if they feel that the government is violating their rights as citizens or if the laws are not protecting them, they have the right to change it. This is seen in the quote “For they are just men, and the commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern necessity,”(Republic 4). Plato emphasizes the importance of great leaders throughout his work “Republic”. Plato puts absolute faith that wise men will make decisions that will benefit the citizens equally. With this, as leaders make decisions for the good of the people, it is said that the people will have influence over the government’s actions. Moreover, Ralph Waldo Emerson, another author who advocates democracy, quotes in his work “Politics” that “In dealing with the State, we ought to remember that its institutions are not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born: that they are not superior to the citizen,”(Politics 1). Emerson explains that the institution or the government does not have authority over the citizens and cannot abuse their powers to exploit the people. In addition, Emerson remarks“that every one of them was once the act of a single man: every law and usage was a man’s expedient to meet a particular case: that they all are imitable, all alterable; we may make as good; we may make better,”(Politics 1). The representatives that will govern are chosen by the people, are still a part of the people, and the laws that they make are for the good of the people. The laws that they create, if it does not meet the people’s needs, can be changed by the people themselves. Another piece of evidence supporting this principle is a quote from Karl Marx. Though, the writer advocates for no government but the people governing themselves, he still believes that the people have the power. He mentions several times the power the bourgeoisie has, whether to overthrow a government or to build its own. This is shown in the quote “The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country,”(Marx 16). Marx repeatedly emphasizes that the working class largely makes up the economy in his manifesto. He vehemently highlights that the working class, the people, have the power to govern themselves. Conclusively, it is important that a government, even with representatives elected to make the laws, will still be under the influence of the nation’s citizens. The representatives will lead and make certain that implemented rulings will be in the interest of the people.

With a representative democratic government, the United States has been a primary example of a successful nation in which citizens thrive socially and economically compared to any other nation. The way of living of the nation’s citizens has improved and continues to improve. The principles that they follow have resulted in satisfying the citizens. Though, the US government system still has its own flaw. With the growing economic inequality between the classes within the country is still an issue that needs to be solved. A good government will have wise and just leaders who will make, alter and enforce laws. These laws will not discriminate against people by their gender, color, age, religion, or beliefs. A good government will consider all citizens’ satisfaction and not just the interest of the wealthy. It will do its best to give citizens a fair chance of competing in a capitalist economy. Limiting private properties is one way to do this. Finally, a good government means that the people will have control over it if it violates or does not honor their rights under the law. The people will have the power to change the laws or re-elect the representatives if they deem that their rights are violated. These three principles derived from Plato and Karl Marx’s works will overall make up a good government that satisfies all.

The American comprehension of liberty has become the guiding light for the majority of countries. Thousands of people from all over the world come to the United States every year, hoping to pursue a better future for themselves and their families. However, Americans have come a long way to find themselves in the place they are now. Major milestones following American history are inscribed in the number of documents, to which people refer in pursuit of freedom and happiness. Some of the most significant of them are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (). The first document, serving as a catalyst for creating the American nation in 1776, is a splendid example of celebrating freedom. While it was not common for people in the 18th century to talk about equality, the Declaration of Independence introduced this notion to the broad public. However, while millions of people across the globe look up to the American Promise, Americans themselves cannot cope with this belief.

The American Promise is attractive not only to the residents of small countries but to those of big nations as well. Citizens of China and Russia are sometimes obsessed with America’s interpretation of liberty. The major reason behind this lies in the fact that these counties have risen as a result of continuous formation and dynasty ruling. America, in its turn, has initially derived from a number of ethnicities and beliefs. Thus, the diversity celebration was the only way to unite such a big and varied nation.

Historically, since the exploration of American lands, the territory of the United States was divided between various European colonists. Hence, Native Americans did not have a chance to experience the feeling of individual freedom due to slavery and constant humiliation. With the emergence of the United States of America, both the Declaration of Independence and the first-ever American Constitution estimated the formation of a free state on the lands of hundreds of colonies (). To men and women of that time, such a step meant the possibility to fulfill their deepest desires after years of discrimination.

In order to keep the American Promise, Americans have been fighting for human freedom for centuries. The US is one of the few countries where people can live to their fullest regardless of skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. As the main gist behind the American Promise was to celebrate diversity while remaining a united nation, it might be said that this objective has failed over the years. Although any discrimination in terms of human diversity is now prohibited by law, the notion of unity is still alien to US residents. News is now replete with reports concerning mass shootings on the grounds of racial and sex discrimination.

The history and development of each nation depend highly on ideas and beliefs that unite the state. In the case of the United States, the American Promise has become the primary goal behind the nation’s existence. However, while this promise has become crucial for other countries to follow, Americans themselves fail to bring it to life. Such dissonance is caused by capitalistic social gaps, inappropriately high levels of individualism, and political ignorance. Thus, current Americans’ objective is to unite in order to empower the country without breaking their individualistic borders, as was intended by the original American Promise.

According to Lao Tzu, when there is no desire, everything is peaceful. Lao Tzu considers people to be very materialistic and selfish; they just want to be stronger than others. He states that people are trying an easier way to get what they want. The simplest way is to use fear and greed. This materialism leads in turn to bad things. Laos claims that if people like their assets, they start to steal. He concluded that for individuals to have true happiness and to become truly strong and better, they must free themselves from these things.

I think his opinions are practical and reasonable. To a certain extent, the truth is due to the selfish desires of man, today many bad things happen in our society. However, to a greater extent, it is also because of the material desire of the developing human being. If we do not want, we do not grow and life will not change. It is thanks to our desire to become strong that there is a lot of development between countries and cooperation. I think it was an ideology to write and pass the Declaration of Independence because it brought more freedom to the colonialists, it gave justice and gave people freedom.

The colonists liked the idea of the Declaration of Independence because it freed them from the Acts passed by the highest authorities that the colonists did not really support. These Acts limited settlers and claimed to free them from these restrictions. These two pieces do differ in their audience and subject – Jefferson speaks to the entire world about the colonies breaking away and their rights as people, while Stanton speaks to a conference of women about gaining rights for women. But I think most of the effect depends on the parody of the Declaration of Independence. What Cady Stanton did is make a spin-off of the original but instead of listing off the wrongs of the King of Britain she stated the wrongs of men, did showed men as the antagonist instead of the King. This creates a totally different effect than the original but the overall concept is what stays the same throughout the parody. These two works differ in subject and theme – Jefferson talks to the world about colonies and their rights as people. while Stanton tells a women’s conference about gaining more rights for women. But I think the effect depends largely on the parody of the Declaration of Independence. What Cady Stanton did was to make a difference from the original, but instead of listing the wrongs of the King of England, she declared the wrongs of men, showing that they were wrong about women. This creates a completely different effect from Jefferson’s idea but the general concept is what remains the same during the parody. She used Jefferson’s declaration to strengthen her own. I do not think in today’s society any leader should use all the Machiavelli ideas.

A leader of our society should know the location of the land and understand where all their citizens come from. As Machiavelli said this way, if we were fighting, they would understand the location of the lands in other countries. In the case of the United States, they can use the influence of citizens to better understand the customs of nations other than the land. If we understand other countries, we can solve problems without violence.

Slavery was introduced when Africans arrived in Jamestown in 1619. They were known as indentured servants who would help grow crops such as tobacco. Years later, slavery became one of the most controversial events in the United States. Slavery would cause the separation of the northern and southern states of the country. It would also lead to many abolition movements and to an important war which is the American Civil War. Slavery would soon end with the Emancipation Proclamation written by Abraham Lincoln. People in the southern states were in favor of slavery. Even though slavery was very bad and an evil way to mistreat African Americans, pro-slavery people such as David Christy and Roger B. Taney made justifiable arguments that slavery could be beneficial for the United States. Anti-slavery people such as Frederick Douglass and David Walker were against slavery and made arguments that the United States would be better off without slavery. This paper will talk about David Christy, Roger B. Taney, David Walker, and Frederick Douglass’ arguments towards slavery and how they tie to important themes such as capitalism, democracy, and difference.

The meaning of capitalism is a system where private citizens would own their businesses and resources, or markets could run their businesses their own way without the interference of the government. While the North would work with factories and mills, the South would use slaves to grow their crops. Farmers in the South believed that it would be difficult for them to grow their crops, so they decided to buy slaves because it would be easier for farmers and they don’t have to pay their slaves and save a lot of money. Slave labor in the South led to many crops grown such as tobacco and cotton. David Christy, who was in favor of having slavery in the South, wrote a book called “King Cotton,” which argued that with the “industry, skill, and enterprise employed in the manufacture of cotton, mankind is better clothed” (Christy, 55-6). Christy argued that slave labor had a positive effect on the economy and without slaves, cotton would not be grown, and people would not have enough clothing to have.

Democracy means power was given to the people. In 1836, Roger B. Taney was appointed Chief Justice by Andrew Jackson. Taney explained that the Declaration of Independence does say that all “men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” however, the African Americans were “not intended to be included” (Taney 756-758). Taney also argued that slaves were brought to the United States before even a government was ever made and they were known as “articles of merchandise” (Taney 756-758). Taney argued that in the Constitution it had two clauses. One of them is the “right to purchase and hold this property is directly sanctioned and authorized for twenty years by the people who framed the Constitution,”(Taney 756-758) meaning that slave owners have the right to purchase slaves without any interference. Taney does tie in with democracy because he does use his power that was given by Andrew Jackson and gave certain points that would support his argument when mentioning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

David Walker was a free African American from Boston, Massachusetts. Walker wrote a pamphlet called the “Appeal” that would argue about the Declaration of Independence. In a frustrated manner, Walker would explain to Americans to read back one of the most important lines in the Declaration of Independence, which says “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Walker), and claiming why Americans are mistreating African Americans instead of following the practice after the United States won their independence. Walker mentions that slave owners do not want their slaves to read the appeal because they’re afraid of being exposed to who they really are and don’t want to create conflict with their slaves. Walker used democracy in his argument because he created a pamphlet for slaves to read and it would motivate them to create abolition movements and to fight for their rights.

Frederick Douglass was an abolitionist in the United States who escaped slavery. Douglass would use differences when making an argument about why he did not decide to celebrate the Fourth of July. He explains that the United States before gaining independence was known as the thirteen colonies and was mistreated by the British government. Douglass says that he does show respect for the Founding Fathers who risked “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the cause of their country,” (Douglass) but when it comes to liberty, they “lost sight of all interests” (Douglass). Douglass also states that celebrating the Fourth of July would not be a good idea for slaves because it celebrates the freedom of the United States from Great Britain, but it does not give freedom to slaves because of the mistreatment of the Americans towards them.

I’ve explained two pro-slavery and anti-slavery readings by David Christy, Roger B. Taney, David Walker, and Frederick Douglass and how these readings would tie to democracy, difference, and capitalism. Even though the pro-slavery readings sounded very absurd and it was in favor of slavery, they explained justifiable reasons why slavery was a good resource in the South. Anti-slavery also gave good reasons why slavery should no longer be needed in the United States and why it was so harsh.

When in the course of human rights and events collide, it becomes necessary for our people to diminish political bands which have affixed me and my peers to intolerable restrictions and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which Laws of nature and of the nature´s God entitled them to decent respect to the opinions that mankind is obliged to declare these causes which impel them to become sovereign. we are not going to be so fooled and betrayed with a kiss of falsehood and tribulation. Is it not entirely obvious to expiate ourselves from the ties of maniacal and absurd autocracy? I stand for myself and also for the students of Porter High School, we will bind ourselves together and stand up with the hunger of thousands of students demanding change, for it is our bestowed right to stand up for what is righteous and prominently auspicious.

We the students of Porter High School hold these truths to be self-evident: That it is necessary to align our forces together to unify together as one in order to formulate a common stronghold, and that the united shall allow for the dissolution of afflicting regulations and pity stipulation imposed upon us by New Caney ISD and the tyrant King Harris. It is completely unjust to notify the fact that we are being used as slaves to run their bureaucracy of mundane proportions and irrational dogma. It is not our duty to indicate such tyranny for the greater good and benevolent cause?

Let it be renowned that we are entitled to certain rights as high school students, by way of explanation. We have the right to happiness, judiciousness, physical well-being, expression, and proper accommodations. We have been held in the domain of this school for an excessive proportion of our time. Itisunmandatory that we are obligated as rightful students to tolerate such compelling systemization is it not? We as students must and are entitled to these natural rights and are obliged to them, it is our civil duty to call to this herald of jubilation and emancipation.

The reasoning for this righteous paradigm is that we demand an organized and beneficial system where students are not allowed to make their own independent decisions. Our grievances are by the thousands, But these are our mandatory reasons and speculations for why it is necessary to secede.

The school enforces excessive amounts of homework. The school has a set and rather dubious starting time that is extremely early. The school restricts the basic necessities in clothing and apparel. The school officials are very unreliable when enforcing well-established behavior from the undesirable. The school has a very ludicrous transportation system.

We have been patient and conformed to the norms of society for far too long, previously we tried to do the homework but it is too much, we tried packing on the busses, and finally, we tried conforming to the dress code but enough is enough.

We, therefore, represent the student body of Porter High School in this appeal of these absurd problems we as children and young Americans face each day. We will no longer be trifled with, for we are independent and capable of seizing our demands. We mutually pledge to each other, our lives, freedom, future, and our sacred education

The historic context in which the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence take place is the Age of Reason, also recognized as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a cultural movement in the eighteenth century that emphasized reason over superstition and science over blind faith. Using the power of the press, Enlightenment thinkers developed new thoughts about open-mindedness, inner investigation, and tolerance in Europe and America. Several of the concepts that dominated Enlightenment thought: rationalism, empiricism, progressivism, and cosmopolitanism.

Rationalism is the concept that people are successful while using of their rationality to attain knowledge. This used to be far away from the prevailing thinking that human beings wished to rely on scripture and religion to achieve knowledge. Above all, Enlightenment thinkers tried to be driven by the usage of reason, not prejudice.

The English Bill of Rights was an act signed in 1689 with the aid of William III and Mary II. The bill outlined precise constitutional and civil rights and started to give Parliament power over the monarchy. Many experts regard the English Bill of Rights as the primary regulation that set the stage for a constitutional monarchy in England. The two leaders formed a monarchy but they agreed to furnish Parliament with higher rights and power. The Bill of Rights condemned King James II for abusing of his strength and declared that the monarchy couldn’t rule without the consent of the Parliament.

Most of all, the Bill of Rights restricted the range of the monarchy, accelerated the strengthening of Parliament, and outlined the special rights of individuals.

The United States Declaration of Independence is the pronouncement adopted during the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, on July 4, 1776. The Declaration described why the Thirteen Colonies in struggle with the Kingdom of Great Britain saw themselves as 13 independent sovereign states, no longer beneath British rule. With the Declaration, these new states took a collective first step toward forming the United States of America.

Many of the concern matters and philosophies that we can find in the English Bill of Rights were a source of inspiration for the thoughts that brought to the American Declaration of Independence. The main concepts fixed in it are indisputable truths: anybody is created equal, with unalienable rights, that are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The Preamble has expressed a well-known philosophy of government that justifies revolution.

Political and philosophical thought on which these two constitutions are based is fundamental to understanding the historical period.

Many historians are genuinely convinced that the thoughts of the English freethinker John Locke highly influenced the matter of the Bill of Rights. Locke proposed that the function of the authorities is to protect citizens’ natural rights.

The English Bill of Rights stimulated a new sensibility in which the rights and freedom of men and women would have been protected. The king did not preserve absolute power, as Hobbes said, however, acted to defend the natural rights of the people. If a sovereign violated these rights, the social contract used to be broken, and the people had the right to rebel and set up a new government. Thomas Jefferson used this concept in writing the Declaration of Independence.

Another philosopher who influenced the mentality of the time is Montesquieu, he conceived the thinking of sharing authority into the three most important branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. This new point of view influenced the authors of the Constitution concerning the organizing and the division of political powers and in addition the inclusion of laws due to preserve individual liberties. Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Montesquieu believed that in the kingdom of nature, human beings would have gone towards violence and war. Montesquieu did now not describe a social contract, he wrote that the most fundamental aim of authorities is to preserve regulation and order, political liberty, and the property of the individual.

Moreover, J.J. Rousseau described savages in the kingdom of nature as free, equal, peaceful, and happy. When human beings started out to claim possession of property, Rousseau argued, inequality, murder, and fighting resulted.

Rousseau describes how democracy would work. There would be an authority of sorts, entrusted with administering the normal will. But it would be composed of more officials who bought their orders from the people.

Rousseau realized that democracy as he anticipated it would be difficult to maintain. He warned, ‘ As quickly as any man says of the affairs of the State, ‘What does it count number to me?’ the State may additionally be given up for lost.’

Enlightenment philosophers John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all developed theories of the authorities in which people would govern. These thinkers had a profound effect on the American and French revolutions and on the democratic governments that they produced.

The question of whether American national identity is political seems to have a simple answer as the myth of the founding fathers and the reverence for the documents they wrote seems to be so strong in the collective consciousness of the people. Of course, it’s a political concept as the liberal basis of the Constitution lays out the right rights of all people. But the answer is not so simple. There are actually many threads that tie together the idea of the United States as a nation, it can be argued that Protestantism, American Exceptionalism, and the exclusion of the Other, all contributed to the American Identity, demonstrating that it is insufficient to see national identity as a primarily political concept is flawed.

The idea that American national identity began in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence is flawed and fails to recognize the fact that The United States was not particularly united at this time. Before the Declaration of Independence, people did not identify with the label of American, rather they would identify as being British or they would identify themselves as being from their states. In January 1760 Benjamin Franklin saw Wolfe’s defeat in the Battle of Quebec and proudly declared, ‘I am a Briton.’ then in July 1776, Franklin signed the Declaration which renounced his British identity. Historian Samuel P. Huntington argues that ‘In a few years Franklin transformed himself from a Briton into an American’, but ‘American’ was not an identifier that was used ubiquitously among even the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson often referred to Virginia as his ‘nation’. This shows that at this point the concept of American as a national identity was not well established and the only thing that ties the states together into a larger ‘nation’ is the political legislation, such as the Articles of Confederation which was signed in 1777. However, there is growing tension between the Northern and Southern states in the years between the Articles of Confederation and the Civil War, national identity competes with state identities as the North and South struggled to civilly reconcile the ideological differences between them. John C. Calhoun, vice president under Adams and Jackson, said that he never uses the word ‘nation’ when speaking of the United States. This is further evidence at this time America was less of a nation and far more of a collection of individual states. America has to lean into the political aspect of its national identity because as a very young country, they have to try to create a history for people to look back on. The American national identity seemingly could not be a historical one based on myths around the birth of the country as the country has such a short history but in the first major history book of the American nation; ‘History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent to the present’ which had ten volumes that were published between 1834 and 1874. It frames the beginning of America, not being the independence declared in 1776, but rather in 1492 when Columbus ‘founded’ the continent. Which appears to be an attempt to give the country a longer, more ancient history to draw a sense of national pride from. This shows an attempt to widen American national identity away from its very politicized roots to make it more of a broader cultural idea.

Seemingly, nothing is more key to American national identity than classical liberalism and the reverence of the founding fathers. Core American values are heavily drawn from the nation’s founding documents and the authors of them drew heavy inspiration from French Liberalism and the Enlightenment, the Founding Fathers emphasized the importance of the Enlightenment’s value of self-determination within the Declaration of Independence. First, they believed in an individual as the core element of society, who had the right to freedom, happiness, and self-development. In Jefferson’s approach to the problems of equality and inalienable human rights to life and liberty, it is seemingly easy to trace back to the influence of the ideas of liberalism of the English philosopher John Locke. The series of events that led to the American war for independence is very key to the national identity, there is a sort of mythology surrounding the beginning of the war and the founding fathers, when in reality, what set off the revolution was tax disputes. This highlights the national identity as being heavily based on liberal thinking, as the revolutionary sentiment was originally ‘no taxation without representation’ which is simply just the idea that government should be representative and serve the will of the people which is a liberal ideal. The Founding Fathers assumed the idea of ‘the social agreement between the government and free individuals. The Declaration of Independence states that people ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ which would seem to be a political and neutral statement about the rights of all American people but given that a large majority of the Founding Fathers owned slaves which suggests that maybe the American national identity is not as political as it first appears.

The idea that America was founded on political pretenses and was a noble stance against the British monarchy and for liberalism and freedom is such a strong cultural idea that is so closely tied to the American national identity that it seems almost impossible to separate them. However, it is evident that the reverence for the Founding Fathers shows the hypocrisy of the American identity and the way that the national identity is tied to the ideas set out in the founding documents seems to deliberately ignore the fact that many people in America were not treated in a way that aligned with the founding principles.

One of the most important aspects of American national identity is who is, and isn’t, allowed to be an America, the exclusive nature of it can be argued to be a part of the identity itself. The vision for America and its inclusivity is far different from its reality. Thomas Paine in Common Sense, a pamphlet published in 1776, called America ‘an asylum for mankind’- seeming to set a welcoming identity for people seeking refuge, but it seems that this idea did not have a practical effect on American national identity, as while America was a popular place for European immigrants, in reality, America was a very hostile place for many people. Thomas Jefferson in 1817 described the US as a ‘sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climates’ this is clear evidence that America is only a refuge for Europeans which perpetuates the idea that while America is a country of immigrants, they should all be white. It seems clear that being non-white and non-christian excluded you from fitting within the category of American, this can be seen in the discriminatory laws that were commonplace. In the context of 1776 – 1896, there were many laws that prevented people from being able to integrate into American society, for example, the Jim Crow laws of 1887 excluded

Today’s core principles of American political thought were greatly influenced and shaped by our nation’s past. Just like people are shaped by their past experiences, so was our country. The focus of this paper will begin with the diversifying of our nation during the early colonial period and will end with the ratification of the Constitution after becoming an independent nation. I believe American political thought came from events such as the early colonial period, the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, and finally, the Constitution.

The early colonial period (1607 – 1775) greatly affected American political thought because it was at this time period when our nation started introducing concepts such as private property and self-government. At the beginning of this period, people from Britain started moving to America to seek greater economic opportunities and religious freedom. And because of this increasing independence, caused settlers to start growing away from being “English” and becoming “American”. Furthermore, the assimilation of the British also reinforced the blending of other national groups and cultures, diversifying America.

The Enlightenment period (1685 – 1815) was the birth of many philosophies later used in the American Revolution. The Enlightenment ideas were the main influence for American colonies to become their own nation. Many people contributed to the ideals born in this period and ultimately contributed to American political thought. Montesquieu introduced the idea of having strong laws and rules. Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduced the idea of having a document about how the government should protect society and its citizens. John Locke introduced the idea of identity and selfhood. And Thomas Hobbes introduced the idea of how people come together agreeing to abide by common rules to protect themselves and others. Together, these philosophies were later adapted to our nation, and we still live by them today.

The Declaration of Independence (1776) was when America put into effect everything it had learned in the past. The Enlightenment ideals had a huge impact on America’s independence. And this ultimately led to America pushing for independence, having learned values and its identity from previous periods. America had a sense of pride in its diversity that came from the early colonial period and a sense of philosophy that came from the Enlightenment period.

And finally, the Constitution (1787) was the document that made America’s thirteen colonies a united nation called the United States of America. The Constitution helped shape America by establishing a national government, laws, and basic rights for its citizens. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was implemented to avoid the government from gaining too much control like Britain in the early colonial era. The Constitution marked the beginning of a new era, one based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are four very important periods and events that helped shape American political thought as we know it today, by diversifying our nation and by giving us philosophies to live by. Without these periods and events, America would not be what it is today.

Jamestown and Plymouth are two significant early English settlements in North America. While both colonies were established by English settlers seeking a new life in the New World, there are notable differences in their origins, motivations, governance, and interactions with the Native Americans. This essay will compare and contrast the colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth, shedding light on their similarities and differences.

One key difference between Jamestown and Plymouth lies in their origins and motivations. Jamestown, founded in 1607, was primarily driven by economic interests. The Virginia Company of London established the settlement as a profit-seeking venture, aiming to exploit the abundant natural resources of the New World, particularly tobacco cultivation. On the other hand, Plymouth, established in 1620 by the Pilgrims, had religious motivations. The Pilgrims sought a place where they could practice their faith freely and establish a community based on their religious principles.

Another contrast between the two colonies is evident in their governance systems. Jamestown operated under a corporate charter, with the Virginia Company maintaining control over the colony’s affairs. The colony had a hierarchical structure, with appointed governors and an elected assembly known as the House of Burgesses. In contrast, Plymouth implemented the Mayflower Compact, a self-governing agreement drafted by the Pilgrims themselves. This document established a democratic system in which decisions were made collectively by the male settlers through town meetings.

The relationships with Native Americans also differed between Jamestown and Plymouth. Jamestown experienced significant conflicts with the indigenous Powhatan Confederacy. Initial encounters were tense, marked by misunderstandings, violence, and the Powhatans’ reluctance to share their resources with the English settlers. The strained relations eventually led to sporadic warfare and the encroachment of Native lands. In contrast, Plymouth’s early interactions with the Wampanoag tribe, notably with the help of the renowned Native American leader Squanto, were more peaceful. The Pilgrims established a mutually beneficial relationship with the Wampanoag, resulting in alliances, trade, and assistance in survival skills.

Despite their differences, Jamestown and Plymouth faced similar challenges in their early years. Both colonies struggled with harsh environments, limited resources, and disease outbreaks. In Jamestown, the settlers faced high mortality rates due to diseases like malaria and dysentery, as well as food shortages during the infamous “starving time” of 1609-1610. Similarly, Plymouth’s first winter was harsh, resulting in the death of nearly half of the original settlers. However, both colonies demonstrated resilience and adaptability in overcoming these challenges and establishing more stable communities.

In conclusion, Jamestown and Plymouth were two distinct English colonies established in North America during the early 17th century. Jamestown focused on economic gain, while Plymouth was driven by religious motivations. Their governance systems, relationships with Native Americans, and early challenges differed significantly. Jamestown operated under a corporate charter and had tumultuous interactions with the Powhatan Confederacy, while Plymouth implemented the Mayflower Compact and established peaceful relations with the Wampanoag tribe. However, both colonies faced difficulties and ultimately shaped the foundation of European colonization in the New World. Despite their contrasting origins and experiences, Jamestown and Plymouth remain integral parts of American history, representing different aspects of the early colonial period.