Chapter 5. Building a Republican Government (1783-1799)

Table of Contents

Beginning the Journey
By far the greatest single module for sources on this era is "The Constitution and Supreme Court," which contains excellent information on all of the key questions associated with the formation of the national government after the Revolution. This module is especially strong in covering all aspects of the debate over the Constitution, and it reproduces an extensive collection of contemporary propaganda on both sides of the issue.

The "Key Topics" section of the module is a good place to begin, as it can direct users to several topical discussions about important aspects of the Constitution's origins. The "Years" function also yields fruitful results in the search for information on this era.

Other modules relevant to this time period are "Civil Rights" and "Westward Expansion." Users looking for information on the period between the end of the Revolution and the end of the eighteenth century are advised to utilize the "Years" functions in those modules and to scan the "Key Topics."

The activities below are designed to introduce users to a variety of the important issues that surrounded the formation of the early U.S. republic.

Activity 1
The Treaty of Paris awarded a great swath of territory to the new United States. And under the Articles of Confederation the individual states ceded their western land claims to the Confederation government. (Recall that this was a sine qua non for approval of the Articles.)

One of the first challenges facing the nation after the Revolution was dealing with these lands. First, the government negotiated treaties with Native Americans to eliminate their threat to new American settlements. Then it passed two important laws systematizing settlement in the western lands and laying out steps by which newly settled territories could become states.

Within the module "Westward Expansion," locate the following sources:

• "Fort Stanwix Treaty"
• "Land Ordinance of 1785"
• "Plat of the Seven Ranges of Townships Northwest of the Ohio River"
• "Territorial Ordinance of 1787."

One way to locate these documents is to go to "Contents," then "Regions," then "Trans-Allegheny Midwest." You can then scroll down to the individual titles.

Use the sources to answer the following questions.

1. Outline the provisions of the Fort Stanwix Treaty. What does each signatory gain? What does each give up? Which side appears to get the better end of the deal? Why?
2. What does the first document suggest about the importance of land to the new United States? (Pay special attention to the date that the treaty was negotiated.) How does the treaty pave the way for future U.S. policy?
3. The Land Ordinance of 1785 constituted the first effort of the Congress of the Confederation to formulate a national land policy. What are the most important components of the law? How does it reveal cooperation among the states? How was it motivated by the new nation's need for funds? What does the Land Ordinance reveal about the new nation's position on education?
4. The image illustrating the plot system called for in the Land Ordinance demonstrates clearly the orderly grid pattern of township designations (a pattern, incidentally, that was followed all the way to the Pacific Ocean). How does this development pattern manifest itself today?
5. The last document, commonly called the Northwest Ordinance, marks the culmination of U.S. policy on territorial government. What are its most important features, and why are they important? (Think especially about the provisions regarding religion, slavery, and statehood.) How does this ordinance illustrate American national identity at the time?

Activity 2
Dealing with the western lands was one of the first priorities of the Confederation Congress in the period after the Revolution. Getting the nation's economy on a strong footing was another, although solving this problem was much more difficult than handling the land situation.

The War for Independence had been very costly, and the nation had been forced to borrow much of what it needed to fight. Making good on this debt would be difficult, particularly at a time when the Articles of Confederation prohibited the central government from levying taxes. Empowered only to request funds from the individual states, the Confederation Congress rarely received sufficient funding.

Fears about the limited economic powers granted to Congress under the Articles of Confederation had actually been expressed even before they were ratified by those who were convinced that only a strong central government with significant revenue-raising powers could protect the new nation from financial ruin. Exploring these critiques reveals much about the influence of the experience with England, as well as the conviction of the reformers that a nation's greatness lay in economic stability.

Within the module "The Constitution and Supreme Court," go to "Criticisms of the Articles of Confederation." (One way to locate this document is to go to "Contents," then "Authors," then "H," then "Hamilton, Alexander, and Robert Morris." Then click on the document title.)

Use the document to answer the following questions.

1. How does this document view the weaknesses of the Confederation Congress on economic and financial questions? Why do the authors believe that strengthening this aspect of the national government's authority is essential? Be specific.
2. The authors move far beyond economic and financial questions in critiquing the Articles. What other defects and shortcomings do they note? Which seems to trouble them the most? Why?
3. Why might the critique of the Articles contained here--and the implicit call for a stronger national government--have been unpopular with some Americans at the time? Why were some calling for a deliberately weak central government?
4. How accurate were the authors of this document in their reasons why the national government had to have significant economic and financial powers? Were they realistic in their thinking? Explain.
5. As events turned out, the authors of this document were correct about the havoc that the Articles' economic provisions would wreak on the new nation. What does the actual course of events say about their prescience? About the real role that economics play in national survival? About the role of economic power in a nation's overall international standing?

Activity 3
Religious freedom was important to the American colonists from the earliest settlements. It was no less important as the nation embarked on independence after the Revolution.

Just a few years after the Treaty of Paris was signed, the state of Virginia acted to guarantee religious rights within its borders. It also called for a firm separation between church and state. Thomas Jefferson, the author of what became known as the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom," considered this document among his greatest achievements--perhaps even more important than the Declaration of Independence.

Within the module "Civil Rights," locate this document. (One way to locate this document is to go to "Contents," then "Key Topics," then "Separation of Church and State," then scroll down to "statute for religious liberty.")

Use the document to answer the following questions.

1. Jefferson's statute is divided into three parts. The first lays out the philosophical reasons for the act. Explain what Jefferson says here, and why he would have included such a section in the law. Be specific.
2. The second part of the act lays out the specifics of what the law compels the state of Virginia to do. Delineate the state's responsibilities under this portion of the act. Is it compelled to do more than simply allow freedom of religion? If so, what else must it do?
3. The last part of the act spells out Jefferson's fears concerning how the law might be interpreted or overturned in the future. Although he admits that future legislatures might indeed decide to scrap the law, he also maintains that doing so would be a mistake. What sort of error would it be? What exactly does Jefferson mean by "natural law"?
4. How might this statute have been received by people with religious reservations? How was it a product of its times?
5. What implications would this law have for future generations? Why would Jefferson have considered it among his greatest accomplishments? Would historians agree with him? Why or why not?

Activity 4 Given the difficulty of running the nation under the Articles of Confederation, it had become obvious by 1786 or so that revisions in the nation's governmental plan were needed. Although reformers initially intended simply to revise the Articles, they soon set about creating an entirely new governmental structure that differed from the Articles in almost every respect. (Extended discussion of these matters may be found under the Key Topic "The Constitutional Convention" in the module "The Constitution and Supreme Court.")

The result of this effort at governmental makeover was the U.S. Constitution, drafted during the summer of 1787 and ratified in 1789. The Constitution has remained the guiding document of the U.S. government ever since, demonstrating both permanence and flexibility.

Within the module above, go to "Constitutional Convention: Plans and Drafts," which traces several different proposals and concludes with the final version of the Constitution sent to the states. (One way to locate the source is to go to "Index," then "C," then "Constitutional Convention," then scroll down and click on the title.)

Use the Constitution itself, which begins midway down on p. 14 of the larger document, to answer the following questions.

1. The Constitution embodies several important compromises, without which it might never have been accepted. One concerns the counting of slaves for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. Another relates to the balance of power between large and small states in the national legislature. Explain the positions on these two questions ultimately arrived at through reference to the Constitution itself. What does the necessity to address these potentially divisive issues say about American society at the time that the Constitution was drafted? Be specific.
2. Among the key concepts in the U.S. form of government are a balance of power among different branches of government and a federal system whereby the individual states and the federal government share responsibility, with the states having some powers and the federal government having others. Using specific examples from the Constitution, illustrate both of these concepts. Would their implementation have been revolutionary at the time? Why or why not?
3. Which powers does the Constitution delegate specifically to the states? Given the Americans' recent experience with the British government, why would they have considered it important that these particular powers remain vested in lower levels of government?

Within the same module, go now to "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution by Charles A. Beard." (One way to locate this document is to go to "Contents," then "Authors," then "B," then scroll down and click on the title.)

Use the document, and the accompanying audio commentary, to answer the following questions.

4. Analyze Beard's argument about the motivation behind the Constitution. Does his evidence seem credible? Are the conclusions he draws from his evidence logical? Does he leave anything out?
5. Assess the commentary on Beard's argument contained in the audio portion of the document. Does Rakove make valid points? Does he support or oppose Beard's argument? Be specific. How do the arguments represented in the excerpt from Beard's book and Rakove's audio commentary illustrate historical revisionism at work?

Activity 5
If drafting the Constitution proved to be a dicey process, ensuring its ratification by the individual states would prove just as trying. Nine states had to ratify the Constitution before it could go into effect, but all agreed that if any one of the largest states (New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or Virginia) failed to ratify, the new government would be powerless.

To bolster support for the Constitution, its backers, who dubbed themselves "Federalists," mounted an all-out propaganda campaign throughout the country extolling the Constitution's virtues. Opponents of the Constitution, called "Anti-Federalists," also swung into action, although theirs was a more difficult battle. Ultimately, of course, the Federalists prevailed, but only after promising to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, as the omission of such a bill had worried many Americans that the new government would run roughshod over their rights and liberties.

"The Constitution and Supreme Court" module contains many sources on the ratification debate, along with an extended discussion of that subject under the Key Topic "Ratifying the Constitution." Among those sources are several discussions framed in point-counterpoint format that pitted Federalists against Anti-Federalists on important questions in the ratification debate.

Utilize the following:

• "Essays on the Danger of a Consolidated Union"
• "Debate on the Congressional Power of Taxation"
• "The Theory of a Federal Republic."

These sources may be located by going to "Contents," then "Documents," then the initial letter of each title. The documents can then be located individually.

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

1. The first document deals with the issue of balancing the power and responsibility of the individual states against that of the federal government. Why would this have been an important issue at the time? What are the main points in each side's argument on this issue? What evidence does each side marshal to support its position? Which side seems more persuasive? Why?
2. The second document is concerned with taxation policy. Why would this have been an important issue at the time? What are the main points in each side's argument on this issue? What evidence does each side marshal to support its position? Which side seems more persuasive? Why?
3. The third document addresses the question of whether a republican form of government can exist in a large nation, like the United States. Why would this have been an important issue at the time? What are the main points in each side's argument on this issue? What evidence does each side marshal to support its position? Which side seems more persuasive? Why?
4. The arguments contained in these documents appeared in written form during the ratification debate, usually in newspapers. What does that fact suggest about literacy at the time? About the role that newspapers played in politics and political debate?
5. Many of those who argued for or against the Constitution used pseudonyms to protect their identities. Why do you suppose anonymity would have been important to them? What problems do their use of pennames pose for historians trying to identify them today?

Activity 6
Among the many tasks facing the new federal government was the establishment of a national court system. The Constitution had vested Congress with the power to create such courts as it saw fit (although it did call specifically for the creation of a Supreme Court).

Congress took up the task of establishing a two-level system of federal courts--district and circuit courts. Establishing the courts constituted a milestone in the construction of the federal judiciary. It also made clear Congress's determination that the state courts not be involved in federal matters.

Within the module "The Constitution and Supreme Court," go to "Judiciary Act of 1789" and "House Debates the Judiciary Act of 1789." (One way to locate these documents is to go to "Contents," then "Years," then "1789," then click on the titles.)

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

1. The Judiciary Act of 1789 would have been unnecessary had the Constitution specifically outlined a system of federal courts. Why do you think the Framers neglected to do so? What does their failure to take action on this issue suggest about their feelings on the judicial branch of the government?
2. How does the Judiciary Act of 1789 divide up the responsibilities for the various court systems? Why do you suppose the act proposes this sort of division rather than some other scheme? Explain.
3. How might the act be seen as an attempt to assuage those who were opposed to all federal courts? What measures does the act provide to protect the rights of citizens and the powers of the state courts? Make specific reference to the act to support your answer.
4. What arguments does the second document raise in opposition to the Judiciary Act? In support of it? How genuine do you find the arguments against the act? Are they supported by evidence or born more of emotion? Explain your answer with specifics from the debate.
5. How can these sources on the Judiciary Act help historians get a feel for the issues that confronted members of the first Congress as they worked to fashion an apparatus of national government? For the need of early politicians to balance fears of a strong national government with the call for a working government bureaucracy?

Activity 7
As we have seen, ratification of the Constitution was not an easy matter, and it was accomplished only after the Founders pledged to add a Bill of Rights to the documents. In 1791 they made good on their word and introduced twelve amendments guaranteeing all sorts of rights to American citizens. Ten of these amendments were eventually adopted and incorporated into the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.

The debate over including the Bill of Rights was contentious, dividing congressional delegations, state governments, and even old friends, illustrating in the process the depth of individual feeling on the issue.

Helpful sources on the Bill of Rights may be found in the modules "Civil Rights" and "The Constitution and Supreme Court." Within the first module, go to "Virginia Declaration of Rights." (One way to locate this document is to go to "Contents," then "Years," then "1776," then the title.) Within the second, go to "Letters on a Bill of Rights" and "The Bill of Rights." (One way to locate the first document is to go to "Contents," then "Documents," then "L," then the title. The second document can be selected from the list of related items that appears at the top of the first.)

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

1. What rights does the Virginia Resolution guarantee? What seems absent, if anything?
2. How specific are the rights guaranteed in the first document? Why would the author have chosen the degree of specificity that he did?
3. What does the correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison reveal about their respective positions on a Bill of Rights? What factors seem to have influenced each man's position? Who makes the better case? Why?
4. After studying the Bill of Rights, formulate a list of rights contained therein. How do these rights reflect the recent experience with England? Be specific.
5. How would the first ten amendments to the Constitution have satisfied public demand for a general Bill of Rights? Can you think of other rights that were omitted here? If so, explain them.

Activity 8
Two factions eventually developed within the cabinet of President George Washington, one led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and the other by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Although these two factions split over a great many issues, such as foreign policy, one of the most contentious questions was whether the federal government had the authority to create a national bank.

Following the debates over this question helps to illustrate the foundations of these two partisan factions (which eventually developed into the nation's first parties). It can also shed light on the nation's struggle to define itself during the years of the Early Republic. Finally, it provides a good introduction to the difference between a "strict" and a "loose" interpretation of the Constitution.

Within "The Constitution and Supreme Court" module, go to the following documents:

• "Jefferson on the Constitutionality of the Bank" (one way to locate this document is to go to "Contents," then "Authors," then "J," then scroll down to the author's name and click on the title)
• "Hamilton on the Constitutionality of the Bank" (this may be located by going to "Contents," then "Documents," then "H," then scrolling down to the title).

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

1. What arguments does Jefferson advance in opposition to a national bank? How sound do these arguments seem? Are they grounded in fact or emotionally inspired? Explain.
2. What arguments does Hamilton advance in support of a national bank? How sound do these arguments seem? Are they grounded in fact or emotionally inspired? Explain.
3. Jefferson and Hamilton are advocating different interpretations of the Constitution, and particularly of the "implied" powers granted to Congress. Explain the position of each on the question of how broad the "implied" powers should be. Refer to the documents to explain your answer.
4. How could the debate between a loose/broad or a strict/narrow interpretation of the Constitution affect the early history of the United States? What sorts of problems might it create? How especially might it tie the hands of a president who wanted to take action beneficial to the nation but not specifically allowed by the Constitution? Be specific.
5. Given the potential problems with granting "implied" powers to the federal government rather than simply listing everything that the government could do, speculate on why the Founding Fathers would have formulated the Constitution this way. What would they have been guided by on this issue?

Activity 9
Although George Washington was the overwhelming choice for the nation's first president, and the only one to be reelected unanimously, his years as president were not without controversy. As partisan factions developed throughout the nation--and within his own cabinet--Washington became caught up in factional squabbles that tarnished his reputation and left him personally bitter and resentful.

One such squabble concerned a treaty negotiated with England in 1794 by John Jay. Jay was originally charged with resolving outstanding U.S. complaints against British policy (including British refusal to honor the terms of the 1783 peace treaty). In the end, the treaty he negotiated secured little for the United States and actually surrendered on several key U.S. issues, such as trade access and British interference with U.S. neutral trade with France. Not surprisingly, the treaty seemed to Democratic Republicans like a sell-out to the former mother country--and a dangerous example of Federalist interests taking precedence over the national interest.

The struggle over Washington's conduct with regard to the Jay Treaty illustrates the difficulties the new United States faced in implementing its Constitution and delineating the rights and responsibilities of the different branches of government. It also, of course, makes clear how damaging these early partisan squabbles were for national policy.

Within the module "The Constitution and Supreme Court," go to the following documents:

• "Democratic Republican Opposition to the Jay Treaty" (you may locate this document by going to "Contents," then "Documents," then "D," then scrolling down to the title)
• "Washington's Message on the Jay Treaty" (this may be located by going to "Contents," then "Authors," then "W," then scrolling down to "Washington, George," and then clicking on the title)
• "Madison's Rebuttal to Washington's Speech of 1796" (one way to locate this document is to go to "Index," then "M," then scroll down to the title; "Madison, James" is the first index entry under "M").

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

1. The controversy over the Jay Treaty in the House focused on whether that body had a right to ask Washington for correspondence about the treaty--and indeed whether the House had any role to play in the treaty-making process. What are the arguments on these questions advanced in the various speeches that comprise the first document? Why were these arguments important to members of the House in 1796? Why are these arguments important for American politics today, if in fact they are?
2. How does Washington's response compare to the speeches in the first document? What arguments does the president advance for his refusal to comply with the House's request? Do you accept his arguments? Why or why not?
3. Madison offers a spirited rebuttal of Washington's message in the third document. What arguments does he make to support his position? Are these arguments logical? Why or why not? Do you find his arguments more or less persuasive than Washington's? Why?
4. How does the conflict over the Jay Treaty illustrate the role of partisanship in politics at the time? What dangers lay in the formation of parties, which had not been anticipated by the Founding Fathers?
5. Historians study episodes such as the struggle over Jay's Treaty for the insights they can provide into the process by which the U.S. government evolved. (Recall that this controversy erupted less than a decade after the ratification of the Constitution.) How can this episode be seen as part of the maturation process of the U.S. government? How is it emblematic of the unique governmental system of the United States? What lessons does this episode hold for future politicians?

Activity 10
Democratic Republican complaints about what they believed was a pro-British foreign policy did not end with their defeat over the Jay Treaty. On the contrary, they accelerated after John Adams succeeded George Washington as the nation's second president.

Although both Britain and France had been violating America's neutral trade rights since 1793, the Adams administration blamed France more than Britain. When efforts at an accommodation proved fruitless, the Federalist-led Congress abrogated the Franco-American treaties of 1778 and authorized American ships to capture French vessels.

In the wake of mounting public criticism of its conduct of foreign policy, the administration then sought to silence its opponents through legislation. Jefferson's Republicans mounted a spirited critique in response, introducing in the process the concept of "nullification" and bringing the nation close to a political crisis.

A complete discussion of this episode may be found under the Key Topic "The Constitution in Crisis, 1798-1800" within the module "The Constitution and Supreme Court." Exploring some of the relevant documents will provide an introduction to the issues involved and the importance of the episode.

To that end, go to "The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798," "The Kentucky Resolutions" (which also includes "The Virginia Resolutions"), and "Replies to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions." (One way to accomplish this is to go to "Index," then "A," then "Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)." The three titles may be chosen from the list that appears.)

Use the documents to answer the following questions.

1. What did the two pieces of legislation do? How wide-ranging do you think their effects would have been? Do they infringe on rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? If so, which ones?
2. Why might these laws have generated opposition? Who would have opposed them? On what grounds?
3. What do the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions say about the Alien and Sedition Acts? What recourse do the resolutions propose for opponents of the laws? How do the resolutions justify their proposals?
4. The third document lays out the responses of other states to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, responses that were clearly not those Thomas Jefferson and the other supporters of the resolutions had hoped for. What sorts of responses are contained in this document? Why did the other states refuse to back the resolutions? Do you side more with the dissenting states or with Kentucky and Virginia? Why?
5. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions introduced the ideas of nullification and states' rights into American political discourse for the very first time. Explain how these ideas come out in the resolutions. How would accepting these principles in the resolutions have changed the face of American politics? Be specific.