Michael Valladares

October 13th, 2015

Period 6
Unit 2 Guide Questions
05-01: Why did the colonists object to new taxes in 1764 and 1765 and how did they oppose them?

Colonial opposition of British taxes was rooted in the idea of no taxation without representation, that is,
governmental taxing without representation of the colonies in that government. Parliament refuted this with its idea
of virtual representation however. When taxes such as the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Townshend Act were implemented
colonists were furious because of the direct extortion of the colonies for money. Colonies felt that they had
outgrown their mother country at this time. In opposition, the colonists turned to sheer vigilantism, turning to tarring
and feathering of the British tax collectors. In other cases, organized protests fought to boycott the goods that Britain
was attempting to tax. The Stamp Act Congress was a body organized for this reason, and was successful in
boycotting all British paper goods and hampering the British economy. While this lead to dissonance between
Britain and the colonies, it also lead to the first bits and pieces of Revolutionary thinking.

05-02: Weigh the importance of economic + ideological motives in promoting colonial resistance.

Ideological and economic motives worked heavily in tandem to create a strong sense of colonial resistance
to the imposition of British policies. With the Intolerable Acts came the final straw, and that policy was not only
provocative because it prevented American trade, but also because it continued paradoxical law of the British. The
Proclamation of 1763 was one of the first examples of paradoxical law that angered colonists, as they had just
finished the French and Indian war to get the land that the Proclamation would prevent them from actually getting.
This is ideological resistance rooted in British policy. Further, the many taxes (Stamp, Sugar, Townshend) that the
British placed upon the colonies not only gave them economic woes, but worked in direct combination with the
ideological ideals of no taxation without representationwhich meant that combined, the resistance was there.
These combined resistances ultimately lead to the conflagration during the American Revolution.

05-03: Why did those in Parliament believe that colonial arguments rebellion were not justified?

Parliament believed it had the right to exploit the colonies. After all, Britain was the mother country
when it came to the colonies. Britain believed that the colonies had virtual representation in Parliament, meaning
that officials reflected the ideals of the colonies. Further Britain believed that what it was doing it had the right to
do, as in the Declaratory Act, Britain asserted its right to tax because the colonies were not only created by Britain,
but Britains mercantile policies kept it alive. They believed that there was a syncretic relationship between itself
and the colonies, and that both benefitted each other, whether for economics or for some other reason. Meanwhile,
the colonists felt that they had outgrown their mother country, and this was a reason that they could rebel. The
Declaration of Independence was the document in which the colonists declared that sentiment.

06-01: Who was blame for Britains failure to win a quick victory over the American rebels? Explain.

Britains old-style tactics were to blame for Britains failure to defeat the American rebels. Because
America engaged in guerilla warfare during the American Revolution, and the United States was a very large
landmass to fight on, the British forces had to spread out a long way. Because the British generals like Cornwallis
originally used a strategy of traditional fighting, with the heavy drums and the marching in lines, and the like. This
lead quickly to the inability of Britain to destroy the rebels quickly. Further, Britain did not well know the land,
besides a few sparse alliances with American Indians at the time. Also the ideological differences between the
British and American soldiers possibly provided some grounds for an American advantage: Americans Patriots had
a strong cause to fight for, while the British soldiers were just kind of getting paid. Finally, support to France helped
bolster the Americans after the Battle of Saratoga which was potentially something that prevented an easy victory.

06-02: Why did Britain switch to a southern military strategy? Why did that strategy ultimately fail?

The British switched to a southern strategy because their attempt to quell the Revolution by chopping off
the head of the snake failed. In the Southern strategy, after the British defeat at Saratoga destroyed any plan of a
pronged attack on the American side, military leadership focused on seizing the crops to commit acts of not only
direct but economic warfare. Under Cornwallis, the strategy proved to be somewhat successful. However after the
 Michael Valladares
October 13th, 2015
Period 6
plan was foiled by Patriot leaders, Washington sent out Greene to reclaim the stolen territory and the crops.
Washington successfully pushed the troops of Cornwallis out of the Carolinas and causing them to surrender at
Yorktown.

06-03:What were the causes of Shays Rebellion, and what does it tell us about postwar America?

Shays rebellion was the result of the flawed Articles of Confederation. When Massachusetts couldnt get
the support of its very own neighbors to deal with internal issues, it wasnt able to handle even this small uprising.
At the start of Shays rebellion, which was just a few economic protests, people got mad. Massachusetts could not
get a hold of the army or militia it needed in the 1780s simply because other states didnt want to deal with it. The
rebellion, in this way, proved that the articles were flawed and that there was a new and stronger form of central
government needed, the kind advocated for by the Federalists in the form of the US Constitution. This marked a
fundamental shift from the original confederate system to a Republic.

06-04: How did the Philadelphia convention compromise to resolve critical issues 1787?

In the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, the delegates were faved with many issues. The issue of
representation eventually lead to the creation of the Senate and House of Representatives through the Connecticut
Plan, or Great Compromise. This compromise meant that the Senate, the lower house, contained 2 members from
each State, while the House was based on the population of the states represented. States had some powers under
this resolution, but the Federal government was still strong. The issue of slavery was muddy, but the three-fifths
compromise was what settled that, it meant that each slave, for the purposes of representation and taxation,
represented three-fifths of a person. This lead to the fugitive clause which meant that it was responsibility of citizens
to return slaves that fled. This was a political choice, meaning that the Constitutional compromises were not only to
settle disputes but also to solve the issues that would allow the Constitution to be ratified.
 Michael Valladares
October 13th, 2015
Period 6
07-01: What was Hamiltons vision of the future? What policies did he implement to achieve it?

Hamiltons Financial Plan was indicative of his view of the future. Hamilton expected the government to
assume all state taxes and fund them at par. In this way, Hamilton believed that the assumption of debt would make
the government stronger. The plan also implemented the First National Bank. Additionally, he pushed Washington
to implement an excise tax and some strong import tariffs. Hamilton also believed in a strong industry, and that the
government should be run primarily by the aristocracy. Hamilton was an ardent Federalist, meaning that he believed
in a strong central government. He was aware of the consequences of highly protective tariffs but still recognized the
need for some tariffs.

07-02: Could western Indians have done anything to limit white expansion? Explain.

Western Indians had not the resources to resist the white push Westward. The United States and the British
had much stronger technology than the Indians. The only out that they might have had was forming an army and
uniting together, as Tecumseh was able to do. However, there was so much tension between the tribes of Indians
that unification would not be able to last a long time. The Battle of Tippecanoe proved that the Indians, even if they
had the sheer willpower, would eventually fall prey to Westward expansionism. Here, General William Henry
Harrison defeated most of the Shawnee forces that Tecumseh had united. This also lead an alliance between
Tecumseh and the British that would essentially prevent the American Indians from ever gaining sovereignty.

07-03: How did the decisions of the Supreme Court between 1801-1820 change American society?

John Marshalls Supreme Court made many monumental changes that drastically affected American
society. The most monumental of which was likely Marbury v. Madison which established the concept of judicial
review, something which substantially changed the course of the checks and balances system. Fletcher v. Peck set a
precedent when it came to laws concerning the land. Dartmouth College v. Woodward set up a trend that would
continue in the US that would make it such that contracts by private companies cannot be intervened with by the
state. McCulloch v. Maryland made it so that the state could not tax federal institutions. Marshalls Court upheld the
new concept that federal authority was more important than state authority.

08-01: Why did Americans believe granting privileges to businesses violated republican principles?

Republican principles, established mostly in Jeffersons Political Philosophy seemed to violated when the
business institution is granted privileges. Americans may have still had some trauma following the mercantile
system, and didnt want any government intervention when it came to business. True republican principles meant
a realization of the principles of Jefferson in his Agrarian Vision. Because the government was propping up the
industry many republicans felt as though that was a challenge to democracy because it meant an unfair balance
between state or individual liberties and the rights of the business. Republicans felt as though the government was
advancing Federalist ideals. States were supposed to have the sovereignty over business. Even some of Marshalls
court decisions began to subvert republican principles. Additionally, with the Embargo Act of 1807 being one of the
most potentially damaging policies of the 1800s, many Americans were slightly afraid of the implications of
government interference with trade.

08-02: Did America become more democratic for men and women in the 19th century? Explain.

In the 19th century, America began a slow shift towards democracy. As the economy became increasingly
oriented East-West and the society became increasingly focused on moral principles of a democratic-republic, some
policies became more democratic. There was a growing independence of people. Republican motherhood became
the ideal that was increasingly approached by women. Some women would eventually approach working, but that
was only single women. Social mobility was becoming possible, the idea that an individual could move among the
social ladder. As the US approached suffrage, voting was becoming a lot more accessible in the US. The revolution
of democracy at the core of the 1800s would set the US on the road towards the kind of society it still is today.

08-03: How did Southern aristocratic republicanism differ from Northern democratic republicanism?
 Michael Valladares
October 13th, 2015
Period 6
Southern aristocratic republicanism had a prime focus on the head of the household. Northern
republicanism was based more on the ideas of individual liberty while the Southern ideals were focused on the
power of those at the top of the government. The North approached an idea/ideal of a citizenry that had voting
rights, social mobility, and was skeptical of the ideals of southern aristocrats and top-dogs. Meanwhile, in the
South The North was increasingly focused on organized labor. The South meanwhile, was thriving off of a cotton
society thanks to Eli Whitney and his cotton gin. The produce and sale of cotton as textiles was able to produce an
emphasis on those who were wealthy enough to own vast swaths of land. This lead to a fundamental split that would
eventually produce ideological tension and perhaps bloody conflict in the civil war.

08-04: Why did Protestant Christianity and Protestant women emerge as forces for social change?

With the onset of the political revolution at the end of the 1800s, women increasingly searched for a place
in which they would be able to have some social rights, and at least some social voice. The Churches were 70%
female after the 1800s and the War of 1812. Women were able to manage charitable projects to achieve some minor
source of power within the US. While men tried to halt this power (like through Baptists denial of women voting
within the Church), republican motherhood still prevailed as a social force. Christian women not only had a sense of
purpose, but were welcomed (before men realized how much presence they were beginning to get). In this way, the
Protestant Church worked as the medium through which women were able to speak out and voice their opinion. This
set in motion the very slow movement towards womens rights in general, though within the US womens rights
were much more available than that of other countries.