From the Beginning, Political Strife Has Shaped the Republic

America’s Birth although much romanticized by movies like “The Patriot” and others, was born out of the same political strife we see in our present day Republic. America’s beginnings where famous orators and firebrands like Patrick Henry and great writers and intellects of political philosophy and thought, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,John Adams and many more, were on the verge of declaring the independence of a new nation, culminated with an explosion of new ideas. John Adams, the second president of the new republic, along with his new treasurer Alexander Hamilton were in conflict with Thomas Jefferson the Vice President and James Madison, who was very influential in the congress. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton favored a more British form of government and didn’t think the New American Republic could survive the test of time. In other words they wanted more of a monarchy and a parliament style government. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Aaron Burr wanted a Constitutional Republic, close to what we now have. But as John Adams presidency was coming up for re-election he managed to push a law through the congress; an “Alien and Sedition Act” that banned any form of negative comments against the presidential administration with penalties of fines and imprisonment. He actually imprisoned a congressman and fined others. Jefferson, Madison and Burr were strongly opposed to the “Alien and Sedition Act” and when Jefferson was elected as the Republic’s third president, he repealed the Act and reimbursed all of the fines levied by the previous administration. Tensions were so high between the two former friends (Jefferson and Adams) that Adams and his entourage left the presidential house before Jefferson got there. The two never spoke to each other until just before their deaths, when they corresponded by writing. Both men died on July 4th, 1826. The point here is: Both men were patriots and both men wanted what was best for the new republic and in the end the People did not agree with John Adams’ point of view and did not re-elect him to the presidency. As it says in the Declaration of Independence, the power to govern is derived from the people, and of course Thomas Jefferson borrowed this idea from political philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote the “Second Treatise of Government, which clearly states, “the power to govern is derived from the people,” which was published in 1689-1690 but was full of printers errors and was republished in 1764. Of Course his new ideas were in conflict with Britain’s Monarchy and he fled for his life to finish the writing. The point of contention between the warring factions in Adams and Jefferson’s day lay in the direction that the new republic would take. Would it take the direction of Adams and Hamilton’s’ design; that of a British style monarchy or would it take the shape of the Constitutional Republic that it has become. The people made the decision at the voting booth but political strife in America has never subsided. Americans have only been united during war, when threatened by invasion. This proves the point that we can work together when the chips are down. Why then, can’t we work together in Congress for the good of the people? The answer lies in greed and power. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

12 thoughts on “From the Beginning, Political Strife Has Shaped the Republic”

  1. Even in the movie THE PATRIOT, we see political conflict and dissension. Mel Gibson’s character initially opposes going to war and argues passionately against it. He argues that even if the majority votes for war, he will not fight.

    The idea that we ever had a time of easy consensus where everyone agreed is nonsense.

    Not only did the leader played by Mel Gibson argue against fighting the British, but he refused to accept the majority vote…. until events showed him that it was necessary.

  2. Jon
    There is a lot of truth in what you say. Our nation was born in strife and dissension and we have remained a sovereign nation through the same dissension and strife

  3. It is estimated that during the American Revolution, 1/3rd of the people supported independence, 1/3rd favored continued loyalty to the Crown, 1/3rd didn’t care at all.

    In hindsight, we think it was an obvious, clearly-right action.

    If we were living in 1774, Dave (Va-Ret), Nitpicker, Nobody, Anon, and on and on would be passionately arguing against independence from England.

  4. Jon
    “If we were living in 1774, Dave (Va-Ret), Nitpicker, Nobody, Anon, and on and on would be passionately arguing against independence from England.”

    In whatever age we live in, we’ll always have the naysayers, who would rather take what is offered rather than go for the best.

  5. “Not only did the leader played by Mel Gibson argue against fighting the British, but he refused to accept the majority vote…. until events showed him that it was necessary.”

    Your political arguments are centered on a Mel Gibson movie with horrendous historical inaccuracies? This has to be a joke.

  6. III% of the people living in the country favored and took up arms in the Revolutionary war. This is where the current name Three Percenters (III%er’s) comes from for the national and state movements of constitutional loyalists.

  7. Bill
    If even III% of the people took up arms in this country to eliminate national political corruption, there would be big trouble. People just don’t “take up arms” anymore and when they protest, they are not well received.

  8. Falcor

    Since you claim you are serving marine, I’m sure you would be lost in a firefight without your weapons. Well we are in a constant battle just living our lives and the government is now trying to strip our Second Amendment rights.
    The only people that will be armed will be the police and the criminals and the criminals will be much better armed.

  9. 1. Capitalize Marine.

    2. I find it funny that a guy who laps up every story about possible police abuse without doing any fact checking whatsoever is now claiming that the Police being outgunned(they’re not) by criminals is now a problem.

    3. What firefight? For all your idiotic bellyaching this country’s violent crime rate has been falling for decades, and the world is as peaceful as it has ever been. Have we solved all the problems? No, but luckily people like you have been marginalized enough to the point where you can’t slow down progress too much.

    4. What constant battle Don? You piss and moan more than just about anybody, but unless I’m mistaken no SWAT team has blown in your door yet. You love being the victim, it’s the only thing you can do because it allows you to blame everybody else for your short comings.

  10. For all your idiotic bellyaching this country’s violent crime rate has been falling for decades…Falcor

    Not any more:

    (CNN) — The rate of U.S. violent crime went up last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to a jump in assaults, the Justice Department said on Wednesday.

    Data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in telephone surveys showed a 22 percent increase in assaults, pushing up the overall rate for violent crime for the first time since 1993.

    Crime rates have been declining steadily over the period and last year’s increase compares with a record low figure for 2010.

    Statistics showed that the rate of assault victims increased from 19.3 per 1,000 persons to 22.5 per 1,000 last year.

    Of course, one of the major reasons for a ‘falling crime rate’ is the enormous incarceration rate, particularly among blacks.

Comments are closed.