Expert answer:HY1110 Columbia Southern University Anti Federalis
Solved by verified expert:Unit IV Scholarly Activity ( I have picked Anti-Federalists) I am going to do the audio part once the speech is done. Below i attached CSU library sources as well and the unit summary.
With the times quickly changing, and the recent division among those who support the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, public rallies in the town center have become a common thing.
For the next rally, you have been asked to give a speech regarding how/why you have been influenced by that particular side. After choosing which side to support, use the PowerPoint reading from this unit to choose a minimum of four of the six bullets from slide two titled, “Quick Comparison,” as the basis for your speech. Using these four bullets you have selected summarize how this political divide would evolve into the two-party system. You are to give your speech in the first person based on choosing a Federalist or Anti-Federalist.
You are to choose only ONE of the two options below to complete for this assignment.
Option 1:
By choosing this option, you will write out your speech in essay form. Be sure to address the four bullet points you selected from the PowerPoint within the essay for your speech.
Your speech must be a minimum of two (2) pages. A minimum of two (2) reputable sources must be used, cited, and referenced, only one of which can come from the required reading section. This means you will need to find at least one additional source on your own. Inappropriate resources, or failure to use resources available in CSU’s online library can lead to deductions (and loss of your news audience).
OR
Option 2:
If you would like to present your speech via audio, then this is your chance! If you choose this option, you will be able to record your speech. Many options exist that you could use to make your recording, such as:
? Audacity—www.audacityteam.org
? Online Voice Recorder—www.online-voice-recorder.com
? Ipadio—www.ipadio.com
? Webcam file and upload to YouTube.
Or, you can search for other programs/ways to make your recording to upload.
You also have the option to record yourself giving the speech and upload it to YouTube.
The following list will guide you as you prepare the speech:
? Read the grading rubric that follows these instructions. If you need clarification on any of the grading elements, please contact your professor.
? Your speech must be no less than 4 minutes and no more than 6 minutes. Speaking outside these time limits can lead to deductions.
? Plan everything out and be sure to practice your speech before recording it.
? When you have recorded your speech, play it back. Ensure that your voice is audible, and if a video, that you are clearly in the center of the screen, and that your facial expressions and body language are easily seen.
In addition to submitting your speech, please submit a reference page separately, which should include a minimum of two reputable sources. These sources must be used, cited, and referenced, only one of which can come from the required HY 1110, American History I 5
reading section. This means you will need to find at least one additional source on your own. Inappropriate resources, or failure to use resources available in CSU’s online library can lead to deductions (and loss of your news audience).
To submit your recorded speech and Reference Page, you must upload both documents before clicking Submit.
Questions should be directed to your professor prior to beginning the assignment.
CSU librarians can help you with your research for this assignment.
csu_library_source_unit_iv.pdf
csu_library_source_unit_iv_2.pdf
csu_library_source_unit_iv.pdf
unitiv_study_guide.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
662
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
deliberated. European slave traders’ adherence to African customs, as well as
their ability to manage their crew, often determined the outcome of the voyage.
In the case of the Hare, Kelley shows the volatility of the slave trade by
describing episodes like when some of the Hare’s crewmembers jumped ship
for a longboat off the African coast, or when Captain Godfrey executed an
African who had led an attack on a different slave-trading vessel. Kelley weaves
together these examples of peril and violence with less dramatic, yet frustrating,
everyday occurrences on the voyage, like when the ship’s stove caught fire
during the journey back to North America.
Scholars who research slavery in North America will appreciate Kelley’s
microhistory because it examines the gritty details of slave trading within the
context of the larger forces at play within the eighteenth-century Atlantic
world. The strength of Kelley’s approach is that it concretizes the experience
of both slave traders and those enslaved, and moves from detail to broader
context effortlessly. In one passage, Kelley reconstructs life in “working
Newport” with its “seamen, longshoremen, coopers, caulkers, glaziers, braziers, sailmakers, riggers, and porters,” and in another he sketches out the
contours of British mercantilism (p. 18). Ultimately, Kelley’s well-researched
exploration into the lives of Africans enslaved in British North America during
the late eighteenth century is an indispensable study of the Atlantic slave
trade.
Clark University
Ousmane K. Power-Greene
The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional
Settlement, 1765–1800. By Aaron N. Coleman. (Lanham, Md., and other
cities: Lexington Books, 2016. Pp. xii, 259. $95.00, ISBN 978-1-49850062-3.)
The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional Settlement, 1765–1800 offers itself as a revisionist history of the
American Founding that corrects what author Aaron N. Coleman calls the
“nationalist” conventional wisdom (p. 3). Scholars in thrall to this syllabus of
errors, including major figures in the field, are said to have read their approval
of later centralization back onto the Founding era. The nationalist interpretation has not adequately appreciated that state sovereignty was the basis
of the Revolution and the Union, and that it endured throughout the Founding
era, despite the contrary designs of Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist
allies. This thesis is pursued through all the major events of the period: from
the rationale for the separation from Britain through the Kentucky and
Virginia Resolutions. The argument is well grounded in primary sources and
conversant with the vast literature on the subjects it addresses, and this book
stands as a competent expression of the state-centered perspective on the
Founding.
A major theoretical pillar of Coleman’s argument, adopted from Michael
Oakeshott by way of M. E. Bradford, is the distinction between a nomocratic
and a teleocratic political order. A nomocratic order lays out processes and
methods for addressing common concerns, for making decisions, and for
The Journal of Southern History, Volume LXXXIII, No. 3, August 2017
BOOK REVIEWS
663
limiting power. A teleocratic order aims to achieve a specific philosophical
objective or grand political project. This distinction is invoked throughout the
book, though not in the depth of Oakeshott or Bradford. In practice, Federalists
are condemned as teleocratic for wanting to centralize power in the federal
government; Anti-Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans are valorized for
wanting the opposite. Sometimes (and without explanation) the former term is
rendered as “teleological.” The reader is left to wonder whether this difference
is intended to carry any meaning. Nevertheless, by use of this distinction, and by
other indications, it is clear that the author has subtly but designedly aligned
himself with Bradford’s version of traditionalist-localist constitutional conservatism. Thus the revolt of 1776 is tendentiously described as “secession from
the British Empire”; similarly, New Hampshire’s ratification of the Constitution
completed “the secession from the Articles of Confederation” (pp. 39, 127). Are
we thus meant to regard that later and infamous attempted secession as just one
more legitimate appeal to state sovereignty? Coleman offers a large clue in the
conclusion’s statement that it was Abraham Lincoln and the “Federalist-cumRepublican vision of the sovereignty of national government that emerged
triumphant during the Civil War, and became enshrined in the Fourteenth
Amendment” (p. 237). The Civil War resulted in the “second American
constitutional settlement that governs America today” (p. 238). To suggest that
our modern Leviathan derived from the Federalists and Lincoln, rather than the
Progressives and their heirs in the New Deal and Great Society, is to misunderstand the foundation and salvation of limited republican government in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as the causes of its erosion in the
twentieth century.
It is quite debatable, often on the author’s own evidence, whether the
“constitutional settlement” of the book’s title was ever truly settled. The book
portrays Federalists as teleocratic backsliders, promise breakers on the topic of
state sovereignty and the limits it was meant to impose on the federal government. But this interpretation overestimates the amount of theoretical clarity
and agreement that existed. The desire for a stronger central government that
could affect citizens directly and defend them adequately coexisted with the
desire for limits on its reach in deference to the local authority of the states. Just
how to balance these imperatives was not something agreed to once and for all
and then deviously abandoned. It was worked out over time as the Constitution
was interpreted and put into effect (two inseparable facets of the same process).
Constitutional politics happened. Interests and principles clashed; institutions
were designed on paper and then functioned in reality.
In sum, this book gives us a rich redescription of the Founding from a
convinced perspective, but it is skewed by insufficient appreciation that the
action it reports was always a political contest over constitutional meaning—not
apostasy by one group against the true faith retained by another. Finally, in this
reviewer’s opinion the volume is marred by poor editing. Every few pages there
are typographical errors, grammatical errors, missing words, or distracting
malapropisms that undermine the expression of the author’s ideas and reflect
poorly on the publisher.
Georgia Southern University
Johnathan O’Neill
The Journal of Southern History, Volume LXXXIII, No. 3, August 2017
Copyright of Journal of Southern History is the property of Southern Historical Association
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
370
•
JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2017)
This lack of engagement with prior prison history calls into question the
book’s overall significance. If viewed as a synthetic work, however, Liberty’s Prisoners offers a powerful interpretation of the prison’s emergence
and its role in constituting social and political power and status in the
early republic.
As hley Rub in is an assistant professor of sociology at the University
of Toronto. She is the author of multiple articles on penal reform, prisoners, and prison history, and is currently writing a monograph on the
history of the Pennsylvania System of solitary confinement at Eastern
State Penitentiary.
The Founders and the Idea of a National University: Constituting the
American Mind. By George Thomas. (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2014. Pp. 252. Cloth, $95.00.)
Reviewed by Mark Boonshoft
In 1795, George Washington famously pledged to donate $20,000 worth
of stock in the Potomac River Company to fund a national university. As
its title suggests, George Thomas’s The Founders and the Idea of a
National University is about the broader vision that lay behind Washington’s donation and the widespread support for a national university
among the founding generation.
Benjamin Rush first proposed a national university in 1787. Later that
year the Constitutional Convention considered the idea, but opted not
to include it in the final document. The national university reappeared
in most early republican plans for education reform and drew support
from the first six presidents. Congress even considered the idea on a few
occasions. The proposal lay dormant for a time, only to reemerge in the
Regina G. Kunzel, Criminal Intimacy: Prison and the Uneven History of Modern
American Sexuality (Chicago, 2008); Patricia O’Brien, The Promise of Punishment: Prisons in Nineteenth-Century France (Princeton, NJ, 1982); Allen
Steinberg, “The Spirit of Litigation”: Private Prosecution and Criminal Justice in
Nineteenth-century Philadelphia,” Journal of Social History 20 (Winter 1986),
231–49.
…………….. 19014$
CH13
04-20-17 13:10:56
PS
PAGE 370
REVIEWS
•
371
Reconstruction era. Yet it failed at every juncture. Though Thomas narrates this story well, it is not the focus of the book.
Rather, as a political theorist, Thomas is interested in what the rationale for a national university tells us about the nature and limits of American constitutionalism. The national university is good fodder for this
because supporters defended the institution as constitutionally necessary, even as it died on a series of constitutional objections. A preexisting people, the preamble’s “we the people,” created the Constitution. Paradoxically, though, the document also attempted to create that
same sovereign, republican people, to transform an aspiration into something real. This is where the university came in. “As conceived by
Washington”—who, for Thomas, is the quintessential supporter of the
plan—“the national university might be understood as a supplement to
the institutional structure brought forth in the Constitution” (3). By
bringing elites from across the nation together and creating personal
bonds that transcended geographical divides, the university would create
“a political culture with shared beliefs and understandings—things the
institutional structure of the Constitution did not provide” (3).
Thomas’s book thus rounds out our understanding of how nationalists
hoped to use federal power to draw together the young nation. Historians will situate Thomas’s analysis alongside work by Richard R. John on
the post office and John Lauritz Larson on internal improvements.
Indeed, it is telling that Washington invested shares in the Potomac River
Company—an important internal improvement—to fund the proposed
university. These projects were part of the same vision.
Arguments for the national university, though, betrayed the weakness
of the constitutional system it would bolster. Here, Thomas follows
David Hendrickson and Peter Onuf in emphasizing that the Constitution
primarily created a union, not a nation. “With some irony,” as Thomas
astutely shows, “the very decentralized nature of the Constitution in this
realm [national sentiments], which moved proponents of the national
university to urge it as a necessary ‘institution of support’ in the constitutional scheme, also rendered it difficult to establish” (15). The university’s boosters failed to generate enough nationalistic enthusiasm from
across the nation to overcome localism and constitutional objections to
the plan. Historians will find particularly valuable chapter 2, in which
Thomas analyzes the constitutional debates over the university in relation to other national institutions—including the Bank of the United
States, West Point, and the Smithsonian Institute.
…………….. 19014$
CH13
04-20-17 13:10:57
PS
PAGE 371
372
•
JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2017)
Thomas’s arguments about the university’s unique significance rest
largely on comparisons he draws between plans for the national university and other colleges and academies. First of all, plans for the university
accorded little importance to religion and less to theological education.
“Measured against the backdrop of sectarian colleges where religious
belief often defined the mission of education,” Thomas writes in chapter
3, the national university represented a radical departure (91). Thomas
goes so far as to dismiss the first three colonial colleges—Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale—as “theocracies” (128). Columbia College and
the University of the State of Pennsylvania provided models for a less
theologically driven curriculum than the other colonial colleges or the
denominational institutions founded in the early years of the republic.
Nevertheless, Thomas maintains, regardless of their curriculum, even
these schools were not national in scope. The national university,
though, would be.
Too often, Thomas leaves the reader with the impression that nationalists believed existing schools were not just inadequate, but were part
of the problem of insufficient national cohesion. Yet around the same
time that Washington pledged to support the national university, he also
gave a similar donation of stock in the James River Company to the
Liberty Hall Academy in Virginia (now Washington and Lee University).
In fact, many supporters of the national university also helped build the
academies and colleges that Thomas presents as foils to the national
university. That they proliferated while the national university failed
leads Thomas to conclude that, helped along by Federalist support for
religious institutions, “Anti-Federalist understandings of education,
rooted in local government and private organizations, won out in the
early years of the nineteenth century” (152). But Federalists, National
Republicans, and finally Whigs—not Anti-Federalists, Old Republicans,
and Jacksonians—most fervently supported state-chartered local institutions for societal and moral improvement, especially colleges and academies. And they were not simply hedging their bets. Supporters may have
defined and justified the national university differently than these other
institutions. However, they did still consider them as part of the same
project. Thomas gestures to this briefly in his discussion of Benjamin
Rush’s support for Dickinson College. The book still leaves the reader
wondering: If nationalists saw local schools and colleges as somewhat
antithetical to the national university, how did they reconcile their support for both?
…………….. 19014$
CH13
04-20-17 13:10:57
PS
PAGE 372
REVIEWS
•
373
This criticism aside, the book is an important addition to the literatures on education and national improvement in the early republic.
Thomas challenges scholars not only to think deeply about civic education’s historically uncertain place in American constitutionalism, but also
the implications of that history for the present moment.
Ma rk Bo ons hof t is a post-doctoral research fellow at the New York
Public Library, where he works on the Early American Manuscripts
Project. His current book manuscript examines the politics of education
in early America.
The First U.S. History Textbooks: Constructing and Disseminating
the American Tale in the Nineteenth Century. By Barry Joyce. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015. Pp. vii, 335. Cloth, $100. E-book,
$99.99.)
Reviewed by Johann N. Neem
Barry Joyce has written a remarkable, timely, necessary, and fun book
about early U.S. history textbooks. He has taken what might have been
a boring slog through outdated texts and brought them to life. Packed
full of evidence and insight, Joyce’s narrative helps us see how the American creation story came into being. He does for the American narrative
what Jeffrey Pasley in The Tyranny of Printers: Newspaper Politics in
the Early American Republic (Charlottesville, VA, 2001) did for political
parties, looking closely at the often ignored textbook authors who, in
ways that are sometimes less than pristine, assembled a national story
that, in time, became The Story.
Most contemporary scholars of American textbooks have tended to
excoriate early U.S. history textbooks for their falsehoods. Not Joyce. If
anything, he criticizes modern scholars for misunderstanding the purpose of public history. In his acknowledgements, Joyce thanks his “many
friends among the American Southwest Indian cultures for inspiring me
to value all creation stories everywhere” (vii). Drawing on the work of
scholars of folklore and myth, Joyce argues that every tribe—and why
should Americans be excluded, he wonders—needs a creation story that
places its members into a larger framework of meaning.
Most scholars would find themselves appalled by this idea. Previous
…………….. 19014$
CH13
04-20-17 13:10:58
PS
PAGE 373
Copyright of Journal of the Early Republic is the property of University of Pennsylvania Press
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
662
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
deliberated. European slave traders’ adherence to African customs, as well as
their ability to manage their crew, often determined the outcome of the voyage.
In the case of the Hare, Kelley shows the volatility of the slave trade by
describing episodes like when some of the Hare’s crewmembers jumped ship
for a longboat off the African coast, or when Captain Godfrey executed an
African who had led an attack on a different slave-trading vessel. Kelley weaves
together these examples of peril and violence with less dramatic, yet frustrating,
everyday occurrences on the voyage, like when the ship’s stove caught fire
during the journey back to North America.
Scholars who research slavery in North America will appreciate Kelley’s
microhistory because it examines the gritty details of slave trading within the
context of the larger forces at play within the eighteenth-century Atlantic
world. The strength of Kelley’s approach is that it concretizes the experience
of both slave traders and those enslaved, and moves from detail to broader
context effortlessly. In one passage, Kelley reconstructs life in “working
Newport” with its “seamen, longshoremen, coopers, caulkers, glaziers, braziers, sailmakers, riggers, and porters,” and in another he sketches out the
contours of British mercantilism (p. 18). Ultimately, Kelley’s well-researched
exploration into the lives of Africans enslaved in British North America during
the late eighteenth century is an indispensable study of the Atlantic slave
trade.
Clark University
Ousmane K. Power-Greene
The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional
Settlement, 1765–1800. By Aaron N. Coleman. (Lanham, Md., and other
cities: Lexington Books, 2016. Pp. xii, 259. $95.00, ISBN 978-1-49850062-3.)
The American Revolution, State Sovereignty, and the American Constitutional Settlement, 1765–1800 offers itself as a revisionist history of the
American Founding that corrects what author Aaron N. Coleman calls the
“nationalist” conventional wisdom (p. 3). Scholars in thrall to this syllabus of
errors, including major figures in the field, are said to have read their approval
of later centralization back onto the Founding era. The nationalist interpretation has not adequately appreciated that state sovereignty was the basis
of the Revolution and the Union, and that …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades