Model Answers Page
[updated 3/31/2003]
Here are some examples of excellent work on the homework assignment
(GOVT 2301/2302). These students elaborated fully on their answers.
Their answers are well written. As a general rule, they used complete
sentences and crafted cohesive paragraphs and had minimal typographical
and spelling errors.
Student Name: xxxxxxxx (GOVT 2301.1002)
Student Email: xxxxxxxx@yahoo.com
Site Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Author: Greenberg
Quiz Location: Student Resources > The Constitution > Web Explorations
> Delegates to the Convention
Submitted on 11/Mar/2003 at 20:29:33 EST
1. Answered Select
a state and read the biographies of the delegates. How would you describe
the average delegate?
Your Answer:
The Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia, brought together some
of the greatest political leaders and thinkers that have ever been assembled
into one place. Out of the 13 states that were chosen to send delegates,
except Rhode Island, only 55 of them actually attended. They were all looking
for ways to amend the issues and shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation,
and to have them replaced with a new constitution that would establish
a strong national (and republican) government with popular consent. The
average delegate at the convention was mostly wealthy, came from well-educated
backgrounds, worked in a variety of different occupations, and had a wide
array of experience in government and politics. A majority of them were
slaveholders as well. For the most part they were a young group, averaging
a little over forty years of age or so. They were also not considered common
folks. At the convention there were no women, racial minorities, indentured
servants, commo! n laborers, or skilled craftspeople in attendance. The
delegates I am choosing to describe were from the state of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts had four delegates attend the Constitutional Convention:
Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, and Caleb Strong. The average
delegate from Massachusetts could be described as being born from wealthy
families, well educated, successful, and prosperous in their own right.
They were all born in Massachusetts, unlike some delegates from other states.
Three out of the four graduated from Harvard and like most of the delegates
at the Constitutional Convention practiced law. The exception to this was
Nathaniel Gorham. Gorham received minimal education and started his career
out as a public notary before winning an election to the colonial legislature.
The average Massachusetts delegate also had a variety of political experience,
which helped them contribute to the their many different positions and
offices that they held throughout much of their political careers, and
to the adoptio! n of the Constitution.
2. Answered How
representative do you believe them to have been of the American people
of the time?
Your Answer:
I believe that overall, the average delegates at the Constitutional
Convention, including those from Massachusetts, were very representative
of the American people of that time. They all wanted and believed that
there was a need for a new strong national (and republican) government,
and constitution, which protected the rights and property of its citizens.
Also, they almost all wanted to provide the American people with social
order, regulated interstate commerce, and to protect American interests
throughout the world. To me, that shows that they there were looking after
the needs and wants of the American people of that time in some degree.
As far as how representative the Massachusetts delegates were directly;
I would have to say that they were all very representative of the American
people of that time with the exception of Elbridge Gerry. Nathaniel Gorham,
Rufus King, and Caleb Strong were all mostly characterized of being considerate
and respectful of the American peop! les different interests and ideals.
Gerry was considered to be unpopular to the Massachusetts electorate, because
of his, “aristocratic haughtiness”. At the Constitutional Convention his
fellow delegates said he was, “inconsistent and objected to everything
he did not propose”. Besides this issue, I still believe that the four
Massachusetts delegates represented what was best for the American people,
as well as for themselves. There was; however, one key and underlying issue
that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention failed to address and
resolve, slavery. This is the one main issue that I believe the delegates
were not representative of the American people on during that time, because
it affected everyone in one way or the other. There were many slaveholders
and merchants that were represented through a majority of the delegates
at the convention. Even a majority of the delegates were slaveholders themselves.
As we know, slavery was the leading cause of the Civil War in which thousands
of Americans died. I also believe it could have probably all have been
avoided if the delegates would have just taken the initiative to resolve
the issue once and for all at the Constitutional Convention. It is funny
to me how people that have the means, time, and power to change future
events don’t, and then go back when they happen and say to themselves,
how and why.
Student Name: xxxxxxxx
Student Email: xxxxxxxx@aol.com
Site Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Author: Greenberg
Quiz Location: Student Resources > The Courts > Web Explorations >
Who Is Appointed to the Supreme Court?
Submitted on 14/Mar/2003 at 09:20:18 EST
1. Answered What
kinds of people become justices?
Your Answer:
Justices of the United States Supreme Court come from a wealthy, educated
background. All of the current nine justices that serve on the Supreme
Court have all been lawyers and law clerks for former Supreme Court Justices,
some for longer periods of service than others. It is a traditional requirement
that all of the justices be lawyers. This is not a constitutional requirement,
but only lawyers end up becoming Justices. No one can just walk in from
the street and decide they want to become a justice. To qualify as a justice,
one must have a strong educational background and experience in the law
field. Justices are part of America's "upper class" and therefore part
of the financial minority. Some people feel that the justices are not on
the same operating level as the majority of Americans and therefore to
not pay attention to "small-town America" and are not attentive to their
needs. Since justices are not elected, but rather selected, the justices
do not worry themselves with public opinion. This, along with the idea
that justices overstep their constitutional bounds, causes a feeling of
disrespect from Americans.
2. Answered What
can you say about their occupational and educational backgrounds and their
other experiences?
Your Answer:
As stated in the previous questions, justices have always been lawyers
and have attended multiple law schools. It is not a stated requirement,
but a traditional requirement, that a justice have been a lawyer. This
makes the fact that many justices have not been judges unusual. It seems
as if the criterion of being a judge would be a major deciding point in
choosing a justice. This way the justice would have previous judicial experience,
yet no where does it officially state that a justice must have been a judge
or a lawyer. Justices all come from wealthy, educated families. All the
current justices have attended multiple law schools and have headed and
founded many legal interest groups. All the justices have been law clerks
as part of their first taste of Supreme Court life. This may account for
the fact that they have not been judges before. While the job of being
a justice is a honorable and prestigous one, it is a difficult, possibly
dangerous job that one must be well qualified for, which all of our justices
are.
What kind of people become justices?
The smart ones! Those that have the monetary means to attend well known colleges like Harvard, Connell, Stanford, Oxford, Georgetown, Harvard Law, Stanford Law, Columbia Law, or Yale. Only one justice did not list attending any of these colleges on his biographical data, and this was John Stevens. There educational background beside college ranges from public schools to preparatory schools. Every justice has at least one judicial office experience under their belt, usually as an associate judge and some even have severed on U.S. court appeals. These justices not only have spent time hitting the law books, they have also done many other things, Justice Stevens has served in the U.S. navy where he was awarded the Bronze Star, and he has also written 23 books. Justice Breyer has had 4 works published and is active in many civic activities. Justice Ginsburg has taught law at many different colleges, she has authored 2 books and has written many articles and periodicals on civil procedure, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and comparative law. Justice Scalia has taught law at 5 different colleges. Justice Kennedy has taught law at McGeorge School of Law and was part of the Army National Guard. Justice O'Connor is involved in numerous activities civic or otherwise. Justice Rehnquist is active in "professional, civic, and church affairs" and contributes to "articles on legal subjects." Finally, Justice Souter has many affiliations with professional organizations and academic institutions, like the A. B. A., Magdalen College and Harvard College.
Student Name: xxxxxxxx
Student Email: xxxxxxx@aol.com
Site Title: The Struggle for Democracy Online
Book's Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Author: Greenberg
Quiz Location: Student Resources > The Federal Bureaucracy > Web Explorations
> Who Are the Bureaucrats?
1. Answered How well
are women represented in the Executive Branch departments you selected?
Your Answer:
Within the Departments of Education and Labor, women tend to be more
represented than in the Department of Energy. While the ratio of
men to women is not an even 50/50, the dispertion of women among the different
sections of the Department of Education and Department of Labor is higher
than the majority of the American public would believe. The traditional
take on politics is that it is a man's world and women rarely, if ever,
take part in this important aspect of the American culture.
Considering that 51% of the population is women,
there is definitely not a majoritarian control by women in the Executive
branch of our government. The Department of Energy is controlled
by males, made clear by the small portion of women within the Department.
Education has always been viewed
as being a female occupation. In historical shows, books, and movies,
the teachers are always portrayed as women. Perhaps this stems from
the mother's role at home and her rols as being the educator of her children.
Our society still carries many of the views it supported centuries ago.
This support seems to be a logical explanation for why there are more women
in the Department of Education. While their number does not parallel
that of the male percentage, a vast number of the positions are held by
women.
While the educational historic
standpoint is a strong one, it is contradicted by the Department of Labor.
When women were home-makers and teaching their children, they were rarely
allowed to work outside the home. During the time of World War II,
more and more women joined the American workforce. The number of
women working today has significantly increased, as has the number of women
within the Department of Labor. It appears that rather than hold
on to traditional concepts, as happened with the Department of Education,
the Department of Labor reflects that of change - a change of society,
a change of roles, and a change of growth.
It is important that the number of women,
and also minorities, continues to grow and equate that of the number of
men if America is to have true economic and political growth. A wide
array of viewpoints, races, and experiences can bring newer, fresher ideas
for encouraging and supporting our economy and education to the table.
2. Answered If women
are better represented in some as compared with others, why do you think
that is the case?
Your Answer:
As expressed in the previous questions, to find the true reason why
there is a discrepancy in the numbers of women from department to department
depends on their historic roles. Women have generally been viewed
as the home-maker and the one to educate and train her children to become
civlized adults. Within many schools, the majority of the teachers
are female. Therefore, the number of men vs. women in the Department
of Education is more closely equal than in many other departments of the
Executive Branch.
Women have rarely, if ever, been known for dealing with
and making great progress in the Department of Energy. This is viewed
as a male rold in society. Why more women are not involved in this
department is unclear.
With the progress that feminism and equal rights have
been making in past years, the number of women in all departments across
the board is very likely going to be on the rise. Also, as was pointed
out in the assigment, these figures are from the Clinton Administration
and have likely changed by this point. Women are making progress
in the struggle to become more politically involved and will continue to
succeed, possibly to the point of having a female president.
Submitted on 08/Mar/2003 at 23:17:23 EST
1. Answered How well
are women represented in the Executive Branch departments you selected?
Your Answer:
In my examination of the Department of Labor, I found that out of approximately
200 positions women hold one fourth of those titles. There are also 26
separate sub-divisions or committees and of those 14 of the highest-ranking
positions are held by women. This seems to be an extremely fair representation
of women, being that this is almost a 50% ratio of men to women holding
executive jobs. In the Department of Treasury, women are slightly lacking
in representation having only 46 of the overall 227 available positions.
On the level of higher administration and executive occupations women are
poorly represented, holding only 12 of the 65 highest jobs. This is a major
misrepresentation consider that women make up half of the population. The
ratio in the Treasury department is 5:1 leaving men with a substantial
advantage. In contrast, the Department of Education seems to strongly favor
women. Men only posses 88 of the 179 positions overall. In addition, women
hold 23 of the 45 available executive positions. This is also an excellent
representation, keeping the numbers for powerful positions at approximately
50%. *Note* These numbers are all approximations. Some names were indistinguishable
in deciding sex of the employee (ex. Leslie, Alex)
2. Answered If women
are better represented in some as compared with others, why do you think
that is the case?
Your Answer:
The Departments of Labor and Education both seemed to represent women
quite well. Both of these departments averaged about 50% women in their
higher level jobs. Meanwhile, the Department of Treasury left women highly
unaccounted for, holding only one of every five available jobs. I believe
that the variances of representation tend to be based upon the importance
of the department in relation to women’s interests. For example, women
have struggled for decades over their rights to equal employment; thus
they have developed a strong need to make themselves present in the Department
of Labor. The same hold true for education because there was a time that
women had to fight for the right to be educated and since that battle began
women have found it in their best interest to become affiliated with the
Department of Education, itself. Women are probably not properly represented
in the treasury department because it has never truly posed a threat to
them. A woman being denied of mo! ney would probably revert back to the
issue of depravation of employment rights or lack of available education.
Overall women are properly represented in accordance with their most pressing
issues, however there is a lack in representation proportion in departments
that oversee “subsequent women’s issues”.
Submitted on 09/Mar/2003 at 18:10:01 EST
1. Answered How well
are women represented in the Executive Branch departments you selected?
Your Answer:
Three Executive Branch departments that I selected to examine were
the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Treasury. When
I looked into the names and quantities of women in each branch, I found
that one department was well represented with women. In the Department
of Health and Human Services, almost every-other-name I saw was of a woman's.
One could probably say that after looking at the names of political bureaucrats
in the Department of Health and Human Services, the quantity of men and
women were evenly dispersed within. However, this was not the case with
the Departments of Energy and Treasury. Although the Department of Treasury
had more women than the Department of Energy, the Department of Treasury
still did not compare with the Department of Health and Human Services.
If one were to compare the number of women in each of the departments that
I chose to examine in percentiles, hypothetically speaking, one could say
that their was an approxi! mate 25% women bureaucrats in the Treasury and
an approximate 10-15% in Energy. In comparison to the Department of Health
and Human Services, there was an approximate amount of 50% women.
2. Answered If women
are better represented in some as compared with others, why do you think
that is the case?
Your Answer:
In conclusion to my estimates of the number of women in the departments
that I chose to examine, one could say that women are more numerous in
departments that are most heavilly represented with women professionals.
For example, as the Greenburg textbook states, women are much more represented
in education, welfare, and the health professions, and in the law. Therefore,
this explains my conclusion in depth, as I found the Department of Health
and Human Services to have a quite reasonable distribution of men and women
in the department. In reverse, the departments of Energy and Treasury were
quite limited with women, further possibly meaning a limited amount of
women professionals in these areas of profession. For instance, in the
Department of Energy which I found to have the least women bureaucrats,
there are probably a lot less women professionals in the field of energy
or scientific professionals. This can further be exemplified by the number
of women professors in t! he science department at Temple College as compared
to the number of male professors in the science department also. Of the
eight or nine science professors at Temple College, there is only one female
professor, Dr. Hoffman. All professionals in their field, it is clear that
their is simply just fewer professionals in certain fields than in others.
Student Name: xxxxxxxx (GOVT 2301.1003)
Student Email: xxxxxxxx@webartonline.com
Site Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Author: Greenberg
Quiz Location: Student Resources > The Constitution > Web Explorations
> The Declaration of Independence
1. Do you agree or disagree with Lucas that "the Declaration of Independence
is perhaps the most masterly written state paper of western civilization"?
Has Lucas convinced you that it is true?
While Lucas made a thorough, well organized analysis of the Declaration
of Independence, I believe that some of his assertions are weak, at best.
I am convinced that the Declaration of Independence is a very effective
document, where all elements were carefully chosen and combined, but Lucas
also insists on some points that seem to stem from his desire to prove
the greatness of the Declaration, rather than from objective considerations.
It is probably impossible to analyze the Declaration of Independence without
being, at least partially, influenced by the historical importance of the
document, whose content brought immense consequences to the American colonies
and shaped the basic foundations of the United States of America. Nevertheless,
Lucas also suggests some interpretations that don’t add much strength to
his analysis, actually possibly weakening it.
The first point I didn’t find entirely convincing was the analysis of the preamble, and in particular the idea that the five initial propositions are tightly connected and built upon one another. It is actually true that each statement logically follows and complement the one that precedes it, but isn’t that a common trait to all explanations that aim to be clear and logic? It hardly seems possible to understand any concept without having a clear view of the facts lying beneath. There certainly are modern literary genres where digressions, even temporal ones, are abundantly used, but all written texts that aim to be dignified as treaties or essays certainly follow stricter rules, and this holds even more true when considering the time when the Declaration was written. Furthermore, the logical link seen by Lucas between the first two propositions is not very strong, either. While all the following relations are clear, I am not convinced that the second sentence is built upon the first only because it starts with “They”, which refers to the “men” quoted in the first phrase. In fact, the whole preamble would be meaningful even if the first sentence was eliminated and the second proposition started with “All men”. The fact that all men are created equal doesn’t relate to the statement that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, they are actually two concepts that supplement, rather than complement, each other. For instance, all men could have been created equal, but only some could have seen their rights recognized and protected. Also, while some universal and unalienable rights could be cherished, not all individuals were necessarily seen as equal, as the institution of slavery clearly shows. Finally, it can be seen that Proposition 3, 4 and 5 elaborate on the concept of unalienable rights first introduced in Proposition 2, while the equality of all men is not referred to at all.
The part of Lucas’ essay I found the least convincing is, perhaps, the analysis of grievance 10, to which he attributes a Biblical tone: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”. After all, Lucas bases his whole argument on one word, “swarms”, which is also used in the book of Exodus. I don’t doubt that Jefferson, as a highly educated man living in a time when the knowledge of the Bible was deeply rooted among even the most ordinary people, had read the Exodus before. However, Lucas quotes two more parts of the Bible that, in my opinion, don’t bear much resemblance to what Jefferson wrote, if any at all. I find also completely arbitrary the suggestion that the term “substance” may even increase the religious connotation of the Declaration. In other parts of the document, Jefferson freely cites God, so why would he refrain from doing so again, especially if it could have magnified and dignified the cause he was defending? I am certainly more inclined to agree with Lucas when he states that what makes grievance 10 so meaningful is its ambiguity.
Finally, Lucas also states that the persistent use of pronouns such as “he” and “them”, “we” and “they”, along with a frequent use of “us” and “our”, personalizes the conflict and reduces the psychic distance between the reader and the text. While this is certainly true, I don’t believe it is a particularly meaningful nor deliberate choice. Isn’t it only natural that someone who is writing a text, defending his own causes and ideas, will use personal pronouns, explaining the facts from his (or her) point of view? Isn’t it also true that a reader will identify with the writer, at least in the beginning, to analyze objectively a document only at a later time, if ever at all?
To conclude, I believe that the Declaration of Independence is clearly a masterly written document. It is synthetic, yet clearly and effectively explains the philosophical argumentations upon which the colonists’ demands were based. I believe Lucas did an excellent job in analyzing the content of the Declaration and how all elements are tightly connected. However, I also think that he was a little too overzealous in analyzing the whole document at a semantic level, with the result that he offered a few interpretations that don’t appear to be very strong. Furthermore, while Lucas compares, at least briefly and often only to prove his point, the style used by Jefferson in the Declaration with what was the rhetoric style of his time, he never offers a comparison with other state papers, making it hard to judge whether this particular document can be considered as one of the most masterfully written in the Western civilization.
2. What is (are) the most memorable and meaningful thing(s) about
the Declaration of Independence?
The most memorable part of the document is probably the preamble.
Its importance mainly lies in the fact that, rather than simply listing
the grievances of the colonists, it makes the American cause appear as
a highly philosophical and conceptual struggle. Many colonists opposed
the British government, for the most part, because of economic reasons,
in particular for the taxes levied against them by the Monarch. The Declaration
of Independence, however, elevates the ongoing struggle to a higher level,
by first asserting the equality of all men, declaring their unalienable
rights, stating that the legitimacy of a government lies in its role in
defending such rights and offering a reason for government to be overthrown.
This dissertation on the nature of mankind and on the role of governments
clearly poses the bases for justifying the colonies’ decision to declare
their independence, but also works as a shield against the critics that
the revolt was motivated by selfish and trivial interests, suggesting instead
that it was a necessary, natural, unavoidable consequence. The last statement
of the preamble only strengthens these points, by introducing the colonists’
grievances as facts, and as such, protecting them from alternative interpretations.
3. What, if anything, is merely mundane and extraneous in Jefferson's
document?
Although Lucas notes, not without reason, that the long list of grievances
of the colonists was efficiently organized and that a careful choice of
words makes it all the more powerful, especially by carefully exposing
all “facts” in such an ambiguous fashion that disputing the colonists’
arguments would be a rather lengthy and futile exercise (as it actually
happened), I think that the list itself doesn’t reach the same level of
dignity achieved by the other parts of the Declaration. While the first
part of the document is composed of highly valuable dissertations, from
both a philosophical and political standpoint, the list of grievances shows
the mundanity and sometimes the vulgarity of the British-American struggle.
It appears obvious that a big part of the struggle was inspired by economic
reasons and that the King, far from being inclined to discuss the nature
and the basis of the colonists’ demands, often resorted to military action
to solve any potential conflict. Furthermore, the first part of the Declaration
could be universally applied to any oppressed people, while the list of
grievances is more specific to the American cause, thus lessening its value
as a philosophical document.
Submitted on 07/Mar/2003 at 02:42:22 EST
1. Answered Do you
agree with Lucas that "the Declaration of Independence is perhaps the most
masterly written state paper of western civilization?"
Your Answer:
Yes, I do agree with Lucas that, “the Declaration of Independence is
perhaps the most masterly written state paper of western civilization”.
The Declaration of Independence not only outlined the reasons why the 13
American Colonies where seeking independence from Great Britain, but also
listed the statements of “self-evident” truths, and the “certain unalienable
Rights” of Americans. Thomas Jefferson wrote it in such a way that its
compacted, but meaningful wordings and phrasing are universal in tenor
and scope about individual rights and the role of government. To also think
that Jefferson solely crafted the Declaration of Independence by himself
on the philosophical beliefs of John Locke and at the suggestion of the
other members of the Continental Congress (with only a few changes by the
members), is remarkable by itself and deserves such a claim. For one man
to formulate such a document for the establishment of independence, which
has helped shape the Unites States int! o what it is today, and still have
it around today since July 4, 1776, is very extraordinary. This is why
I again agree with Lucas that “the Declaration of Independence is perhaps
the most masterly written state of paper of western civilization”, and
the most influential and powerful of all time.
2. Answered This
is a very big claim. Has Lucas convinced you that it is true?
Your Answer:
Knowing that this is a very big claim made by Lucas, he has convinced
me that it is true. Throughout the course of history, the Declaration of
Independence has served as a stepping-stone for other countries to follow
when claiming their independence and has also provided Americans with a
foundation that has really been unparalleled anywhere in the world. There
has never been, and I think will be, a better state paper written. Some
of the ideals and foundations of the Declaration of Independence are so
well known that they are derivative in states and other countries constitutions.
For me, this is convincing enough to realize that Lucas’s claim is the
unsurpassed one.
3. Answered What
is most memorable and meaningful about the Declaration?
Your Answer:
There could be several things that are memorable and meaningful throughout
the Declaration of Independence, but the prevalent one has to be where
Thomas Jefferson stated: “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.” This statement has to be the most unforgettable
and significant when you think of the Declaration of Independence. It represents
a clear and masterful argument for people’s rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness that cannot be legitimately given or taken away
from them. Every time I read or hear this statement I am reassured of these
rights that were granted to me and all other Americans. It is a common
bond that holds us together as Americans, but sometimes that we can also
take for granted. An example of this would be in our present day society.
We are learning or you could also say, learned, to give up some of our
rights for the safety of the overall good, due to the September 11th terrorist
attacks. Another memorable and meaningful thing about the Declaration of
Independence that I think fits right up there and that is the next sentence
after the previous one is the statement: “That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed.” This statement in the Declaration of Independence
has to due with the people creating a government that will protect those
“ unalienable rights” that are granted to them. To me this statement is
the perfect following to the one above. With out a government to protect
those rights granted to its citizens, what good are they in the first place.
4. Answered What,
if anything, is merely mundane and extraneous in Jefferson‚s document?
Your Answer:
What I find that is merely mundane and extraneous in the Jefferson’s
document (Declaration of Independence) has to be the statements about the
British-American conflicts, and the indictments and grievances of King
George III. I find this part of the Declaration of Independence to be very
confusing and irrelevant, but I also came up with why he writes about these
variances. I have come to realize after reading the document in its entirety
over and over that Jefferson is merely trying to justify the colonists’
actions and motives for claiming independence. Even so, I still believe
that this could have been left out of the document. Another thing that
I find in the document is that there is no mention of the key underlying
statement that we refer our government as: a democracy. I believe the colonist
leaders were fearful of democracy, and that’s why they simply referred
to it as a republic. All in all, Jefferson’s document (Declaration of Independence)
has served and will alway! s serve, its purpose of getting the United States
and humanity to where it is today, and where it needs go tomorrow.
Submitted on 09/Mar/2003 at 15:02:16 EST
1. Answered Do you
agree with Lucas that "the Declaration of Independence is perhaps the most
masterly written state paper of western civilization?"
Your Answer:
I do not believe that Lucas' above statement is very far from the truth.
It is evident that Lucas did some extensive research to formulate and to
back up his accusations about the Declaration, each of which he carefully
explains to the reader. In many cases, Lucas would take a popular belief
which contradicted with his own, and then explain why he thought differently
(Ex: Far from being a weakness of the preamble, the lack of new ideas was
perhaps its greatest strength. If one overlooks...). Lucas' essay would
lose almost all of its persuasive power if Lucas did not justify his ideas,
but he does so to the point that it seems to be more difficult to NOT be
persuaded. The fact that he covers every aspect fathomable to me adds that
much more of a "punch" to his essay.
2. Answered This
is a very big claim. Has Lucas convinced you that it is true?
Your Answer:
Indeed the above claim is no small statement, but my response to question
1 shows that Lucas was successful in not only coveying his ideas to me,
but also convincing me that his claim was completely true. The extent in
which he goes when analyzing each defining point in the Declaration is
what really gets me. By the time he moves on to his next point, there is
very little room left for potential disagreement. Not only does he make
completely rational statements and accusations about the Declatation, but
the way in which he offers his stance on each one is easy to follow and
,to me, makes perfect logical sense.
3. Answered What
is most memorable and meaningful about the Declaration?
Your Answer:
The most memorable and meaningful aspect of the Declaration in my eyes
is the indictment of George III. For one, I think this section is the most
readily understood by the masses. The writers of the the Declaration liked
to use big words and also use more familiar words in a different context
than what our society is traditionally used to. With all this in mind,
it must be realized that not everyone would completely understand the Declaration
if they were to just pick it up and read it. However,differing from the
rest of the Declaration, the indictment of George III is more straitforward
and less likely to be misinterpreted. To top everything off, as mentioned
in Lucas' essay, Jefferson tends to use more dramatic words to portray
the injustices caused to the American people by George III, so as to further
convince the reader that the seperation from Britain is not only justified,
but absolutely necessary.
4. Answered What,
if anything, is merely mundane and extraneous in Jefferson‚s document?
Your Answer:
I would feel free to express my opinion, like I have so far, in this
category if there was something that I found "mundane" about the Declaration.
To be perfectly honest, I cannot say that I feel that way about any part
of the Declaration. It is not fear which holds me to this conclusion but
honesty. I almost want to say that Jefferson outdid himself in writing
such an extraordinary document. I know that many countries have used the
same principals and ideas expressed in our Declaration around the world.
The point has been made many times before and I will make it again: If
the Declaration was not a truly outstanding, well-written document, there
is no way it would still be such a strong foundation of the United States
today.
Student Name: xxxxxxxx
Student Email: xxxxxxxx@aol.com
Site Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Author: Greenberg
Quiz Location: Student Resources > The President > Web Explorations
> The President and Public Opinion
Submitted on 19/Feb/2003 at 17:30:58 EST
1. Answered Decide
what you want the federal government to do about the problem you care about.
Formulate a policy that you believe would be both achievable and effective.
Let the president (or at least one of his staff members) know what action
you want taken. Send an e-mail to President@whitehouse.gov
Your Answer:
President Bush:
A growing problem within America's campaign trail is the increasingly high cost of campaigning. Between Presidential and Congressional candidates, $3 billion dollars was spent on advertisements for elections. In eight years, the cost has almost doubled, from $1.8 billion in 1992 to $3 billion in 2000. Much of this money is donated by businesses and individuals out of their own self-interest.
It strikes me as interesting how it is now okay for political candidates to accept bribes pertaining to their future office before they are elected, but it becomes illegal and inappropriate for the candidates to accept bribes after the elections. As we are a nation built on equality, we should also be equally fair in campaign financing. A minor percentage of Americans have the finances to donate thousands of dollars to campaign fund-raising. Just because most Americans do not have millions of dollars does not mean that their opinions are worthless. The majority of candidates constituents are working class people, therefore, their opinions should be valued the same as, if not more than, those of big businesses who shell out millions of dollars to use as a tax break.
In 1757, people disapproved of George Washington's use of rum, wine, and beer as a persuasive move to encourage voting because they felt that he was bribing the voters to elect him. So I ask, what is the difference between Washington's actions and what these big companies are doing? Some attempts have been made to discourage and limit campaign spending in the 1970's, yet a loophole was created in 1979. This loophole caused "soft money" donations by parties, used to indirectly support the candidate.
If Congress knows about these actions, why are they not preventing these illegal actions? Is it because they are afraid they will not be re-elected? If so, are they then not worried about their constituents' issues being ignored? Much of the campaign money is used to fund television advertisements, telephone and direct mail campaigns. In the recent 2002 elections, televisions across the nation were bombarded with campaign ads which started during the summer, a clear five months before elections. While some politicians believe that these ads were helping their campaign, the ads were actually turning off many voters who became sick of the personality-based attacks on candidates when the advertisements should have been based on what the candidate promises to do when in office. A new law should be created to keep the "hard money" contributions at $2,000 or possibly raised to $3,000 in acknowledgement that campaigns are costly, yet ban any and all "soft money" donations.
Just as the Franking privilege has been reduced, so should the television advertisements and telephone campaign ads. In Texas, there is a ban on telemarketing calls made to individuals who pay a small fee yearly. I believe that campaign telephone calls are a form of telemarketing as it advertises and tries to sell the candidate they are calling for. Americans are more likely to vote if they are not bombarded by campaign ads. As I stated earlier, all the money and it's advertisements discourage and dishearten American voters. Such things have caused the recent "voter apathy" and many people don't believe in the candidates supporting their causes and wants. Perhaps this is because campaign financing has become a monopoly against the American people. By reforming the campaign finances, you will be encouraging voting and the candidates will then listen more closely to their constituents.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxx
Student Name: xxxxxxxx (GOVT 2301-1002)
Student Email: xxxxxxxx@yahoo.com
Site Name: The Struggle for Democracy Online
Author Name: Greenberg
Chapter Number: 4
Chapter Title: The Structural Foundations Of American Government And
Politics
Submitted on February 17, 2003 6:50:56 PM EST
1. Answered Is there a difference in how Americans respond
to questions about the role of government in the abstract and to questions
about specific programs?
Your answer: There is a sizeable difference in how Americans
respond to questions about the role of government in the abstract or general,
and to questions about specific programs. In the abstract, Americans overall
respond to questions about the role of government in a negative way. Many
Americans believe and respond by saying government is not very sufficient,
not trust worthy, or its corrupt. They even believe that at times, the
government infringes on people personal freedoms and rights. A good number
of Americans also believe that even though they have negative responses
and criticisms about the government’s role in general, they still like
what it can do for them and the country. Americans also trust their state
and local governments role more than they do the federal government, but
feel that the federal government really has more control in their everyday
life. On the other hand, Americans respond quite differently when it comes
to questions about specific programs. Mostly all Americans have positive
views and assessments to specific programs such as education, drug enforcement,
and welfare. Americans believe that at one point or the other, they will
all benefit from such programs whether they know about it or not. Even
though a majority of Americans have positive views and favor specific programs,
they still feel the government should be more involved in certain areas
and programs. These include pollution control, poverty, and minimum education
standards. In looking at this questions about how Americans respond to
the role of government in general and to questions about specific programs,
one has to also consider different racial views as well. Different races
such as whites, African-Americans, and Latino’s all have different views
about government roles and specific programs. For example, African-Americans
are less trusting of state and local governments than whites and Latino’s.
So yes, there is a sizeable difference in how Americans respond to the
role of government in general or abstract, and to questions about specific
programs. The NPR website said it best when it said, “Americans have a
love-hate relationship with government”. Specific in which they “love”
and general or abstract in which they “hate”.
2. Answered Are Americans in general agreement about
the proper role of government, or do they vary in some systematic way?
Your answer: Americans, in general, are in agreement about the
proper role of government. Most believe that even though the government
can’t be trusted at times and it is sometimes corrupt, it is still effective
in the overall picture and well being of the nation. Americans also agree
that they want more government involvement and more government regulation
to solve the nation's problems. For an example from the NPR website, it
says a majority (60%) of Americans say the government has gone to far in
regulating business and interfering with the free enterprise system, and
has not regulated enough in other areas such as to health care, television,
and the Internet. In general, this does show that Americans are in agreement
about the proper role of government, but there are some varying systematic
differences out there. Whether you are a Democratic or Republican can have
some varying differences on what you think the proper role of government
should be. For another example, Democrats (47%) are less likely than Republicans
to (73%) to say that government has gone to far in regulating business.
Americans also have varying differences in the proper role of government
depending on their racial ethnicity or financial standing. Even though
we are in the 21st century, there is still that inequality out there. It
is and will be getting better as more and more people continue their educations
and training, but for now depending on which ethnic group or your financial
standing, your views about the government will be mixed.
3. Answered What do you think the role of government
should be?
Your answer: I think that the role of government (federal) should
be to maintain the overall well being and prosperity of the nation, without
infringing on the freedoms and rights of the American people in as little
way as possible. Government should play an important role in the formation
of public policies and programs that will benefit the majority in any class
or group, foreign policies, the adoption of effective laws and fair court
systems, and specific government programs to help its citizens such as
welfare and social security reform. I also think that during this day and
age the foremost and most important role of the government should be to
protect the American people from any foreign or domestic threats. After
the September 11th terrorist attacks, almost all Americans begin to doubt
their personal freedoms and where finally realizing we are not safe from
acts of terror. I believe that the government should play an important
role in keeping and reminding American s that the government, and its resources
are trying to do everything it can to protect the citizens of the United
States. That is why I praise the Bush administration for establishing the
Homeland Security Act and Department. Even though it might not be 100%
fail prove, this at least shows the American people that government cares.
The role of government I think should also not be limited to certain classes
and ethic groups. Whether you are rich or poor, black, white, or brown;
every group or individual should receive fair and equal treatment no matter
if it is regarding education or tax cuts.
4. Answered Do you tend to agree with most Americans
on this issue or not?
Your answer: For me personally, I do tend to agree with most
Americans on these issues. I do believe that the government is not very
sufficient, distrustful, and is corrupt at times, but I also believe in
the system and in government overall. For one thing, I agree the government
has really taken and made the United States into what it is today. We are
a nation prospering with great economic wealth, diversity, freedoms, and
rights. We are now considered the only legitimate superpower in the world
and when other governments throughout the world were falling and going
through hard times, the United States people and its government was prospering.
Even though we might be going through a slight recession right now, I still
believe and have faith in the American federal government and that they
will put us into a position to rebound and continue to prosper economically
and socially.
1. Answered Is there a difference in how Americans respond
to questions about the role of government in the abstract and to questions
about specific programs?
Your answer:
Americans can be very different in the way they view the role of government.
Americans "love" the specific ways of government relugates things but "hate"
the general ways of government regulation. For instance the majority
of Americans believe that the government has gone too far about regulating
small business and big corporation, but they won't that there needs to
be more regulations of fewer about specific areas like health care and
the preparation of healthy foods and drugs.
2. Answered Are Americans in general agreement about
the proper role of government, or do they vary in some systematic way?
Your answer:
I think that Americans can be very diverse in the views of the role
of government. The majority of Americans trust the government to
deal with specific programs but very few Americans trust the government
to do what is right in general areas. Race also plays a part on whether
or not a person believes the government is doing the right thing.
For instance, whites trust the government 29% of the time at the federal
level, 41% of the time at the state level and 41% of the time at the local
level. Blacks trust the government the least at 25% at the federal
level, 27% of the time at the state level, and 29% at the local level.
Latinos tend to trust the government the most at 36% at the federal level,
42% at the state level and 42% at the local level. So depending on
a person's race may alter the way the interpret the governments role and
their trust in the government.
3. Answered What do you think the role of government
should be?
Your answer:
I believe that the role of the government needs to be less involved
with the regulation of business. I do admit that there needs to be
some government involvement with business but i believe that it is too
involved right now. I think that there needs to be less government
involvement for the major issues like reducing the poverty level and providing
health care. I believe that these areas and others like them, would
be more effective if there was less government involvement.
4. Answered Do you tend to agree with most Americans
on this issue or not?
Your answer:
I believe that most Americans feel that the government is too involved
in certain issues and not involved enough in other issues. For instance,
I tend to agree with most Republicans about government involvement in the
issues of poverty and health care. I also believe that most Americans
aren't completely satisfied with the government involvement and with periodically
change their mind of issues of regulations etc. I know I have periodically
changed my mind on certain issues. I believe that I stand with the
majority of Americans on certain issues and that I stand with the minority
on other issues.
1. Is there a difference in how Americans respond to questions about the role of government in the abstract and to questions about specific programs?
There is a substantial difference between the general view of government and the opinion that Americans have about specific programs. In fact, a vast majority of Americans (71%) believe that the government does the wrong thing most of the times or always and an even bigger portion (89%) of the population thinks that corruption at the government level is a relevant problem. The majority of people also think that the government is inefficient, dominated by partisan bickering and special interests, that government officials are not honest and that too many taxes are levied. In spite of all these negative views, most people believe the government should have a more active role in reducing poverty, promoting education and a cleaner environment.
Somewhat paradoxically, however, the view of specific programs can be less positive than the opinion of what the role of government in the same area should be, although a majority of people still favor such programs. For instance, 69% of Americans want the government to be more effective in reducing poverty, but only 53% view positively the food stamps program. In other areas such as education, instead, the percentage of people who want a more active role of government in setting minimum education standards (64%) is slightly lower than that of those who view positively educational programs (66%).
These results are probably influenced not only by an analysis of what government does, but also by some of those traits that are commonly considered as characterizing of the American culture, such as the importance of education and competitive individualism. This consideration would explain why Americans support education programs but, even when recognizing poverty as a problem to be solved, view less positively a program like food stamps, which is thought to encourage poor people to rely on help from the government, rather than on their own initiative.
At a more general level, however, it seems that American culture is entrenched with a general distrust of government, which is seen as an alien body with many imperfections, even when many of the governmental programs are judged positively. The view of government becomes more positive as people feel closer to it: local government is generally judged better than state government, which in turn is considered better than the federal government. Furthermore, the example of one individual interviewed by NPR shows that Americans tend to form an even better opinion of the government when they interact with its employees, as they usually obtain better results than expected. This phenomenon shows that the more a citizen can relate on a personal basis with government, the better his idea of the government itself will be.
2. Are Americans in general agreement about the proper role of government,
or do they vary in some systematic way?
The research shows that Republicans and Democrats have a completely
different view about what government should do, and the position they take
is that of the groups they traditionally represent.
In fact, Democrats, who often take the defense of the less wealthy and are sensitive to environmental issues, favor an increased role of government in eliminating poverty, making health care affordable and guaranteeing the safety of foods and drugs. Republicans, often representing the entrepreneurial class, argue instead that the government’s regulation of business is too articulated and detrimental to the economy.
3. What do you think the role of government should be?
I think that the government should have a more active role in several
areas of intervention. In particular, I believe it should do more to decrease
pollution, for instance by introducing tighter regulations that would force
automakers to design engines more fuel efficient. In spite of an ever increasing
number of vehicles in circulation, American cars are far less efficient
than those marketed in Europe and in Asia, using much more fuel and thus
polluting more than necessary. Another problem that the government should
address in a more forceful way is poverty. While I don’t believe that it
is possible to increase the funds allocated for such programs as food stamps
or Medicare ad infinitum, I think a much more effective approach would
be to make the taxation system more progressive, in order to balance the
distribution of wealth.
4. Do you tend to agree with most Americans on this issue or not?
I agree with most Americans that many governmental programs achieve
good results and that the government should do more in many areas, although
I would prefer a different approach to the solution of some problems. I
don’t feel that personal rights and freedom are threatened by the action
of government, although I believe that law enforcement agencies should
be monitored more carefully to prevent abuses of power. Another point I
disagree with is the claim that the government imposes too many regulations
on businesses, as I find that American workers are in a disadvantageous
position if compared to those in Europe, enjoying less vacation and sick
leave time and, in general, a smaller number of benefits.
Student Name: Damiano Ferrari
Student Email: xxxxxxxx@hotmail.com
Site Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Author: Greenberg
Quiz Location: Student Resources > Democracy and American Politics
> Web Explorations > The Diffusion of Democracy
Submitted on 18/Jan/2003 at 17:45:20 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Answered What conclusions can you make about the spread of democracy over the course of the century?
Your Answer:
Although a pattern leading to the diffusion of democracy around the
world can be seen in the XX century, it is clear that it hasn’t been a
geographically homogenous nor a chronologically linear process. In fact,
not only full democracy was acquired in different regions at different
times during the century, but a number of countries, that had reached democracy,
later reverted to less democratic forms of governments. In other cases,
democracy was never achieved at all. From a chronological standpoint, democracy
was adopted by a few, although in some cases vast and influential, countries
during the first three decades of the century. This process abruptly stopped
in the years preceding and leading to World War II, to resume again at
the end of the conflict and to continue well into the ‘60s. Starting in
the late ‘60s and until the mid ‘80s, however, many countries chose to
revert to less democratic governments and only in the last decade of the
century has democracy become widespread. From a geographic point of view,
many distinctions should be made. Some regions (Australia, Northern Europe,
Northern America) achieved democracy relatively early on in the century
and never relinquished it. Many countries in Western Europe and Central-Southern
America, although at different times and for different reasons, experienced
short-lived democracies, which succumbed to authoritarian governments before
democracy was reinstated once again. Most of Eastern European and Asian
nations never had an opportunity to develop a democracy until the last
decade of the century and even today, along with Africa, Asia is the continent
where democracy has spread the least. African countries, in fact, were
relatively late in adopting democracy and anti-democratic surges often
succeeded in reinstating authoritarian forms of government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Answered When were
the greatest gains made and where?
Your Answer:
Three main phases of a process involving the spread of democracy can
be individuated in the XX century. The first phase followed World War I
and lasted for a little more than a decade. Democracy became the form of
government for many countries in Northern America and in Europe, whereas
the other world regions were virtually unaffected by the spread of democratic
governments. The second phase of this democratic process spans the first
two decades following World War II: several nations in Southern America,
Western Europe and, for the first time, in Asia and then in Africa, adopted
democracy. It has to be noted, however, that especially in Southern America
and in Africa, anti-democratic surges often restored authoritarian or military
governments. Western Europe and Asia, on the other hand, were able to maintain
the recent gains. The third and last phase of this process, and likely
the one which saw the greatest gains being made, encompasses the last two
decades of the century. The end of the Cold War, which in turn followed
the fall of the Soviet Union, and favorable economic conditions allowed
for stable, democratic governments to be established in most of the Americas,
Europe, Australia and Oceania. Asia and Africa have also shown to have
reached a more mature stage of democratic development, with a greater number
of countries which have adopted and maintained a stable democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Answered What factors
do you think explain the patterns you have discovered?
Your Answer:
The wars fought by and the tensions between some of the world’s most
powerful nations seem to have influenced greatly the spread of democracy.
In fact, each of the three phases of the process that led many countries
to adopt democracy, followed a conflict (World War I, World War II) or
a period of tensions and disputes (Cold War). In every case, the conflicts
eliminated the reasons which had caused a comeback of authoritarian governments
and provoked a surge of demands for more democracy. After World War I and
World War II, the winning nations were able to maintain their democratic
governments and to install similar democracies in the defeated countries.
The end of the Cold War, although not properly a war at all, had similar
effects: after the fall of the Soviet Union, all the Eastern European countries
which were once subjugated to the Communist tyranny, became free. As the
danger of a conflict with the Communist countries disappeared, Western
countries probably lost any r! eason to support authoritarian and military
governments in South America, Asia and Africa, since they no longer needed
a single, strong referent for each country. This, in turn, is likely to
have been one of the causes that led to the formation or consolidation
or many democracies. Economy probably played an important role, too. Not
only periods of economic growth favored the development of more democratic
governments, but periods of recession spurred the creation of anti-democratic,
extreme political theories, such as Fascism, Nazism and Communism. The
regimes that these theories originated, as they were based on the concept
of a society where individuality was denied, caused the suppression of
personal freedom and rights. Another discriminating factor could be traced
in the political and historical past of each country. Australia, Northern
Europe and Northern America, which all shared a common, although ancient,
Anglo-Saxon heritage, developed fully democratic forms of government before
than most other countries. Other nations, notably Europeans and Southern
Americans, which became democratic relatively early in the century, later
reverted to authoritarian governments. It appears that Anglo-Saxons and,
in general, Germanic cultures valued democracy more than other cultures.
Furthermore, the presence of established aristocracy in some European countries
made it even more difficult for these nations to develop a democratic culture,
in particular if compared to the same countries’ former colonies.
Student Name: Withheld by Request
Student Email: xxxxxx@aol.com
Site Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Title: The Struggle for Democracy
Book's Author: Greenberg
Quiz Location: Student Resources > The Constitution > Web Explorations
> Delegates to the Convention
Submitted on 24/Jan/2003 at 23:14:25 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Answered Select a
state and read the biographies of the delegates. How would you describe
the average delegate?
Your Answer:
The 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention were different in their own perspective but a like in ways that determined the type of men they were. The average delegate was a male and was very well educated. In political experience the average delegate had experience in colonail and state government and had each held county and local offices. Occupational wise the degates shared a wide range of occupations but thirty three out of fifty five of the delegates were lawyers or had some sort of legal training. In educational background the average delegate was a native from the thirteen colonies. For the most part they were very well educated. The avg. delegate lived to be around 67, and had been married and raised a family. Post careers of the avg. delegate consisted of being successful and contributing in some way to the cultural life of their cities, communites, and states. From my reading, it is my understanding that each delegate was very involved in the government and held some sort of high ranking. Not only being very educated and successful but had lots of occupational history of working in the government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Answered How representative
do you believe them to have been of the American people of the time?
Your Answer:
I don't believe that the average delegate was very represenative because
they were well educated, most wealthy, many were farmers of large land
areas and had slaves, and all of them were men. The people of their time
were the total opposite. There were woman obviously! Many people of their
time were not educated at all and were not wealthy. Slavery for the delegates
was a choice whether they wanted to own one, for the people, many were
slaves without a choice. The delegates represented you could say the upper
popuation why the people were the lower population. I chose to look at
the two delegates from New Hampshire. One interesting fact I found in my
reading was that John Landing was forced to pay his own expenses and those
of his partner Nicholas Gilman to the Constitutional Convention because
New Hampshire was unalbe or unwilling to pay for them. Seems unusal to
me. I do believe that Langdon represented the people in one specific issue
and that was on the debate where ! he struck a comprise on the issue of
slavery. This is important because many americans were slaves. Langdon
was a prosperous farmer who sired a large famiy. He was very much involved
in politics going from being elected to the Continental Congress to state
senate to president. I think he did not represent what the average american
population was but I do think that he represented them when trying to debate
on issues that dealt with them. Nichoals Gilmans begining life to me seemed
to resemble those of the people. He went to local schools and worked in
his father's general store. For the most part his biography report does
not say much about him and what he did for the convention. It says he was
not much for the debates, gave no speeches and played only a minor part
in the debates. To me it does not seem like he represented the American
People if he hardly particiapted.
Submitted on 23/Jan/2003 at 21:50:46 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Answered Select a
state and read the biographies of the delegates. How would you describe
the average delegate?
Your Answer:
I chose Pennsylvania as my state to research each delegate. Pennsylvania
had eight delegates and all seemed to have similarities but yet some differences
that seemed to help them throughout their careers. One difference I found
was that the delegates were not all born in the United States. James Wilson
was born in Scottland and Thomas Fitzsimons was born in Ireland. They all
seemed to live long, productive lives. Some such as, Benjamin Franklin
lived to be 84. Each was educated but not all in schools or academies.
Most of the delegates were either self taught or taught by someone in their
home. Some of the delegates did have the opportunity of a higher education,
such as Jared Ingersoll who attended Yale and graduated in 1766; Gouverneur
Morris who attended Kings College in New York and Graduated in 1768 and
Wilson who attended many universities in England and the United States
and graduated. Many of the delegated passed the bar for either Pennsylvania
or New York. All seemed to use their intelligence throughout their lives
for politics and business. All were married and had children. Wilson was
the only one who married late in life but he still had a child and they
both survived him. Franklin was the only one who did a common-law marriage
and had children and also had children out of wedlock. They all seemed
to protect and care for their families although the article did not go
into great detail about this. With all the similarities and differences
the delegates had, I believe they served the people of Pennsylvania well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Answered How representative
do you believe them to have been of the American people of the time?
Your Answer:
Each delegate started representing the people at differnt times and
for differnt reason in their lives. For example, most of the delegates
began a public act of politis with the Revolution, but James Wilson did
not want to have any part in it and went to London for two more years to
practice law. He came back from London and then joined the others in an
active role of politics. Each delegate held many public and private offices
in their careers. George Clymer was the first President of the Philidelphia
Bank. Fitzsimons was a U.S. Representative among many other positions.
Franklin represented the U.S. in negotiations in getting the Treaty of
Paris signed to end the War of Independence with France. As you can tell
each held very high offices and did very important things to help the people
of the United States and other countries. They found out what the people
wanted and did their best to act upon this. At the Constitutional Convention,
each played a different role. Some where more vocal than others but none
did not hesitate to speak their minds. Each said what they thought needed
to be said rather it took 173 speeches as it did for Morris or just a few
as it did for Clymer. Each delegate was always at the meetings hardly missing
any. This, I believe is someone who wants to represent their people to
the fullest. Each signed the Constitution because this is what they must
have believed the people wanted them to do and needed. I believe that the
delegates had enough common ground between them all to understand what
the people of Pennsylvania and the United States needed and wanted at the
time of their serving the people. They all had good educations and backgrounds
in business and politics to serve them with knowledge and common sense.
Each seemed to work their life in bettering things for the people around
them. The Constitution is a very good example of that. I do not think the
people of the time could have asked for a finer group of men to build our
nation and represent them.
Submitted on 23/Jan/2003 at 21:43:14 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Answered Select a
state and read the biographies of the delegates. How would you describe
the average delegate?
Your Answer:
GOVT 2302 TTH 8-9:15 Among Massachusetts delegates there is not a noticable
string uniting the four delegates, other than their strong influence within
the creation of the Constitution. It appears that the average delegate
(all but Nathaniel Gorham)were born into rich families and attended Harvard.
Most were lawyers and successes in their businesses. The delegates held
various offices that contributed to their talents and insight, such as
membership in the Continental Congress; governor; judge; Vice President;
director of the First Bank of the United States; and state legislature.
The average delegate ran for upper level positions - President, Vice President,
and governor. Despite differing backgrounds, many of the delegates were
successful, whether they attended Harvard, worked in the family business,
or was the son of a farmer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Answered How representative
do you believe them to have been of the American people of the time?
Your Answer:
I believe the majority of the delegates were attentive to what the
American people wanted. The delegates recognized the reasons for needing
a Constitution for the United States. Gerry was one of the few delegates
that seemed to be less cared, among the people and the government. After
losing four times in a row for the governor position, Gerry finally won
a spot, yet was quickly replaced again by Strong. Gerry was also often
was looked down upon by fellow politicians. Gorham started out representing
the American people more than Gerry, often serving roles that he was not
adequately trained for, such as a judge for the Middlesex County. Gorham
helped to form and support the Constitution, but he failed to fill a sit
within the newly created government. After a failed attempt and financial
problems dealing with the purchase of land, Gorham fell of the political
and business map. Rufus King was a smooth talker and a Harvard graduate,
both of which helped to earn him a place at the Constitutional Conventaion
at such a young age. King later became a director of the First Bank of
the United States. King remained in the government world up until his passing
in 1827. Lastly, Caleb Strong also seemed to be fairly attached to the
influence of the American people. He was unable to sign the Constitution
because of a family illness. Afterwards, Strong became one of the first
U.S. Senators. 11 years later Strong beat out Gerry for Massachusetts governor,
a position he held for 6 years. Six years later, Strong regained his governor
position until he retired four years later. Taking all this into consideration,
I believe King and Gorham most closely listened to what the American people
wanted, which could very possibly be the result of their background and
their family situations. I believe Strong was the next most attentive and
Gerry was the least attentive. Many people seemed to almost dispise Gerry
and it showed often in their voting. To move up in positions, Gerry was
often appointed by politicians and not the American public.
Submitted on 24/Jan/2003 at 10:15:59 EST
----------
1.
Answered
Select a state and read the biographies of the delegates. How would
you describe the average delegate?
Your Answer:
Almost all of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were well-educated,
wealthy men who were leaders in their communities and states. Most
of them had experience in colonial and state government. Nearly all of
them served in the Revolution, most in command positions. Their occupations
covered a wide range of occupations.Most were natives of the 13 colonies.
Their educational backgrounds varied from being self-taught with little
formal training to college graduates with advanced degrees. A sign of the
times was the fact that there were no women, artists, free blacks, indentured
servants, slaves or Native Americans, and there were only 2 small farmers.
These groups together formed the majority of the population. I
would describe the average delegate as educated, wealthy, and experienced
in government.
Since I selected the delegates from New Hampshire, descriptions of them as delegates are listed below:
Nicholas Gilman
As a delegate, Nicholas Gilman had the characteristics of most of the other delegates. He was from a distinguished New Hampshire family, was educated in local schools and worked in his father's general store. He was a Captain in the Continental Army. After the war, he became involved in politics. He only played a minor part in the deliberations at the Convention, and his attendance record in the Congress was poor. He helped obtain New Hampshire's acceptance of the Constitution and helped get it through Congress. Later he served in the U.S. House of Representatives and was a presidential elector in 1793 and 1797. He sat in the New Hampshire legislature and held the office of state treasurer. He died at the age of 58.
John Langdon
As a delegate, John Langdon's characteristics were not entirely those
of the average delegate. He came from a prosperous family where his father
owned a farm, but he did not have any formal education. He attended the
local grammar school, worked as an apprentice clerk, and spent time at
sea. He went into the mercantile business and was successful, which made
him like some of the other delegates who were successful businessmen. He
became a colonel in the state militia. He found his major outlet in politics,
his career going from election to the Continental Congress to the state
senate and to the presidency or executive leader of New Hampshire. He had
to pay his own way and that of Nicholas Gilman to the Constitutional Convention
since New Hampshire did not pay for them to go. That shows how much he
wanted to be a part of the Convention to personally pay both of their ways.
He spoke more than 20 times at the Convention although they arrived after
much of the business had already been decided. He was a member of the committee
that struck a compromise on slavery. He leaned toward strengthening national
government, but later changed his position to firmly backing the Democratic-Republicans.
He was offered the Secretary of the Navy and the Democratic-Republican
Vice-Presidential nomination, but turned down both positions. Dartmouth
College gave him an honorary doctor of laws degree. In summary, his characteristics
matched those of the average delegate except for his lack of formal education.
----------
2.
Answered
How representative do you believe them to have been of the American
people of the time?
Your Answer:
I wasn't sure if I was supposed to write about the delegates in general before I write about the delegates I chose, so I will include an answer about all the delegates first.
I believe the delegates were representative of the American people of the time. The communities were new and struggling and needed strong leadership in developing the government of a new country. The delegates were educated, many had knowledge gained from being in business, and some had military experience. Their experiences and successes made them good representatives and leaders of the people. Although minorities weren't represented as delegates, at that time in history, delegates were proven leaders, and I think the country needed that type of leadership to go forward.
Nicholas Gilman
As to how representative of the people of his time he was, I would
say that he was the right person to be a delegate. He attended local schools
like the other children of the community and gained work experience in
his father's general store, which would have helped him to know a lot of
the people of the community. He had experience in the army, which most
of the men of the town probably had also. Most of the people probably weren't
as well off financially as his family was, but since he had an interest
in government and wanted to pursue it, I think he was a good representative
of the people except for the fact that he did not attend all the meetings.
As far as the "hint" that many of the minority people
(who if combined were the majority) were not represented, at the time,
they did not have the qualifications to be the representatives of the people.
The country was new and needed leaders who had the educational background
and knowledge to lead. I think the hint would be more appropriate for today's
times than it was at that time in history.
John Langdon
I believe that he represented the people well because he was so outspoken
at the Convention, and the people later elected him to run their state,
which shows they supported him as their leader. He might be said to have
worked for all the people by the fact that he helped bring about the compromise
on slavery (although the article does not mention what his position was).
Since he had worked as an apprentice to learn business practices, he had
the working man's experience in common with most of the people. He served
in the military, like most of the other men. He seemed to thrive in politics,
and because of his enthusiasm for it and his beliefs that he was willing
to work to bring about, I believe he was a good representative of the people
for the times.