Nicholas DiPreta
Mr. Gish
1) Pgs (183-201)
New England- Connecticut's theocratic establishment, the Standing Order continued to control policy
and Federalist nominations. Anglophilia was so intense that some described Hartford as “the
metropolitan see of Federalism.” Connecticut Federalism grew so reactionary that it eventually
ended up separating itself from Connecticut Federalists. Religious divisions separated the
peoples further. In 1801, Baptists John Leland denounced the mischief of Connecticut religion,
and he called for dissenter to create a new constitution to replace the one that remained from
1666. Over time, more and more Federalists gradually gravitated toward the democraticrepublican side. Connecticut’s burgeoning economy produced a manufacturing sector in the
eastern and southern portions of the state, as a reaction to the large scale embargos placed on
England. The new manufacturing population had a closer association with the Republicans with
the Federalists, as the Federalist leaders did not want to cut off contact and trade with Britain.
The alert Republicans appealed to the manufacturers by protecting them and brown nosing
them; they referred to them as the creators of the national economic independence. Federalists
continued to lose popularity as their anti-war outlook became less popular in Connecticut.
Soon, an ex-federalist liberal governor by the name of Wolcott came to power. Wolcott
acknowledged the increasingly prevalent wish of the people for an updated version of the
constitution of Connecticut, and eventually a state general assembly convened and put the new
constitution into play. The final draft was a moderate document that wasn’t exactly what the
Republicans were looking for.
Republican ideals were battled by Federalists and more
conservative Republicans as well as Wolcott himself. One of the most debated issues was the
enfranchisement of black males The constitutional convention moved back and forth on the
issue. The franchise was not given to the blacks in the end. The new constitution brought
significant reform to Connecticut. The new constitution overthrew the Theocratic government
Connecticut.
Federalists fought the change furiously but gained little.
However, in
Massachusetts, nothing occurred in the constitutional convention. Massachusetts aristocrats
merely affirmed the right of them to keep their land and to keep the land owning population as
the only population that could vote. Unlike Connecticut, they hadn’t set out to change their
governing style completely.
New York-After the Massachusetts movement, a more consequential uprising changed New York’s
constitution. New York’s existing constitution of 1777 received a massive overhaul. After the
war of 1812, popular call for reform demanded change. In 1817 and 1820, reform conventions
assembled in Washington county and Montgomery County. Factionalized party politics were
made worse by the domineering leadership of governor Clinton. Clinton’s alliance with the
Federalists stretched the loyalty of the Republicans to the breaking point. The anti-Clintonian
democratic Buck tails began to gain power. Clinton managed to retain popularity long enough
to win re-election in 1820, but the Bucktails took control of the state legislature. The Bucktails,
led by Van Buren, ruthlessly replaced Clintonians with their own loyalist persons. Eventually,
the Bucktails won a convention contingent in 1821, where they decided on a new state
constitution. The Van Buren Democrats prevailed on every important issue. They carved out a
victory on black suffrage and representation. Eventually, due to the conservative nature of the
white men, the conservative Federalist party won out to the suffrage issue, making it so that it
was easier for the white males to vote, and impossible for the black free males to vote.
West and South- Illinois and Indiana drew on the constitutional structures of Ohio which had earlier
drawn on the examples of reviewing the Mississippi constitution as its model when it framed its
own constitution two years later.
ISelf interest, as well as democratic idealism shaped
westerners views well before statehood was set. However, very few could actually vote in these
newly founded democratic states. Thus, territorial leaders saw liberalized voting laws as an
important incentive to attract enough new settlers to qualify for statehood.
In the
southwestern states, full citizenship and enfranchisement of all white men enlisted in the militia
ensured full participation in policing patrols, which would minimize slave revolts. At the 1819
Alabama constitutional convention, an exclusive Committee of Fifteen offered a draft
constitution that gave the franchise to all white male adults.
However, for some
“uppercountrymen” this was too liberal, and some restrictions were set. In other western
states, the more democratic forces prevailed from the outset. The delegates to the Indiana
state constitutional convention of 1816 was open to all white male tax payers. A constitution
was approved that provided white manhood suffrage and voting by written ballot.
Mississippians soon began revision their own constitution to catch up with the other states. The
major difference between the western state constitutions concerned slavery. In some states,
the constitution prolonged slavery, while in others It prevented slavery. Republican defeat in
Virginia affirmed emerging patters in state efforts at constitutional liberalization. A highly
uneven pattern of democratization amongst the states was evident by the early 1820’s. Some
states, had brought the franchise to many, whereas others reduced the franchise to a select
few.
2) (page 206-8) The panic appeared to hit hardest in the nations cities. New England manufacturing
bore the least suffering because its conservative state banks had resisted the bubble and retained their
reserves. Farther south and West, the older seaboard ports had catastrophic results. In New York and
Philadelphia massive portions of the workforce was reported idle. Commercial firms such as Smith and
Buchanan fell. Agriculturally, farmers could not profit in hiring laborers. Laborers and mechanics were
not in want of employment. Back in Virginia, Jefferson reported himself that lands could not be sold
even for a year’s rent.
3) While the situations of the people negatively affected by the scare of 1819 were very similar, the
methods of solving each one needed to be very different. Each proposed attempt to alleviate the
financial crisis of the Panic was unacceptable to one portion of the country or the other because no one
portion of the country was similar to the next. There could be no comprehensive plan that would work
the same for every state. State divisions and differences had been an essential part of this nation since
its beginning, and the divisions were only growing as constitutionally the states changed. What was
really needed was several separate settlements that would take each little problem on its own instead
of trying to take down the big one all at once.
4) The Panic of 1819 was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged
it as the “Paper bubble” that finally “popped”. America had been in the throes of disunity for years.
Separate governing types between states were coupled with different denominations of people in each
state to create completely isolated states. Each state regarded itself as its own sovereignty with its own
form of government. At this time period, people were still saying “The United States are…”, not “The
United States is…”. The Panic of 1819 was in part a result of American disunion.