Hi you guys, welcome to another very exciting history lesson. Only one announcement actually before we begin this lecture. So early voting in Texas begins on October 13th, so if you're not a lying person, because I don't like standing in lines.
So if you are like me and you don't like standing in lines, try early voting. Again, I'll put this information on your online learning platform. Another benefit of early voting is that you don't have to go to your polling place. So it makes it incredibly easy. So again, get out there and vote.
All right. So this week we talk about chapter. seven.
So last week in chapter six, we discussed some post-revolutionary ideas, right? So after the Revolutionary War, the former colonies, now known as states, have to figure out how they're going to run these states. So they form constitutions and each state will have their own constitution. Some states will, or some constitutions will... retain a lot of the vestiges of the old constitutions, whereas some will be incredibly liberal for the time, such as Vermont and Pennsylvania.
Now, while chapter six focused on really each state and what's going on at this smaller level, in this chapter, chapter seven, we're talking about founding the nation. And so last chapter, there was conflict with trying to decide within the states how they're going to form of these state constitutions with chapter seven founding the nation which takes place between 1783 and 1791 there will be a lot more conflict because the question is now that we have independence how should we govern this nation what should be in the constitution what are these inalienable rights and where should we put them who is entitled to these rights you All of these things will be discussed in this chapter. So let's begin.
So first we'll start with talking about the Articles of Confederation. So if you're on your PowerPoint or if you have your notes or even if you've cracked open your book, hopefully you've read Chapter 7. You're supposed to be reading and watching the lecture for your best success in this course. We start off with the Articles of Confederation.
So the Articles of Confederation was really America's first written constitution. It was drafted in 1777 during the War for Independence, and it was ratified in 1781. So within the Articles of Confederation, it essentially says that each state has its own individual sovereignty or its own individual independence. States govern themselves.
It also granted some power to the national government, such as the power to declare war, the power to conduct financial affairs, as well as the power to make treaties and negotiations with other nations. However, while the Articles of Confederation provided some outline and some guideline for running the nation, it had some serious limitations. And one of the major limitations here was that the national government doesn't have any financial resources. So that will lead to some conflict because if the government doesn't have any national resources or it doesn't have any financial resources, then who do they depend on in order to raise money for the government? So this will be an issue.
Also, after the Treaty of Paris, the United States essentially doubles in size and we get control of all of the land that is... east of the Mississippi River. So now the United States is much larger than those original 13 colonies.
And so you will have settlers who want to go out to the West because of an abundance of free land. Now I say free land because of course the land isn't free. The land is occupied by Native Americans who have already been pushed West, who have been fighting European encroachment since the beginnings.
of honestly the courts, right? So Congress will establish national control over the land west of the original 13 colonies. And they'll also establish rules for settlement because over 100,000 Native Americans are in these areas already. And they don't want there to be lots of conflict.
But remember, they do want this land because land is revenue. Land is very important. Land is a source of wealth. It gives you the chance to make money.
It gives you options. when you have land. Land gives you wealth, it gives you power, it gives you options, right? So with the settlers in the West, a large population of people will gradually start to move to the West because again, it's seen as there being, it's like there's the viewpoint is that there is an abundance of free, unoccupied land. and possessing and occupying lands is honestly seen as a right of American freedom, the right to have land.
In fact, remember those rebellions that we had a few chapters back that had to do with settlers wanting land? So land is very important. However, as people begin to move across the Appalachian Mountains, as they begin to move west, this Movement is rather unregulated.
And the unregulated movement of settlers across the Appalachian Mountains can and honestly will provoke warfare with Native Americans who have already inhabited these areas and Native Americans that have already been pushed out of their native lands to where they are now. So it's a huge issue. So in order to try to decide how we're going to govern this land, how we're going to sell the land because the land is revenue the government comes up with a series of land ordinances and in this course we'll discuss three land ordinances really in particular the first one is known as the ordinance of 1784. this ordinance was drafted by thomas jefferson and it established stages of self-government for the west So essentially this ordinance will say that the regions should be divided into districts, which will be initially governed by Congress.
But after they get their own thing together, they'll be admitted into the union as member states. So again, the ordinance of 1784, again, establishes stages of self-government. How do these areas become states?
So once you move there, it will be governed by Congress. And then eventually... it will be admitted into the union as a member state.
Another ordinance that's passed during this time is the Ordinance of 1785. This ordinance had to do with land sales. How are we going to sell land in this area that's west of the original 13 colonies? The Ordinance of 1785 regulated land sales in the region north of the Ohio River, known as the Old...
northwest. And so the land there was surveyed by the government and it was sold in sections of a square mile at a dollar an acre. And this is where I pumped the brakes a little bit. A dollar an acre seems relatively inexpensive, but we have to remember that back then this was actually a lot of money.
And so, and also remember that it's not sold by the square or by the acre, it's sold by the square mile. So here's a question for you. How many square miles are in an acre? Or I'm sorry, how many acres are in a square mile? So just flip that.
How many acres are in a square mile? Don't worry, you don't have to look it up. You don't have to pause me. There are about 640 acres in a square mile.
So while a dollar an acre sounds very inexpensive, it sounds somewhat affordable. when you put it in the context of the 1700s, it's actually quite expensive. That means that in order to buy land in this area, you have to have at least $640 available because they're only selling the tracts of land in a square mile at a dollar an acre.
This price actually made it pretty expensive for ordinary settlers. The purchase price put the public land really... out of financial reach for most settlers. So it's very expensive. That is a criticism of this land ordinance.
The land was expensive and it really puts it outside of the price range that ordinary settlers could afford. The last land ordinance that we'll talk about in this chapter is the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. So this ordinance called for the eventual creation of between three and five states north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi. In this ordinance, it stated that no land should be taken from Native Americans without consent.
And they also said that in this Northwest Territory, that was created by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, there should be no slavery there. Westward expansion really added to Jefferson's idea of this empire of liberty, that the United States was going to be an empire of liberty. And really, westward expansion and the acquisition of land were key, I would say, cornerstones to his idea of how to have a nation where people are able to experience...
full true liberty. So during this time, again, we still have the Articles of Confederation and it has lots of weaknesses. So one, Congress can't coin money.
They don't have the power to coin money, which means each state has a different currency. That means each state's currency has a different value. It makes it very difficult to trade between states.
because each state has its own currency. It's like each state is completely independent. It's like we're not working as a nation quite yet.
Also, Congress didn't have the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. So Congress, with the Articles of Confederation, it really limits the power of the national government. No national court could protect the rights of citizens because there is no Supreme Court yet.
Congress also- didn't have the right to impose taxes, which causes an issue. They have no way of raising money. The way that the government raises money is through taxes. This is why we pay taxes on whatever we earn. It helps the government to raise money and thus run itself.
Furthermore, another weakness of the Articles of Confederation is that there is no executive branch to enforce any laws. Also, any amendments or changes you wanted to make to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote. Now, how difficult do you think that would be to get all of these members from different states to agree on one change? It's very difficult, especially in a nation where slavery is the main economic driving force of an entire region. So if you're trying to make any decisions about slavery, about...
the rights of people. It makes it incredibly difficult because any changes to the Articles of Confederation require that everyone agree. No majority.
It has to be unanimous. Okay? Now, continuing, we'll go on to Shays'Rebellion. Your book talks about Shays'Rebellion and it gives you a little bit of a background of what's going on after the fight or the war for independence.
I really like talking about Shays'Rebellion or teaching about Shays'Rebellion because it also kind of demystifies this idea or it takes away this idea that the colonies and that people are happy and united after the war for independence. However, it just doesn't go that simply or that easily. In 1786 and 1787, Massachusetts farmers begin objecting to local and state tax law.
It was very difficult for farmers in Massachusetts to obtain credit because in order to obtain credit you had to have assets, meaning you have to own something, perhaps land. However, if you don't own any assets, it's really difficult to obtain credit. Also, in Massachusetts, they are taxed incredibly high.
In fact, in Massachusetts, they're taxed four times higher. than their neighbors in New Hampshire. And often these taxes accounted about a third of their annual income.
That's a lot of taxes. Furthermore, veterans of the war for independence faced a lot of roadblocks in getting their back pay or what was owed to them from fighting. And because they didn't have this back pay, they're not able to pay their taxes. And so in 1786, the Crux, of Shays'Rebellion is that you have these farmers who end up keeping the tax court from being able to be convened.
These regulators attack the federal armory, 18 people are executed, but what this really shows is that when we come to the war for independence, one, it doesn't mean that everyone is automatically independent and everyone is happy. There's still a lot of conflict. How are we going to raise money? We fought the war for independence in part because of taxes, but what type of independence do we have if we're still having to pay taxes that are quite expensive?
So That is the idea, I would say, of Shays'Rebellion, or one of the ideas of Shays'Rebellion. However, we go on to the Constitution. That is the major thing or the major, I would say, point of this lecture, right?
So the Constitutional Convention meets in 1787, and it brings together 55 of some of the most educated men, honestly, in the entire nation. Now, I say this because at a time when fewer than one-tenth of one percent of Americans attended college, more than half of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention held college degrees and college educations. So when we talk about the Constitution and those who are making the Constitution, honestly, this convention brought together some of the best and brightest minds of this era.
However, we still have issues with this constitution. How are we going to structure the government? This will be a huge issue, right? So this new creation, one, would create three branches of government, which are the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.
Congress would also have the power to raise money without relying on the states. And the states would be prohibited from infringing on the rights of property, on the individual rights of property. Also, they wanted to create a government and a constitution that would represent the people, okay?
So when trying to find a structure for the government, really the structure of government that we have today is a compromise. It's an amalgamation of two plans, right? So...
The huge issue or one of the issues that our founders had in putting together this constitution is how should the balance of power between the federal government and the states, how should that be? And so we have two major plans. We have the Virginia plan that really would benefit larger states with larger populations and the New Jersey plan, which would more likely represent states that have smaller populations. So the Virginia plan called for a two-house legislature where the state's population would determine how many representatives they got.
So in a larger state like Virginia, they would get a larger number of representatives. But what if you lived in a state that was smaller, that had a smaller population? That would mean you wouldn't get as much representation because you don't have that many people in your state.
So the... The other plan that we'll discuss is the New Jersey plan. This plan called for a one house Congress where each state, regardless of population size, would get one vote. The compromise is what we have now.
It's really an amalgamation of both the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan. So what we have now is a two house Congress. We have the Senate where each state has two members.
regardless of the population of the state. Each state has two senators and they are chosen by state legislatures for six-year terms. And then the House of Representatives.
With the House of Representatives, the number of representatives that each state has depends upon the population counts. And they're elected every two years by the people. Now, that's the compromise that they come up with.
So a question that you will be asked on a quiz is the idea of the Senate. What plan out of the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan, the idea of the Senate where each state, regardless of population count, gets two senators, where does that idea come from? That idea comes from the New Jersey plan because it doesn't matter what the state's population is, each state gets an equal number of senators.
And with the House of Representatives, that comes from the Virginia plan, where the number of representatives that each state has depends on the population of the state. And that comes again from the Virginia plan. So that's the compromise that we currently have.
It's an amalgamation of these two plans. Now, the Constitution has two political principles. You have federalism, also known as division of powers, and checks and balances, which is also known as the separation of powers. So federalism, or division of powers, says that power is divided between the national government and the states.
That is federalism. And checks and balances ensures that no branch of government contains too much power. So our government or our constitution embodies two principles, one of federalism or division of powers or checks and balances or separation of powers, which, again, ensures that no one branch of government can overtake the other branch. They all have an equal amount of power, even though they have different jobs. Now, one issue that will divide delegates at many of the sessions of the Constitutional Convention.
is the debate over slavery. So Congress can't abolish the slave trade for another 20 years. So the slave trade will officially be abolished in 1800, but that will be in another lecture. But the slave trade, just to give you, I guess, a little bit of background, the slave trade will be abolished in 1800. And it already, in states, states have to return fugitive owner fugitive slaves to their owners now the question is when we're counting the population of states do you count these slaves do you count enslaved people who have neither voice or a right to vote and honestly starting in the 1600s in virginia law said that enslaved people were to be treated as property however at the constitutional convention Since the House of Representatives and the number of your representatives directly depends on the amount of people that you have in your state, of course, Southerners want to count enslaved people because the more people that they have, the more representation they would get at the seat of national government. So they come up with a compromise, and that is the three-fifths compromise.
The three-fifths compromise, I'm sure a lot of you have heard of it, but a lot of people explain it as the constitution saying that enslaved people are three-fifths of a person. I don't like that explanation. One, it really makes math incredibly difficult, right?
And then do you really think these delegates said, well, when we count this one person, let's just count 60% of this person. It doesn't make any sense, right? They're talking about total populations in the three-fifths compromise, not a person being three-fifths of a person, okay? The three-fifths compromise is decided upon in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. So what they say is that slave-owning states will be able to count three-fifths or simply put, 60% of their enslaved population.
in determining the number of representatives that that state could have. Understand? If not, I'll say it one more time. The Three-Fifths Compromise said that Southern states that own slaves could count 60% of their slave population in their pop, or 60% of their slave population, so they could get more representatives in the House of Representatives. So what's crazy or an irony of this is that the northern states actually grow more rapidly.
So even though they have less slavery, because slavery, again, is not central to their economy, these northern states will be able to grow without depending on chattel slavery. So while the northern states will grow a lot more rapidly, you end up getting a 42% drop in southern representation. So it's really interesting.
It's just an irony. of this time. So what does our constitution say about slavery?
Does it really name slavery? So January 1st, 1808, so not 1800, I apologize for that, 1808, it is in your notes. On January 1st, 1808, Congress prohibited the further importation of African slaves.
So what does this mean? In 1808, does it mean that... Congress says there will be no more slavery? Absolutely not. So January 1st, 1808, this is the date that they decide that they will no longer import African slaves, right?
So that means the international slave trade will end for the United States in 1808. But the national slave trade kicks off prior to that. Also, by the time we get to this era, The slave trade is no longer necessary because the slave population in the South has reproduced itself. So it's not even necessary by this time. So after the War for Independence, about 170,000 Africans are brought to America as slaves to replace those who fled with the British. So this is why they give this 20-year period from 1778 or so to 1808, right?
They give this 20-year period. So they'll have, or let me start over. from about 1788, I apologize, to about 1808. They give this 20 year period so they can get more slaves into the country before abolishing the international slave trade.
However, remember by the 1800s, especially and honestly by the late 1700s, the slave population in the South has reproduced itself. And because of how slavery has been written into the law, It's definitely not necessary. So anytime a slave owner rapes any of his slave property and they have children, he has increased his wealth just by that act, honestly. By the time we get to the writing of the constitution as well, the constitution essentially says that slaves have this condition of extraterritoriality is what your book refers to it as. And simply put, But extraterritoriality means that the condition of bondage remains attached to the person, even if they escaped to a free state.
And we'll bring this back up in another about 50 or so, 50 to 60 years. We'll also bring back this idea of extraterritoriality. Some of you guys for a court case on your first exam mentioned the Dred Scott case, but we're not there yet. The Dred Scott case is a perfect example of extraterritoriality and its limitations that it puts on enslaved or formerly enslaved people.
The Constitution gave the national government absolutely no power to interfere with the states, to interfere with slavery in the states. So the Constitution doesn't really mention slavery. So even though at this time, There are hundreds of thousands of enslaved people in the United States.
And even again, according to Chapter 6, if we go back at this time, even northern states have begun to gradually emancipate their enslaved property. The Constitution gives absolutely no power to the national government to interfere with slavery in the states. So slavery is... I would say a big question mark because it's not something that is really addressed in the constitution.
It's something that is, I would say, incredibly lacking. So even though it's a huge issue in society, the constitution doesn't really provide a roadmap for how the states should deal with this societal ill. this societal honestly moneymaker it's an economic thing and the constitution does not provide any type of guidance on how to deal with that but we get the final document anyways it's not perfect but it's what we have the last session of the constitutional convention occurs september 17th 1787 so the constitution All in all, we'll create a new framework for American development, though it's not always specific with issues that we deal with in society. It doesn't answer all of our societal questions.
And we even see that today. What is constitutional? What isn't constitutional? The Constitution, in some instances, is also, I would say, quite vague. And that's one of the reasons why we get a lot of conflict because it's like, how are certain things interpreted?
It leaves a lot of questions to be asked. But again, the last session of the Constitutional Convention takes place September 17th, 1787. And it created a national political or national political institutions and it reduced the powers of the states in some instances. So we'll take a break and on the next video.
we'll talk about the ratification debate and the origin of the Bill of Rights, okay? See you guys soon.