The Constitutional Convention and the First Parties

After the American's had won their independence from the British they had been governing themselves under the Articles of Confederation. However, there were many problems with this government under the Articles, the reason mainly being that the government was too weak under the Articles. It gave the government no taxing power, and depended on the generosity of the states to create revenue and give money to the government. It also had no power to force the delinquent states to pay. James Madison had suggested a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland in 1786, which called for delegates from each state to attend. This was known to be the Annapolis Convention. Then, they decided to meet in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787 to discuss ways to only improve the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles were not improved, but rather trashed, and made once again from scratch, into what we now call the Constitution. The Constitution was a merging of all the plans that were proposed during the Constitutional Conventions; the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, the Charles Pinckey Plans, Hamilton's plan, and the Connecticut Compromise. Many of the Founding Fathers had greatly appreciated this change, having faith that the 3 branch government, representation methods, and new power given to the government, would being the Colonies into an age of success. However, there were some of the Fathers and other major political figures that did not approve. Patrick Henry, for example, thought that the Constitution would give the central government too much power. He said power should lay in the hands of the states. It was also lacking a Bill of Rights. This was a cause to the separation of people named the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. This was a split in the people, which had defeated the purpose of the Constitution, to be one country, to be equal, and to be unified.
After the Constitution was passed, there was debate as to what kind of people were to run the government. There were some who proposed that well-educated, upper class citizens should run the government, who were called Federalists. This was close to the ruling system in Britain, and made the colonists think of a monarch in our government.The Federalist party was created by Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist party called for a national bank, tariffs, and a good relationship with Britain. The only Federalist president was John Adams. Of course, there was the opposite belief, and this created the Democratic-Republican party, the party which had thought that all citizens should have equal say in the government, and that positions in the government were open to any citizen of the Colonies. The Republicans, as they were also called, favored France over the British, in the war that had occurred between them. They favored farmers and plantation owners to be the backbone of the Colonial economy, which they felt allowed them to hold government positions. This party had also favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, unlike the Federalists who had believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution.
These two groups had divided the government, another division in the forming of the Constitution. Was this division a good move for the Colonies to make? Would the country be the same today if these divisions had not been made? Were they for the better? or for the worse?
Jefferson, on the topic of parties, says:
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." -Thomas Jefferson
Here, Jefferson promotes the Republic party in a subtle way, that gives his view on both sides. It's obvious he is siding with the Republicans, due to his sarcastic, demeaning views of the Federalists.

The Boston Massacre

The Boston Massacre was a monumental tragedy in American history. 5 civilians who were residents of the 13 Colonies were killed, and several others injured, at the hands of the British. The event began on King Street in the early evening of March 5, in front of Private Hugh White outside the Custom House. An apprentice named Edward Gerrish called out to a British officer that the officer had not paid the bill of Gerrish's master. The officer had infact settled his account and ignored the insult. Gerrish departed, but returned a coupleof hours later with companions. He continued his complaints, and the civilians began throwing rocks at Goldfinch. Gerrish also exchanged insults with Private White, who left his post, challenged the boy, and then struck him on the side of the head with a musket. One of his companions began to argue with White. This attracted a larger crowd. The crowd grew larger and larger, until finally, the British had dispacthed the 29th Regiment of Foot to come armed to the scene to protect White.

The crowd started to grow, to about 300-400 people. The crowd continued to throw snow balls and rocks at them, and taunting them by saying "Fire!" However, the British had listened, and fired into the crowd.

The Americans suffered a great loss of unity, as this powerful attack of the British had downed their spirits. However, was this an act of American courage? or British superiority? Were the colonists trying to be heros? Was there any other way to stop this protest other than firing into the crowd?

John Adams had retold the event on the third anniversary:

"I. . .devoted myself to endless labour and Anxiety if not to infamy and death, and that for nothing, except, what indeed was and ought to be all in all, sense of duty. In the Evening I expressed to Mrs. Adams all my Apprehensions: That excellent Lady, who has always encouraged me, burst into a flood of Tears, but said she was very sensible of all the Danger to her and to our Children as well as to me, but she thought I had done as I ought, she was very willing to share in all that was to come and place her trust in Providence.

"Before or after the Tryal, Preston sent me ten Guineas and at the Tryal of the Soldiers afterwards Eight Guineas more, which were. . .all the pecuniary Reward I ever had for fourteen or fifteen days labour, in the most exhausting and fatiguing Causes I ever tried: for hazarding a Popularity very general and very hardly earned: and for incurring a Clamour and popular Suspicions and prejudices, which are not yet worn out and never will be forgotten as long as History of this Period is read...It was immediately bruited abroad that I had engaged for Preston and the Soldiers, and occasioned a great clamour....

"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.

"This however is no Reason why the Town should not call the Action of that Night a Massacre, nor is it any Argument in favour of the Governor or Minister, who caused them to be sent here. But it is the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies."

-Adams, John: Diary and Autobiography of John Adams.