Puritans: A Brief Summary

The first expedition was dispatched to the New World by Water Raleigh and consisted of 2 ships, a reconnaissance expedition, set out in 1584. Roanoke was reached in July 1585 and had on board John White a mapmaker and a painter who left a number of high-quality water color drawings representing Indians, their village, dances, and their way of life.
Hariot, a scientific expert who was also on board, published in 1588 „A Brief and true report of Virginia”. On board there were many other specialists, including an apothecary, a surgeon, and skilled craftsmen built houses, and a fort and searched for gold. Soon however, they ran out of food, and frightened by the natives they left the small settlement and returned to England.
A further
expedition of three ships set out for Roanoke on May 8 1587 with 118 colonists, including some women and children and John White in charge as governor. His journal is a record of the expedition. White’s daughter gave birth to a girl who was named Virginia (the first Christian born in Virginia). They were left there as the captain and White returned to England to persuade Raleigh to send a back-up fleet quickly to help in the fight against the Indians. As the English were preparing to resist the Spanish invasion-armada they could not depart and take ships away as they stayed all in ports. So White managed to return to Roanoke in August 1590, on his return he didn’t find the colony he had left although he sent several parties to search for them. What he only could find was the word “Croaton” carved on a tree, a word which signified the home of a friendly Indian chief. Despite this inscription, no historian managed to find out what became of the Roanoke colony. Speculations were made regarding a possible retreat of the colonists in the mainland area where the Indians lived, other suppositions held the belief that they were carried off by the Spanish soldiers. However, never again were the Roanoke colonists heard of, or seen.
Paul Johnson (1999, History of the American People) wrote the following about Raleigh: he was a “proto-American. He had certain strongly marked characteristics which were to be associated with the American archetype. He was energetic, brash, hugely ambitious, money conscious, not too scrupulous, far-sighted and ahead of his time, with a passion for the new and, not least, a streak of idealism which clashed violently with his overweening desire to get on and make a fortune.[…] What made her (the Queen) single him out from the crowd of smart-looking gallants was his sheer brain-power and his grasp of new, especially scientific, knowledge”. Raleigh however was not religious, on the contrary he was known to be “atheist” and his sea ventures had no religious dimension. The clergy did not hold a place in his plans so he did not attempt to recruit ”God-fearing, prayerful men” for his ventures. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why his colonizing attempts failed. Another reason could be a “blessing in disguise”. Had the colony taken root, the Spanish would have claimed it and thus it could have led to less peaceful events. However, the age was a religious one and after the Bible the next book to impress the people was Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs” a compendium of the sufferings of English Protestants who resisted the Catholic restoration under “Bloody Mary” and died for her faith. As Johnson Paul puts it “it was not just a history of persecution: it also embodied the English national-religious myth, which had been growing in power in the later Middle Ages and came to maturity during the Reformation decades – the myth that the English had replaced the Jews as the Elect Nation, and were divinely appointed to do God’s will on earth”. The belief spread from England to the New World. At the very origin of the myth was the widely held belief that the Christian faith had been brought to Britain directly by Joseph of Arimathea, on the express instructions of the Apostles. Some thought the agent was St. Paul; others that Christ himself had paid a secret visit. However, they cherished the idea that was through Britain that the Roman Empire had also finally embraced the Christian faith. This belief grew stronger in the reign of Elisabeth, and it showed the people that the Elect Nation had imperative duties to perform which were both spiritual and geopolitical. Despite this strong belief which dominated the spiritual minds, it was made very little use of by the Englishmen who planned out the settlement of America. In the meantime, the English were engaged in struggles to subdue the “wild Irish”. The notion of using overseas colonies to get rid of “human offal” was gaining ground, especially as the population grew very fast (France established its first overseas penal colony). The intense trade and the growing commercial zeal of entire Europe, and finally the fact that James I also embraced the idea of colonization hoping that this would not cause conflict with Spain or France fuelled the colonialization process. In 1607 a new settlement was founded by using the name Jamestown after the sovereign. This marked a crucial point as it inaugurated the area of the continuous English presence in North America. The “Virginia Company” which accounted for the shipment and the settlement of colonizers in the New World asserted that its aim was to preach and baptize into the “Christian Religion” and by “propagation of the Gospel to recover out of the arms of the Divell, a number of pure and miserable soules, wrapt up into death, in most invincible ignorance”. The 105 settlers were brought to Jamestown by 3 vessels: the Godspeed, the Discovery, and the Sarah Constant. Captain John Smith had the great merit of having organized the colony and it was due to his efforts that the colony survived. He then published a “Description of New England”, which was the first book to push the term New England into common use. Subsequent settlements were organized and sent of which the most important was the one whose leadership was assigned to Lord De La Ware who was the titular governor of the Virginia Company. His merit lies in having established a system of law in 1611 which was completed by his successor Gates. This was the first “American legal code”, what Gates called his “Lawes Divine, Morale and Martial”, but which were known as “Dale’s Code” after Gates’s marshall, Thomas Dale, who enforced them. While Smith instituted a kind of military ordinances, these were civil not martial laws, but they had a distinctly Puritan tone. They enforced sabbath observance very strictly, immodest dress was forbidden and illness punished severely. This is the moment when John Rolfe comes into the scene disregarding the code by cultivating tobacco. The year 1619 represented a significant moment: first it sent to North America 90 young, unmarried women, second the company promised to give the colonists their “rights of Englishmen”, third, a new governor, Sir George Yeardly was sent out to introduce the new dispensation. On July 30, 1619 the first General Assembly of Virginia met in Jamestown Church for a week. Presided over by Yeardly, flanked by his six fellow councilors, constituting the government, it also included twenty-two elected burgesses. They set in separate ‘House’, like the Westminster Common, and their first task was to go over Dale’s Code and improve it in the light of experience and the popular will, which they did, “sweating and stewing and battling flies and mosquitoes”. The result of their deliberations was approved by Yeardly and his colleagues, constituting an Upper House, and both houses together, with the governor representing the King, made up a miniature parliament, as in England itself. Thus, within a decade of its foundation, the colony had acquired a representative institution on the Westminster model (Johnson, Paul, 1999). Three weeks later, another event befell upon the settlers, recorded by John Rolfe in his diary: “There came in a Dutch man-of-warre that sold us 20 negars”. These existed side by side with the indentured servants. Thus in 1619 the first English colony in America “embarked upon two roads which bifurcated and led in two totally different directions” representative institutions, leading to democratic freedoms and the use of slave labor. The latter eventually divided the society into 2 castes of human beings, the free and the unfree. The next event to have an important bearing on early American history was the landing at New Plymouth (in what later became Massachusetts) on Dec. 11, 1620 of the first settlers of the Mayflower. So far the new settlers had been gentlemen adventurers, landless men, indentured servants, all united by the common desire to better themselves socially and financially in the New World. They all were driven by the desire to apply to common law justly, govern sensibly in the common interest and according to the general needs of the community. They and their progeny were to form one principal element in American traditions, both public and private – a useful, moderate, creative element, good for all seasons.

The settlers who embarked on the Mayflower were different, they came to America not “primarily for gain or even livelihood, though they accepted both from God with gratitude, but to create His kingdom on earth. They were the zealots, the idealists, the utopians, the saints, and the best of them, or perhaps... the most extreme of them were fanatical, uncompromising and overweening in their self-righteousness”. They were also “immensely energetic, persistent, a courageous. They and their offsprings were to build to other element in the American tradition, creative too, but ideological and cerebral, prickly and unbending, fiercely unyielding on occasions to the point of self-destruction”. These two elements were to produce the American people. The most important event which also deserves attention occurred on board a ship, when after two months of voyage, some dissensions emerged. Consequently, on November 21, the leaders of the future colony assembled and drew up a social compact, destined to secure unity and provide for future government. In effect, it created a “civil body politic to provide just and equal laws” founded upon church teaching, the religious and secular governance of the colony to be in effect indistinguishable. “This contract was based upon the original Biblical covenant between God and the Israelites. But it reflected also early 17th century social-contract theory, which was later to receive such notable expressions in Thomas Hobbes “Leviathan” (1655) and John Locke’s “Treatise of Civil Government” (1690). “It is an amazing document for these earnest men (and women) to have agreed and drawn up, signed by all forty-one heads of households abroad the tiny vessel in the midst of the troubled Atlantic and it justified to the profound earnestness and high purpose with which they viewed their venture” (Johnson P. 1999.). “What was interesting about this particular covenant was that it did not bind a servant and a master, or a people and a king, but that it was between a group of like-minded individuals and each other, with God as a witness and symbolic co-signatory. It was as though this small community, in going to America pledged themselves to create a different kind of collective personality, living a new life across the Atlantic. One of the leaders, William Bradford later wrote a history, called ‘Of Plymouth Plantation’ in which he refers to them as Pilgrims. But they were not ordinary pilgrims, traveling to a sacred shrine, and then returning home to resume their daily life. They were rather perpetual pilgrims setting up a new sanctified country which was to be a permanent pilgrimage, traveling ceseaslesly towards a millennium goal. They saw themselves as exceptions to the European betrayal of the Christian principles, and they were conducting an exercise in exceptionalism” (Johnson, P., 1999).
The success of this venture triggered another enterprise in 1628, which resulted in the formation of the Massachusetts Bay Company under royal charter, which had the authority to transfer itself to America.
Amongst the most important or prominent figures of these early convoys was John Winthrop, who is regarded as the “first great American”. He believed that the previous colonies had failed because they were not undertaken in the name of a religion, they were “carnall not religious” as he put it. Fundamentally, he did not to separate from the Anglican Church. Because he thought it redeemable, he also admitted that the redemptive act would take place only in New England. Hence, the new colony was destined to become a pilot church and state which could create an ideal spiritual and secular community, whose example should in turn convert and save the Old World too. He condensed his vision in the following words which he addressed to the travelers: “We must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us”. He was so fully contaminated by his missionary dream that when they approached the shore he noted in his diary: “there came a smell of a garden. There came a wild pigeon into our ship, and another small landbird”. He exhilarated with joy recognizing in the birds the heralds of a providential sign.
Winthrop’s venture marked a turning-point in the history of New England, first by bringing over 1,000 settlers, then by settling the place which became Boston, the capital. The soil, the land, nature, and everything was so plentiful and magnificent that the settlers all came to believe that it was God who who arranged everything, that is was God’s gift to them.
These convoys were soon followed by other convoys which brought over animals, provisions, livestock of all kinds. Their cultivating skill and their devotion turned the Connecticut Valley into the richest and most fertile land. In time to all these natural treasures it added colleges, publishing houses, and the first newspapers in the Americas. These settlers did indeed not fail because they did not go in search for gold, instead they sought to prosper locally.
Winthrop became the first New England governor between 1630-4 and the colony had a firm, even a harsh government, exactly what it needed most. The government was conducted by men chosen by all full members of the congregation. “These were freemen and they were recruited in batches on account of their Godly behavior”. Although from time to time he added more men to the freemen ranks, he ruled the community as a dictator. He summoned his General Court only once a year, not four times as the company charter stipulated. In his time everyone not only the freemen had to swear an oath of loyalty to his government.
Church members did not on the whole enjoy a special status in law or anything else, they came to speak with authority only from their altars and pulpits, but their power ceased at the church yard gate.
Americans, in general praised God and believed that knowledge of God comes direct to them through the study of Holy Writ; therefore they all read the Bible assiduously, daily. The authority of religion lay in the Bible, not with the minister however, and in the last resort every man and woman decided in the light of which Almighty God gave them what the Bible meant. This direct apprehension of God and his word made them feel in a close, daily, and fruitful relationship with the deity. Winthrop was a stern, authoritarian governor who made some of the strong-minded spirits consider him “tyrannical”. He summoned the General Court to an annual meeting instead of four and, generally speaking, flouted the charter. People demanded that he showed them the charter, so they found out that they had been promised, by the founding company of Massachusetts, all the rights of Englishmen which Winthrop had diminished. Consequently, he was publicly deposed at a general meeting. The freemen of the colony then set up what “was in effect a representative system of government, with each little town sending deputies who should assist in making laws, disposing of lands etc. Thus, the first political coup in the history of North America was carried out in 1634, when the colony was still in its infancy. And it was carried out not by force of swords and firearms but by arguments and speeches and in accordance with the rule of law” (Johnson P., 1999). However, “the settlers discovered that to change a government by popular mandate does not necessarily mean to improve it”. What the people awaited from their government was “firmness, common sense and fairness” (Johnson P., 1999). Winthrop regarded himself as chosen by God. According to his political view, man had liberty not to do what he liked – that was for the beasts – but had to distinguish between good and evil by studying God’s commands, and then to do what was good. The freemen of the Massachusetts colony chose their rulers, but once chosen he must be obeyed. They also believed that man was sinful and struggling with his own nature. Therefore, the magistrates had to be merciful and forgiving. People should also forgive magistrates their occasional errors of judgment, but if they continued, then the people had the right to remove them. Winthrop was elected 4 times and his merit dies in having implanted this system of government in America. Another significant figure which emerged in this age was Roger Williams (1603-83) a clever, energetic and public-spirited man. Contrary to what Winthrop represented, i.e. the authoritarian-principle, Williams stood for the liberty-principle. Furthermore, unlike Winthrop he held the view that God covenanted with each individual and not as Winthrop asserted that God covenanted with a congregation or an entire society. Therefore, the logic outcome of his view is that each person was entitled to his own interpretation of the truth about religion. He was also saying that while every man had the right to own conscious guided by the inner light of his faith; in civil, secular matters he must, however, submit to the will of the majority, determined through institutions shorn of any religious context”. Thus he firmly separated church from state, and their interference. Eventually Williams became persecuted for his liberal views and had to flee. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that somebody warned him about the decision of the council to punish him. He then founded the Rhode Island colony and was its governor. Rhode Island became the first colony to declare complete freedom of religion and separate the church from state. This facilitated the absorption of Quakers, Baptists etc. so his colony became a refuge to diverse religions sects. This marked a turning point in the evolution of America. It not only acknowledged the separation of church and state, but went one step further by inaugurating the practice of religious competition. The New World did not produce many noteworthy works of art in the 17th century nor did its inhabitants excel in literature. Much of the writings of this period were produced by amateurs too. Yet America was abreast of the European world. “It had a deep-rooted and increasingly experimental political culture. Here, the English tradition was incomparable value. It was rich and very ancient” (Johnson Paul, 1999). In this respect it could not be compared with Spain or France whose national institution emerged only in the 17th century, neither having much experience of representative government of a unified legal system. “By contrast, England had a national unity since the 9th century with forms of representation going back to that date and even beyond. Its common law began to mature as early as the 12th century; its statute of the realm, Magna Carta, was enrolled as early as 1215, its parliaments, with their knights of the shire and their burgesses of the towns, had had a continuous history since the 14th century as an institution which passed laws for all the people and raised revenues from all of them, too. Thus, behind the settlers of America were 1,000 years of political history” (Johnson P., 1999). The growth of English America covered three decades (1630-60) and regarded both social and economic life. The period was also characterized by strong political arguments and debates which cherished the political experiments witnessed. “It is perhaps for the first time in history that the fundamentals of participatory and democratic politics were discussed (Johnson Paul, 1999). The early settlers came from various intensely religious and political backgrounds, although most of them were independent-minded, with such habits as those of thinking things out for themselves. It is these early settlers who set the tone for the others who arrived afterwards. Governors were appointed by the King or elected and every colony set up some kind of representative assembly shortly after their settlement. Furthermore, many offices in America became elective from the start. All in all, the colonies in 18th century America were based on an empirical and practical political system, rather than a coherent, uniform system. Basically, it resembled the way in which the British system evolved. No two colonies were the same. The examination of the system is not only important for the historian, it deserves considerable attention because of its bearing on the events while led to the American Revolution and because of its influence on the further evolution of the American Republic. Originally the colonies had been divided into two categories: trading or commercial companies “run like primitive joint-stock corporations, or proprietary companies, run by one or more great landed estate-owners. All had charters issued directly by the crown. Without these two forms of ownership, which involved a high degree of self-government, the colonies would never have got going at all, because the English state could not pour out the prodigious amounts of cash needed” (Johnson Paul, 1999), in addition London was far and could not control what happened in the colonies. In each colony the governor constituted “the apex of the pyramid of power and it is a characteristic of the profound constitutional conservatorism America has inherited from England that the fifty members of the US are still run by governors. But the actual power of the governors was less than it looked in theory just as they are now. In the crown colonies the governors were appointed by the king on the advice of his ministers. In the proprietary colonies they were chosen by the proprietors with the King’s approval. In the charter colonies they were elected, though again royal approval was needed. They were paid by the colonial assemblies some small stipends. They were, however, caught between 2 different, and often, opposed forces: on top of them was the crown which exercised its control via the Privy Council, which again operated through a Commission variously called for trade or plantations, and which continued to function and respond for the Crown policy until the Revolutionary War. It was however weak, as it could not pay the governors, not could or did its members set foot in America. They issued some vague, inconsistent and insensible instructions to the governor, which often exceeded the governor’s power to put them into effect. Then the crown used to think about governors as weak, ineffectual, demanding and ‘expensive servants’, “always quarreling with the planters, provoking rebellions, or getting themselves involved in Indian wars”. So for example, Charles II explained in exasperation at governor Banklays disputes with the Indians ‘that old fool has taken away more lives in that naked county than did here for the murder of my father’. Nonetheless, the crown turned to side with the Indians on most of the occasions. The governors ruled with a council, which formed the executive or administrative body of the colony and constituted the upper chamber (like the House of Lords) of its assembly. They were appointed by the crown (in royal colonies) and by the proprietors, and their number varied. They also performed judicial functions and served as courts of appeal, though important cases were sometimes sent to the Privy Council in London. Then there was yet another chamber, the lower chamber of the assemblies. The first such chamber dated as far back as 1619. All the colonies were governed by such chambers and most of them were older than any parliaments in Europe, apart from Britain’s. They imitated the House of Commons and kept track of all its history, and whenever the case arose they cited from it to defend a certain cause. Through there was a great difference between the English parliament and the colonial assemblies, England was not ruled after a written constitution and all the written constitutional documents, like Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights were specific ad hoc remedies “for the occasional crises which occurred. They did not act as guides for the present or the future. All the English had were precedents; their constitutional law operated exactly like their common law, organically”(Johnson Paul, 1999). The Americans inherited this common law and produced the constitutions as well. Thus, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) was the first written constitution not only in America, but also in the world. Written constitutions were then adopted in every colony. The uniqueness of the colonies lay in the adoption of constitutions and the existence of assemblies. Perhaps in this respect, America can be regarded as more advanced even than England and certainly, more innovatory than many other advanced countries. The sheer adoption of a constitution made a colony feel “self-contained, mature, almost sovereign”. It further shaped the peoples’ expectations and attitudes in terms of rights, natural law and absolute things, which the English did not consider worthwhile thinking about, dismissing them as “abstract stuff”. Then the existence of a constitution stimulated and fuelled further far-reaching developments, pointing to Independence. The early establishment of assemblies and written constitutions was primarily the consequence of the “crown’s physical inability in the first half of the 17th century to exercise control”. Moreover, the English parliament also waged war against the crown in the 1640s, and consequently acquired some powers, and the colonies hastened to benefit from this troubled atmosphere throwing away the royal government of some colonies, such as New York, Massachusetts and Maryland and replaced it by popular rule. When later on William III thought to reorganize the colonies on Continental lines; he was confronted with the assemblies’ resistance and was thus forced to concede their rights to them. All these represented further milestones along the way to independence. In constitutional terms, the first half of the 18th century American mainland colonies is dominated by the struggle of the lower elected houses to gain control. Although, in general, the governor had the power of veto over legislation and he was expected, using his council of members sitting in the upper chamber, to take the lead within the elected assemblies differentially subordinate. However, the reverse happened, i.e. these assemblies waged constitutional battles with governors, councils, and the crown, blocked orders, and, on the whole determined the political agenda”. Soon they increased their power and during the first half of the 18th century they were able to order their own business, hold elections, direct their agents in London, control the release of news to the press. They had the sole right to frame and amend money Bills, and so to raise or lower taxes. They controlled expenditure by specific allocations, including the appointment of money commissioners and tax-collectors, regulated the fees of the administration and subjected all officials to annual salary regulations. In fact unlike the House of Commons they disposed of executive responsibilities and began to think themselves as government. This was by no means a one-way struggle, as on the other side, the governor also tried to cling to his prerogative powers – to appoint judges and regulate the courts, to summon, to dissolve or extend assemblies. Instead of holding grip over power and dominating the scene, his power actually diminished, as the people would not let themselves ruled against their will. By 1760 “the Americans were already predominantly middle-class, and the colonies were in many respects a middle class democracy, too” (Johnson Paul, 1999). The lower houses eventually set the lead or the upper hand at various speeds in different colonies. So in 1770, they all did so and the movement, on the whole indicated one “single direction – towards representative democracy and the rule by the many”. These were the Houses of Representatives.

British rule vs. self-rule As a general feature of all stages of colonial development one can note the lack of controlling influence of the English government. In their first period of settlement, ie in their formative period, the colonies were to a large extent free to develop “as circumstances dictated”(Outline of American History). The Crown was, not directly involved in the founding of the colonies, but transferred its sovereignity over the New World to stock companies and proprietors. This, on the other hand, it did not simply mean that the colonies were forced to govern themselves and hat they were free of English control. Under the terms of the Virginia Company and the Massachusetts Bay charters complete governmental authority was vested in the companies involved, it was expected that these companies would reside in England”. Gradually, however, exclusive rule from England was broken down. The first step was that of granting by the London Virginia Company to Virginia colonists representation in the government. In 1618 the Company issued instructions to its appointed governor providing that “free colonists should determine representatives to join with the governor and an appointive council in passing laws for colonies” (Outline of American History). From that time on it became generally accepted that colonists had a right to participate in the government. The king has inserted special provisions in charters granting to the freemen of the colonies power to represenet colonies in legislation that concerned them. Two colonies were exempted from this procedure of self-government. It was the case of New York(granted to Charles II’s brother, the Duke of York, who later on became King James II, and Giorgia, which was granted to a group of trustees. The provisions were broken soon as the colonists claimed representation in government. Control had to do first with administrative control and later on with financial control. In New England the self-government form was more complete than in other colonies, as they agreed from the outset to govern themselves, so, the Plymouth colony adaopted the Mayflower Compact. Despite the fact that the Pilgrims were not entitled to self-government, nobody contested the system established by the Mayflower Compact. The Massachusetts Bay Company which had been given the right to govern, moved to America with its charter, and thus full authority rested in the hands of residents. New Haven, Rhode Island and Connecticut alike asserted their authority modeling their governmental authority after the Plymouth Colony. The self-governing process did not go smoothly, unchallenged by the British. The British took court action against the Massachusetts charter and it was annulled in 1684. Then all the New England colonies were brought under royal control with full authority vested in an appointive governor. Because the colonists objected and because the Revolution of 1688 in England resulted in the overthrow of James II. The British drove out the royal governor from the colonies. Rhode Island and Connecticut maintained their autonomy. Massachusetts, by contrast, was brought again under royal authority, but this time the people were granted a “share” in the government, which gradually grew until future virtual dominance was reached. Beginning in 1651, the English government passed laws regulating certain aspects of colonial economic life, some favoring American colonies, and others not.

THE LITERATURE OF COLONIAL AMERICA

The Puritans and Pilgrims were products of Renaissance Reformation.
The Renaissance emerged in Italy in the 14th and 15th centuries and spread over Europe. It has the great merit of having hastened the end of the Middle Ages thereby heralding the beginning of modern civilization. It mainly brought about the break with the old heavenly world and approached earthly man and this earthly environment. The Renaissance turned to arts, science, philosophy and to everything that centered around man. It also moved the emphasis from the inside of the church to the outside world. Going out from the Greek maxim “Man is the measure of all things” the painters sought their inspiration in the outside world portraying the human face and forms more realistically, abandoning the paintings which reproduced eternity, heaven, and angels. This is the age which gave birth to drama and poetry, and reproduced such prominent figures as: Erasmus, Shakespeare, Cervantes etc.
Against this background the advancement of writings was very much enhanced by the introduction of (the) printing press. Nevertheless, apart from providing mere entertainment, books helped people question, even doubt and eventually weaken the established authority of kings and priests by enabling people to shape their own thoughts and principles.
Thinkers and philosophers moved away from the old religious concerns and from the firm beliefs of the Middle Ages, and dedicated their lives to the study of what was new and modern. The crucial and most influential event in this respect was the publication of “On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres” (1543) by Copernicus, which provided people with a new approach to life, that is it learned people to question life, to argue everything, to fight the old traditions. Their new attitude was very much stimulated by the discoveries and the new technological achievements of the age. The list of these achievements includes: the microscope (1590), the telescope (1606), achievements which inspired the inquisitive mind of the people.
On the other hand, the invention of windmill, waterwheel, knitting machine made man’s life easier. They all helped man not only better understand his own life and control the environment he inhabited but they ultimately determined his destiny.
The religious thought underwent similar changes challenged by the new circumstances. The age favored a renewed interest in Greek and Hebrew literature, which received considerable attention and thereby contributed closely to a closer and more critical scrutiny pf the Bible text, at that time valued as most important piece of written literature (of referential literature). This change of emphasis further helped humankind focus on man and his own achievements.
This attitude towards man, his destiny, and his earthly problems alongside the critical spirit of the Renaissance contributed to the growth of Reformation, a religious revolution (movement) which swept over Europe during the 16th century and which gave rise to Protestantism.
Those who called themselves Reformers were just like other Christian dissidents, who sought to repair the flagrant abuses which had been done to Christian Church. First of all, they thought that the church had moved away from “the true path”, that it had become more relaxed and, worldly and corrupt. Because of their strong protest against the power of priests and their corruption, against church doctrines and the policies of popes and bishops, they acquired the name of Protestants.
The Protestant Reformation had a great significance because of the after-effects it had generated. Basically, it revolutionized several major aspects of history: first, and most importantly, it broke the unity of Christendom in Western Europe, by changing the old religious patterns and favoring the emergence of new forces of worship. Second, it contributed to the growth of new political forces, and third, it changed the social class system by propelling (pushing forward) new social classes (to power).

The Puritans and Pilgrims who came to America were former members of the Protestant Church of England (established as a national church by King Henry VIII). Henry intended to create a religious unity and religious independence but, nevertheless, the Church of England was torn by diverse tendencies caused by radical reformers. The Puritans and Pilgrims who settled in the New England territories were extreme Reformers.
According to their point of view the Church of England’s break from Rome had not gone far enough, thus they wanted to “purify” their English church still further

The Pilgrims were Separatists, who first fled from England to Holland in 1608. They wanted to break away the Church of England which they believed to be fatally corrupted. So they attracted upon themselves the name Separatists from their strong desire to separate from the Church of England. Although they were well received and appreciated by the Dutch they soon feared that the dominant Dutch culture would swallow them up, so they decided once again to flee this time to America, where they fancied creating their desired world of God. However, the colony they set up at Plymouth was small and weak. As they did not remark themselves as strong, hard-working people, and as were completely unfamiliar with the hardships of life in the wilderness, with hunting or agriculture, they were severely exposed to famine and sickness
In addition to their weakness in all respects, they were not even financially or spiritually supported by their homeland, as they separated themselves from their home church. Consequently, the Plymouth colony absorbed by the prosperous and large Massachusetts Bay Colony established at Boston.
Like the Separatists at Plymouth, the Massachusetts Bay Puritans thought that the Church of England was to Romanized (had too many Roman Catholic creeds and rituals), and that the priests and bishops had too much power. Unlike the Pilgrims they thought that Church of England could be saved or purified of its errors, and thus, on their migration they came to the new world as members of the Church of England and not as Separatists, and were therefore supported by it.
On the other had, the Puritans held the major role in shaping the future America.
From the religious point of view, they sought to restore church worship to the “pure and unspotted” condition of its earliest days. They considered the Church of England’s beliefs and its rituals to elaborate and cultivated a simple way of worshipping God. Furthermore, they objected to the forms of prayer, to the veneration of images and relics, to the adorned vestments, to the choirs, bells and ornamented churches. They also objected to the practices and organization of the church. They mainly disagreed to the control of the English monarchs and priests over the Church of England, arguing that this control had no sanction in the bible and deprived the people from their right to practice their own religion.
Apart from their firm belief, the Puritans were worldly people seeking to remove religion from the church and bring it into real life. They gained their reputation of being gloomy and solemn not because of their behavior or clothing, but because of their literal application of the Bible to all aspects of life, and because of their strict piety.
However, their religious thoughts had been strongly influenced by the teachings of the two leaders of Reformation: Martin Luther (1489-1546), a German monk who was a professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg and John Calvin (1509-1564), a French theologian, who lived and taught at Geneva. Both theologians declared that all men have the right and obligation to read and study the Bible, for it alone is the word of God, and all true believers are equally endowed with grace. Furthermore, they did not consider the priests a privileged class and held the view that ministers are no more divine than any other man or woman. Therefore, the Puritans did not create new ideas or beliefs, as Christians had long before them emphasized their dependence upon one another, their duties to one another, the presence of an omniscient God and his intrusions into the course of human lives. Thus, in this respect, they were not innovators, on the contrary, they were profoundly conservative ad all they desired was to return the church to its original forms, to its original simplicity. Moreover, their contribution to religion came from the example of their absolute dedication to their religion, of their quest for religious independence, for the strength of their faith, their devotion to preaching, to hearing the word of God. As mentioned by The Concise Anthology of American Literature (1993) the Puritans “underwent torture, burning, hanging, mutilation; and they kept their faith indeed their suffering only made their faith more strong. In withstanding persecution, in rejecting the authority of popes, kings, and bishops, the Puritans fostered a tradition of independent congregators, of men and women free to choose their own ministers and set their own doctrines. And that Puritan dedication to self determination helped establish the independence and freedom that Americans have long cherished as their greatest possessions.”
As Massachusetts was the first prosperous colony with a growing population, the ideas cherished by the Puritans had a long-lasting effect on American society. One of their first leaders, John Winthrop, said that they should build an ideal community for the rest of the mankind to learn from. “We should be like a city on a hill”, he said, “the eyes of all people are upon us”. Even to these days Americans continue to see their country as a model for other nations.
The Puritans played a major role in profiling the future America. Their church buildings influenced the church architecture for years to come. On the other hand, their sermons represented by far the most popular literary form of the time. The Concise Anthology of American Literature notices: “Of all the books published in the entire history of colonial New England, nearly half dealt with religion, and most of them were collections of sermons.”
The Anthology further remarks: “The sermons were fundamental religious exercises and much more. In that day before newspapers and the electronic news media, sermons were a public forum, a source of news and informed opinions.”
The Massachusetts Bay Puritans were also learned people, and as such they placed great emphasis on learning and education. They acted in this respect out of their desire to maintain a learned clergy and, at the same time, a learned congregation which could easily understand their sermons and the Bible. This pushed the Massachusetts Bay colony in the foreground of cultural life, turning it into the most remarkable bookish and literature centre in the New World. Consequently, the first college in North America, Harvard was founded at Cambridge (Newe Towne, Massachusetts in 1636). It received the name Harvard after John Harvard who left half of his fortune to the college.
The first colonial press was published in 1638, also at Cambridge, where the first American book was published in 1639. the book’s title was An Almanac for New England for the year 1639, published y Stephen Daye. One year later, 1940 The Whole Book of Psalms Faithfully translated into English Metre was printed again by Stephen Daye. It later received the name Bay Psalm Book. Its preface introduction was composed by John Cotton which is remembered as the first such piece of writing. In it he claims that “art must be simple and pure, unadorned as God expects from people, words spoken from heart and not otherwise.”
Similarly, the fist colonial newspaper appeared in Boston in 1690.
The Puritans role in the American literature is equally important. The American literature grew out the simple , unadorned written expression of the Puritans’ religious ideas. The very simplicity and profoundness of the now well-cemented American “style” is derived from the American forefathers’ Puritanical principles.
However, the Puritanical period was prolific in sermons and biographies of real men, such as William Bradford’s biography. These biographies were written with the specific aim of serving as moral lessons and of encouraging piety and holiness. Another form of early literature was represented by diaries, which also had the specific function of emphasizing the importance on the individual’s spiritual health and the need for permanent self-examination. The tales written in this period are also filled with morality and were intended to serve as moral lessons to the readers.
The poems of the time composed by early poets such as Michael Wigglesworth, Anne Bradsreet, Edward Taylor exuded the spirit of devotion and faith.
The Puritans’ religious ideas were expressed in the biblical style of writing which was adopted. The main features of the style were: simplicity of thought and style, clarity, and a plain, unadored language. Writing had to be as simple and unadorned as fine glass. The words and the language should be simple so as to pour the divine truth into the peoples’ hearts. This devotion and concern for simplicity and clarity is made conspicuous in the stark lessons of the New England Primer.
The New England Primer was a small textbook filled with short verses, hymns and rhyming alphabets. It was destined to provide “Spiritual Milk for American Babes” and to teach them how to read in order to understand the Bible. It was first published in Boston in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Neither its author nor the exact date when it was publish are known, but it evidently reproduces the Puritanical belief and creed, and their attempt to transmit further the faith, the virtues of literacy to the infants and make the “Pious” and “devoted” adults. The book as well as the entire early Puritanic literary product established a national tradition which celebrated both literacy and the Protestant dogma in teaching “millions to read and not to sin.”

However, later on, towards the end of the colonial era the Puritans’ influence faded gradually as the old Puritans “died off” and so did their strong faith and devotion. Their descendants were unwilling to adhere to their forefathers’ principles as they were less satisfied with a divine mission and the old faith.
In addition, the Puritans grew weaker and weaker in front of the growing number if dissenters who attacked them. Thus, the old steady unity gave way to disrupture, diversity, to the growth of new sects. Although great efforts were made to preserve the religious unity of the Americans, they all failed. Noteworthy in this respect in the attempt of the preacher-writer Jonathan Edwards to re-vitalize and regenerate the Puritanic faith.
Even if Puritanism waned as a religious and social force, it still remained encarved in the American mind for several reasons: first because Puritanism had stood for the preeminence of the individual for freedom from oppressive governments, and for the value of learning and education. It taught the Americans to closer examine their lives, their world, and each other. It helped them stand up for their ideals and principles, and speak them out. It gave them a sense of duty to their God, their nation, and their fellow men. It taught people judge their fellow citizens by their lives and not by their birth.
Second, Puritanism served as the dominant force in the creation of literature. It was Puritanic spirit that later produced the revolutionary glories of the American Enlightenment and the Age of the American Romanticism.

As mentioned by The Concise Anthology of American Literature (1993) the Puritans “underwent torture, burning, hanging, ”mutilation; and they kept their faith – indeed their suffering made their faith more strong.
In withstanding persecution, in rejecting the authority of popes, kings, and bishops, the Puritans fostered a tradition of independent congregations, of men and women free to choose their own ministers and set their own doctrines. And that Puritan dedication of self-determination helped establish the independence and freedom that Americans have long cherished as their greatest possessions.
The Concise Anthology of American Literature notices: “Of all the books published in the entire history of colonial New England, nearly half dealt with religion, and most of them were collections of sermons”.
The Anthology further remarks: “The sermons were fundamental religious exercises and much more. In that day before newspapers and the electronic news media, sermons were a public forum, a source of news and informed opinions”.
Many original church members died or moved away, and newcomers began to question the divine authority of Plymouth’s religious leaders. But Bradford held fast to his faith in the divine mission of people. And his faith shines clearly in his story of the Pilgrims, a book that has become part of the nation’s heritage and stands as one of the great works of colonial
America”.
(Concise Anthology of American Literature)

Preliminaries to the War of Independence

The French in America

It was in 1608 that the French founded their first permanent settlement at Quebec, a little after the English had founded Jamestown as their first settlement. Quebec was founded by Samuel de Champlain who intended to establish a base for finding a water way to the Orient, carrying on the far trade and converting the natives to Christianity. It was only later, when Luis XVI took the government into his hands, that expansion abroad was encouraged. Aided by his finance minister and economic planner, Jean Colbert, the French empire was supposed consist of four parts: Fr. Itself as the centre and the source of capital. Her West Indian Islands (Martinique and Sudeloupe) as supplies of exotic products and sugar, posts along the African coast to assist the slave trade, and the settlements in Canada as a market for experts from France. In 1682 René Robert Cavelier reached the delta of Mississippi and took possession of the surrounding country naming it Louisiana after the king of France. There the French built several possessions. New Orleans was founded in 1718 and soon become a city comparable to those on the Atlantic coast.

Preliminaries to the War of Independence

The animosities between the French and the English (between Protestants and Roman Catholics) rested on the conflict between fishermen and traders. They came to think that their survival depended on the elimination of the other. Nevertheless, it did not lead to a warfare until the two homelands have been involved into a war. England and France fought 3 wars (1689-97, 1701-13, 1744-8) each of which was continued in America. The second of these wars ended in one of the greatest and most far-reaching international settlements of modern history, the Treaty of Utrecht. Both England and France were awarded some territorial gains. These wars started in Europe and only a small part of the people inhabiting the colonies took part in them. They regarded the wars as foreign wars (maybe King William’s, Queen Anne’s, King George’s rather than their own. However the next war that broke out originated in the interior of North America and was known as 1756 the French and Indian War. It was actually renamed the “Great War” for the Empire. It regarded the ownership of the Ohio Valley. The French erected a number of fortifications and claimed the region. At the same time the governor of Virginia sa... George Washington (then only 21) on his first mission to protest to the commanders of the forts newly built. However he was refused but a band of Virginians constructed a lot of their own at the strategic key to the Ohio Valley. They were driven away by a band of Canadians who completed the construction and named it fort Duquesne. This was the beginning of the French and Indian War. The subsequent battles were lost by the English who were commanded by General Edward Braddoc. After two years of fighting in America, the governments declared war, and a world war, which in Europe was known as the Seven Year’s War (1756-1763) began. France allied herself with her former enemy, Austria, and E. joined France’s for me-ally Prussia. Therefore, battles were fought not only for an American territory but extended also to the West Indies, in Europe. Although in America the people of the English colonies outnumbered these of the French colonies by approximately 15 to 1, they were not so strong militarily. On the other hand, the French government kept its colonist in a fairly good state of military discipline and readiness, whereas the British government exercised less control over its colonies, which often tried to show more threat. They were autonomous. In 1757 William Pitt was appointed Prime Minister and was allowed to act as a wartime dictator. He reformed the army and had Frederick the Great as his ally, who kept the French busy in Europe. The English won a number of battles in America and took hold of Fort Duquesque in 1758 and during the next year took Quebec.
Atrocities were committed by the French and their allies. Yet peace came after the ascension of George III and the resignation of Pitt. The treaty following this war was signed at Paris in 1763. According to it the French gave the Great Britain some of their West Indian islands and all their colonies in India except two. They also transferred Canada and other French territory east of Mississippi to Great Britain and New Orleans and the French claims west of the Mississippi. (thus the French gave up practically all their title to the mainland of North America). The war brought forth relevant aspects regarding the ruling policy. The colonists attitude towards English government changed, therefore England did not attempt to tax the colonists directly but drew upon assemblies to provide quotas for soldiers and supplies. This high lightened the self-importance of the assemblies and many of them asserted their autonomy. Some of them did not accept to pay taxes to Parliament and issued paper money instead. In Virginia this lead to an inflation which raised the price of tobacco. Nevertheless, the Virginians passed a law by which they depraved the Anglican clergy (who were paid in tobacco) of the benefits of the price rise. One of the ministers sued his vestrymen for his full pay. Thereby a young lawyer Patrick Henry who defended the vestryman denounced the Privy Crown Council (Consiliul de coroană) for its tyranny and advised the Virginians to ignore the action. As the war came to an end, the London policy makes here confronted with a new dilemma. On the one hand, they could resort to the old colonial system with the enforcement of the mercantilist program, which would mean virtual independence for the calories, on the other hand, man in London could renew their efforts to reform the empire, which again would lead to revolt and absolute independence. This strategy was closely related to the theory of new territorial imperialism, advocated also by William Pitt and Benjamin Franklin. Franklin emphasized the need for vast spaces to accommodate the rapid and limitless growth of the American people. King George III made George Grenville prime minister in 1763 who was an ardent supporter of the opinion that the colonist should be compelled to obey the laws and to pay apart of the east of defending and administering the empire. He then undertook to impose a taxation system on the colonies. In order to further defend the colonies and raise revenue – also to enforce imperial law within them, Greenville instituted a series of measures: permanent troops were stationed in the provinces (by the Mutiny Act) the colonists had to assist in provisioning and maintaining the army ships were assigned to patrol American waters and to look out for smugglers royal officials were ordered to take up their posts and not send at substitute) the sugar-act (1764) aimed at eliminating. The illegal trade between the continental colonies and the foreign West India and imposed new duties on a number of items the Currency Act forbade de colonies to issue more paper money the Stamp Act imposed a tax to be paid on every legal document in the colonies, every newspaper, almanac, or pamphlet
Thus the new imperial program become more efficient in that it collected more money but it was not a lasting program. On the other hand, the colonists had gained more self-confidence in their own military powers and decisions, and refused the imperial guidance and protection of England. The age was governed by discount and ended up in a real revolt. War was the ultimate result of a real clash of interests, economic and political between the groups dominant in England and those dominant in the colonies: and outstanding historian, Charles M. Andrews has said. New soil had produced new wants, new desires, new points of view and the colonists were demanding the right to live their own lives in their own way. Until 1763 the advantages that the colonists had from the imperial policy dictated their attitude, that is, they were obedient subjects. As advantages we can mention: access to markets of the empire; protection afforded by British naval and military forces; the pride of belonging to that empire.
After 1763 Americans grew aware of the disadvantages brought about by the empire and they concluded that the policies of the empire rather threatened the well-being of nearly all classes in America. northern merchants suffered from the various restraints imposed on their trade and the increased taxation southern planters were burdened with debts to English merchants and had to pay additional taxes professional men-preachers, lawyers and professors considered that they had the same interests as the merchants and planters small farmers were deprived of some markets and affected by a reduction of prices for their crops and an increase in their taxes and other-costs town workers faced narrower opportunities because of restraints on manufacturing paper money.

Towards Independence

As a consequence of the war and of the new economic policy the colonists became remarkably proud of their self-government. Colonists seemed to take an active interest in public affairs. Political power was placed in the hand of provincial assemblies were people were able to assert themselves because the assemblies had established the right to give or withhold appropriations for the costs of the government within their colonies. If British authorities would increase their revenues coming from America, that would most probably affect the assemblies’ control over the public finance, and thus diminish their authority. Hence, Americans were determined to preserve their rights and liberties.
The most antagonizing and stirring act became the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on any legal document, thus affecting practically all Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen, and above all, the right to be taxed only by their own representatives. All Henry’s resolutions managed to be printed and disseminated throughout the colonies, giving thus the impression that the people of Virginia were better organized and daring than others. It encouraged a lot of riots and revolts in various places, culminating with the one in Boston. These events eventually called for a general meeting of the colonies’ representatives to take steps against the new tax. Thus the Stamp Act Congress was held in October 1765 with delegates from nine colonies.
As a further step towards the conservation of liberties, the Americans responded with economic pressure.
As a reply to the Sugar Act many Americans refused to buy English goods. This reaction was generalized by The Sons of Liberty (a new group of Bostonians dedicated to the preservation of rights). This urged the English Parliament to issue the Declaratory Act by which it asserted parliamentary authority over the colonies in “all cases whatsoever” and repealed the Stamp Act.
The next act to affect the Americans was the Mutiny Act of 1765, which required that colonists should provide quotas and supplies for the British troops stationed in America. Massachusetts was the first colony to defy the Mutiny Act, followed by New York (where the army headquarters were trooped). Consequently, the English Parliament imposed other duties and suspended the New York assembly.
In order to regulate commerce the Parliament established a board of customs commissioners which were quartered in Boston. This ended up in violence because the presence of such troops represented a permanent invitation to violence. Samuel Adams assumed the role of leader of the rioters and after having spread several stories of rapes and atrocities committed by the troops, he also spread the rumour about an attack of the soldiers. Thus, on the night of March 5, 1770 citizens and other “liberty boys” fell upon the sentry at the customs house. This confrontation caused several shots to be fired and some soldiers fell. This event is remembered as the Boston Massacre.
Basically, all that Americans demanded was autonomy from the British Empire. They declared that the English Constitution granted individual liberty and colonial self-rule, and that the laws of nature and of God justified them in resisting the violation of their rights. Whereas Englishmen regarded the Constitution as rather elastic and vague, Americans considered it a fixed and definite body of principles written down only to avoid disagreements. Therefore, the Americans’ resistance to tyrannical laws relied basically upon the Bible and the writing of John Lock. For several centuries the preachers of the colonies Lock’s theory came to support the Americans’ principle. He wrote: “If anyone shall claim a power to lay and levy the taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property and subverts the end of government”. Thus, the Americans understood very closely that the British government was flouting the law of nature and the will of God.

The Boston Tea Party
The Act Tea was the next measure meant to provoke the Americans. The East India Cmpany with a large amount of unsaleable tea was supported by the Parliament which produced the Tea Act. According to this act any company could retail its products in America directly to consumers at a very low price. The English officials hoped that the colonists would accept the tea and together with it also the tax. The reaction of the colonists was surprising and diverse. However, a mob of Bostonians led by Samuel Adams threw the tea into the sea. Other ports followed the example. The Parliament passed some laws against the rebels, one of which closed the port of Boston.
The measures were followed by the Quebec Act, which provided a civil French government for the French Communities between Ohio and Mississippi. This scared the Americans, who thought that the English government could well subject them to the authority of the Pope.
The “measurea” taken by the British crown angered the ‘local’ spirits so consequently, in September 1774 a group of colonial leaders came to Philadelphia to forma the first Continental Congress to oppose what they considered the British King, but on the other hand it called upon all Americans to take a stand against the British ‘acts’, to support the people of Massachusetts by refusing to buy British goods. The Congress agreed on five major decisions:
1. they did not accept the idea of a colonial union under British authority;
2. they recognized the right of the Parliament to regulate colonial trade and required the elimination of all acts passed since 1763;
3. approved to preparations concerning a possible defense against the British troops in Boston;
4. agreed to non-importation and non-consumption as means of shopping the trade with Great Britain;
5. that the Congress be held once a year.
In other words this meant that the colonies reaffirmed their autonomous status within the empire and declared economic war to maintain that position.
However, the colonists went even further in that they organized themselves into groups of part-time soldiers, or “militias” and began to gather together weapons and ammunition.
On the nightof April 18, 1775, 700 British soldiers marched out of Boston with the intention to surprise the colonists and capture the weapons they kept stored in the nearby town of Concord. If
It had not been for the courage of two brave men, Paul Revere and William Dawes, who jumped into their saddles and galloped to Concord to warn the colonists, and the signal lights hang from the spire of Boston’s tallest church, the outcomes of these first shots shot at Concord may have been different. Nevertheless, The British were welcome by a group of seventy militiamen, called “Minutemen”, who barred their way in the village of Lexington. As the latter refused to obey the British commander’s order to retreat, someone shot a fire, followed by other shots, which killed eight minutemen. These were the first shots fired in what became the Revolutionary War. The fight was then fought at Concord with serious casualties for both sides. This was the fatal shot which “was heard round the world” as Emerson put it. In this conflict no American could afford to remain neutral. They were either Patriots or Loyalists.

The Revolutionary War

The Second Continenatl Congress assembled in July 1775and adopted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessiy of Tking up Arms announcing that the Britih government had left the Americans with only two alternatives : “unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers resistance by force”.

The Second Continental Congress began to act as an American national government in that it set up an army of 17,000 men under the command of George Washington and sent our messengers to European countries to seek aid for future hostile encounters.
By the following year the fighting had spread beyond Massachusetts and became a full‑scale war. The most fierceful battle was fought at Bunker Hill between the British troops and the force of volunteers. The losses and casualties they brought to the British increased the Americans’ confidence.
The role of inflaming the masses and urging them to action came to Thomas Paine, well remembered for his persuasive voice in call for American independence and braking up with England. His conviction expressed in Common Sense “Everything that is right or reasonable cries for separation”, ”This time to part” moved the Americans and called for quick action. Indeed, the pamphlet, Common Sense made Paine famous as it was widely circulated and practically read by almost every American.
On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress cut off all political ties with Britain and declared that “these United Colonists are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states”, followed by the Declaration of Independence, on July 4. The Declaration was drawn up by Jefferson, with the collaboration of Washington and Franklin, and proclaimed that all men were created equal with a right to Life, Liberty an the Pursuit of Happiness.
The declaration influenced history to a great extent. Its democratic principle that “all men are created equal” stimulated various humanitarian movements in the States and abroad, it inspired the French revolution and its Declaration of the Right of Man. It brought about an increased foreign help and the French intervention on the Americans’ side. It further brought cheer and health. Church bells were rung in Philadelphia and Boston, and other places. Still, there were people who did not agree to the war and others who had been willing to support it only so long as its aims did not conflict with their basic loyalty to the king. Among the Loyalists (or Tories) were the rich families and poor ones, townspeople, wealthy merchants and planters.
Divisions occurred within the remaining patriots. On the one hand, were men like John Adams and like George Washington who wished no major social change in America, on the other hand were men like Thomas Jefferson who sought democratic and humanitarian reforms along with independence.
In the period to come, the states confiscated the Loyalists’ lands, took their right of citizenship, withdrew them from certain occupations etc. The Loyalists left the country and fled to Quebec, thus laying the foundations of English speaking Canada. Nevertheless, thousands of Tories, enlisted and fought for the British cause, whereas only a small number of Patriots volunteered for the American armies. Trying to avoid the disadvantages caused by separate militias, the Congress called upon the States to raise troops for a Continental Army, and unanimously appointed George Washington (then 43 years old) as commander in chief. He took command in June 1775. Aided by foreign military experts such as the Marquis de Lafayette and the Baron von, he succeed in building and holding together the Continental Army. During the war years some of these subjects conspired against him and tried to replace him as commander in chief. He had his shortcomings as a military commander, but he was a great leader and let the army to ultimate victory.
During the summer of 1776 in the weeks immediately after the Declaration of Independence the British sent their most fierceful military forces to America commanded by Sir William Howe. Howe proposed two alternatives to the representatives of the Congress, whom he met for negotiations: submission with royal pardon, or war. The continentals choose war. Although General Washington captured a thousand Hessians, on Christmas night in 1776, he had to retreat and spend the winter at Valley Forge now famous for the heroic sufferings, that his ill equipped army had to endure.
America’s most reliable ally was France, ruled at that time by King Luis XVI (who came to the throne in 1774). His foreign minister, Count Vergeules, soon realized the importance of the colonies’ independence and its impact on other foreign affairs, such as the weakening of Great Britain and the corresponding growth of the power of France. From the very beginning of the conflict France sent out observers to America to report on the course of events. The American Arthur Lee met the French diplomat and musical composer Canon de Beaumarchais with whom he discussed the possibility of a secret help. At this point all the countries, which declared hostilities to Britain, contributed to the ultimate victory of the American colonies. Thus, Netherlands provided loans and Spain gave an official subsidies while France remained the basic ally, providing most of the money and munitions, a navy and an expedittionary force, that only after the Americans had won their victory at Saratoga. It was in 1777 that the young Lafayette sailed from France to help America. The surrender of Yorktown signaled the end of the world.
The treaty of Paris became effective on January 20, 1782. On the whole, the piece granted to the US a clear-cut recognition of independence and a delimitation of territory – from the southern boundary of Canada to the northern boundary of Florida and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. By playing off the powers of Europe against one another, Franklin and his colleagues achieved the greatest diplomatic success in the history of the US.

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

In the early days of independence the Americans did not cherish the same feelings of pride and loyalty to the newly acknowledged United States as they have learned to do later on. Their loyalty was primarily devoted to their own state and only then to their new country, so they regarded themselves first as Virginians or Bostonians rather than Americans.
Besides, each state was self-governed and acted as a separate, independent country showing little willingness and compliance to submit itself to an all-unifying authority. Hence, the first troublesome issue of the policy makers of the new country was how to bring together the independent, self-assertive and therefore, sometimes quarrelsome countries, most of them with their own laws and statutes, into a single united nation. This issue became an urgent concern, especially as the central government grew weaker and did not have the power to enforce laws and make them effective.
Another extremely urgent issue was that of finding a suitable legal document that could guide the colonies in ruling. The document that acted as a constitution during the War of Independence was the Articles of Confederation.
While Jefferson busied himself drafting the Declaration, the members of the Congress were involved in developing a new form of government for the ‘confederated colonies’. In addition to the resolution for independence, Richard Henry Lee moved that ”a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation”. Furthermore, on 12 June 1776, one delegate from each colony was chosen to sit on a committee “to prepare and digest the form of confederation”. The committee members were far-reaching and brilliant minds like: Samuel Adams, John Dickinson, Joseph Hewes, Stephen Hopkins, Rober R. Livingston, Edward Rutledge, Roger Sherman etc. From among the members, John Dickinson was appointed to draft the document which should represent a political and administrative plan for the confederation. Dickinson was appointed as a draftsman because of his profound knowledge of the institutions of government. Dickinson’s draft was first read before Congress on 12 July. Dickinson’s plan was not entirely his work, as he drew on Benjamin Franklin’s ‘sketch of a plan for a permanent union of the colonies’. In spite of the fact that Franklin’s plan was rejected, Dickinson used a large part of his plan. Dickinson’s draft was read 12 July 1776 it was resolved that “eighty copies, and no more, of the confederation, as brought in by the committee, be immediately printed, and deposited with the secretary, who shall deliver one copy to each member”.
The Articles were then discussed in the Committee of the Whole. During the next twenty days the Articles were discussed and debated and finally endorsed.

THE CONSTITUTION

This legal document integrates a few critical elements. First, it must be understood against the background of the historical events which caused it, second it must be regarded as a legal document, the most important one in the US, third it must be looked at from the point of view of its impact on the evolution of the past and present human rights movement.
However, any attempt to understand the Constitution cannot disregard the constitution-making process, the Constitutional Convention, the prominent figures who participated in the events, the two major parties involved, the general enthusiastic intellectual and emotional atmosphere which wrapped up the event, and finally, the ratification process, which practically represented the wide-scale national adoption of the Constitution.
Two of the most important participants in the constitution-making process were James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Madison was a frail man and as his psychological frailness prevented him from developing a great career in the army, so consequently he dedicated his intellectual vigour to the more heated matters of the day. In 1776 he was elected to the Virginia state convention, where he made his first remarkable contribution to the vernacular of the American constitutional law by suggesting that the phrase “toleration of religion” be given a positive turn by being changed to “the free exercise of religion”, an improvement with several consequences. In that same year Madison met Jefferson, who he formed a long-lasting friendship with, a friendship which lasted for all his life. Their friendship resulted in an exchange of 1,250 letters, which were printed in three volumes. While Madison was a cautious and deliberative man, Alexander Hamilton was an audacious adventurer.
Before engaging in the constitution-making process, both Madison and Hamilton made great efforts to reform the existing Confederation, especially in finance, but their efforts failed. In this respect, Madison worked out a three-point reform plan, in which he introduced the concept of popular elections for the first time. Alexander Hamilton built on Madison’s scheme of reform a broader plan inviting state delegates to Philadelphia in May 1787 “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union”. Hamilton set no limits to the Convention’s agenda.
If Hamilton gave a strong push to the constitutional reform, it was Madison who determined the Convention’s agenda by subjecting to it the Virginia Plan. His innovative idea was that the national government, he said, ought to operate directly on the people (rather than through the mediating agency of the states), and that it ought to receive authority directly from the people (rather than from the states). In other words, the people, whom he proudly called “We the people”, delegated authority both to the national government and to the states, thereby giving it the power to act independently in its own sphere, as well as imposing restrictions on the actions of the states. The Americans consider this innovation as the second great innovation from the Declaration of Independence. Madison further proposed that the limiting power should be exercised by a federal power of veto on state laws. The principle was, however, accepted and limitations on the power of the states imposed by the federal Constitution have been accepted as a fundamental principle of the federal system.
The Convention met in Philadelphia again and sat for four months, adjourning on September 17, 1787 when their task was successfully accomplished. The constitution-makers’ task was much facilitated by the fact that by that time all states had been writing or improving their constitutions over the past decades and many of the participants were experts in drawing up constitutions. Of those attending, forty-two had participated in the previous Continental Congresses, or in those held under the Articles. Most of them were farmers, merchants, career officers, and about twenty-six were college graduates. Most importantly, many of them were lawyers. Hamilton pointed out the significance and the contribution of the lawyers in the Constitution-making process and in running the state affaires and proclaimed his opinions on the matter in the 35th issue of the Federalist. At that time, people, and especially Congress-makers distinguished between private interests and an autonomous public interest representing republican ideals, the res publica. Washington, who presided over the Convention but confined himself to the task of ensuring order and decorum, admitted that to be “influenced by any other principles but those of interest, is to look for what never did and I fear never will happen…The few, therefore, who act upon Principles of Disinterestedness are, comparatively speaking, no more than a drop in the ocean”. Hamilton agreed to this, but he further admitted that there was a group of people, who as a “learned profession” were disinterested, and these were the lawyers. As they had no assets to protect, they represented a ‘disinterested’ ruling elite, and could hence command all state affaires. Hamilton, also pointed out in one of the issues of the Federalist that while the states represented local interests, the federal government and Congress represented the national or public interest, and would thus mediate between them. Hence, Hamilton concluded that it was most natural for the planters or merchants or other interest groups to decide over the state legislatures, but it was right for the lawyers to decide in Congress on state affaires.
The Constitution-making process generated heated debates and gave rise to two opposing parties: the federalists on the one hand who wanted a centralised power almost on the lines of European monarchies, and the anti-federalists on the other, claiming that a strong government would soon fall into the hands of interest-groups who would eventually oppress the people. Despite the debates generated and the two opposed parties, all the participants of the Constitutional Convention were serious, unbiased, positive, constructive men, who knew very well why they met, who were well aware of the urgency of drawing up the Constitution and installing a strong federal government as soon as possible. They were all practical men, who looked back on the old European political inheritance, on the old traditions, prepared to decide what was most needed and practical for the American people. Daniel Shays made the Constitution-makers aware of the necessity of speeding up the drafting of the Constitution by instigating the debt-ridden farmers to revolt. These revolts showed the people that the Confederation, as it stood, was very weak, unable to protect the people or the states, or from domestic violence. This made the Constitution-makers well determined to urge the drafting and the ratification of the Constitution.
As pointed out previously, this action was speeded up by the existence of so many well-worked out state constitutions, so that the Constitutional Convention was practically called to choose from the extent state constitutions the one which could best respond to all political and administrative needs posed by such a large Confederation.
Madison is remembered as the father of the American Constitution, as broadly speaking, the Virginia Plan proposed by him was finally adopted. At the same time the audacious Hamilton could not pull through his plan of building up a strong central government on European lines. However, the disputes between the two opposing parties were settled in many compromises, amongst which three were of particular relevance. The first referred to the legislature. This compromise gave the House of Representatives, directly elected by popular votes in localities, the control of money Bills, and a Senate, particularly charged with foreign policy and other matters, to represent the states, with two senators for each state, chosen by the individual legislatures. The second compromise regarded the knotty problem of slavery. First, slavery was not condemned, second, the slave states were given the extra power of counting the slaves as voters on the basis of the three-fifths rule, according to which each slave would count as three-fifths of a freeman. Furthermore, the words ‘slave’, and ‘slavery’ were omitted from the document, as such a legal document could not encourage the idea of property in men. The third compromise was that over the office of presidency and its election. Although Hamilton and his federalists lost the battle over a strong federal state, which remained rather decentralised than centralised, they won a significant battle over the presidency. Hamilton won the battle by tactical skill, compromising on the election procedure –if no candidate got a majority of the popular vote, the House elected one from among the top three, voting by states, not as individuals. Each state was given the right to decide how to choose its Electoral College. This appeared to be a gesture to the states, balancing the fact that the president was directly elected by the people. But it left open the possibility of popular participation. Thus in practice the president was elected independently of the legislature. Moreover, he was given a veto over congressional legislation, and very wide executive powers. Almost by accident, then, America got a very strong presidency, or perhaps an office, which any particular president could make strong if he chose. He was much stronger than most kings, and it was only George Washington’s common sense and restraint that prevented an aggressive and overwhelming display of power giving thus a great example of a president.
Although many other nations attempted in various ways to build a similar federacy, some of them were less successful, but all in all, they were too proud to admit how good an example of federacy did the US provide to the rest of the world, more than 200 years ago. Indeed, what the EU is seeking to accomplish is a federal structure very much like that of the US, but the European Constitution-makers are too proud to look back at the successful American precedent and draw their inspiration from it.
Once the drafting process has been successfully completed, the next very important step to be taken was that of ratifying the new Constitution. The legal procedure was laid down in Article VII of the Constitution, which stipulated the four-stage process of ratification. It thus stated that the first stage was the submission of the document to the Congress of the Old Confederation, which happened on September 25, followed after three days of heated debates by both the federalists’ and the anti-federalists’ agreement to send the Constitution to the individual states, without requesting their endorsement or rejection. This represented the second stage. The third stage was the election of delegates in each state to consider the constitution, and the fourth was ratification by these conventions of at least nine of the Thirteen States. Article VII declared that “the ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same”. This meant that once the ninth state signified its acceptance, the Constitution became the basic law of the country, irrespective of what other states did.
The introduction of the rule of majority, as opposed to unanimity, represented another step forward, showing the federalists’ determination to create a forceful government. Furthermore, the system permitted a speedy action. The federalists supported the brisky ratification process hoping that the Big Four (Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania) would ratify it. It was an enormous risk, which the federalists took. An equally great risk was that of insisting on popular ratification. Eventually, their plans were all fulfilled.
Ratification by convention also had the effect of inviting a grand nation-scale public debate on the issue. Public debate became in those days a form of education, an active and vital one, one that replaced perhaps an armed conflict. In this respect the Americans learned a useful lesson and were determined to give words their full credit. The French ignored this “at the cost of countless lives and ideological bitterness which reverberates to this day”(Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, 1999).
The ratification process was carried out as a war of words every where, in public squares, in Congress, at meetings, in the streets etc. Above all it was carried on in the press. By that time newspapers, dailies, and weeklies had proliferated widely. Besides, both printing and paper were completely untaxed, so they offered the people cheap entertainment and education all together. Furthermore, every prominent political figure of the time either tried his hand at writing pamphlets, or indeed wrote pamphlets as a distinctive and purposefully chosen means to circulate advanced ideas, to win the masses, and instigate them to action. The prominent political writers employed pseudonyms like ‘Cato’, ‘Cicero’, ‘Brutus’, ‘Publius’, ‘A Farmer’ etc. The printed media had the great merit of having disseminated the heated issues and the debates of the day, thus representing the biggest exercise of political thought ever conducted. Hamilton who signed his writings with the pseudonym ‘Publius’ knew as most Americans did that the issue at stake went far beyond the boundary of a constitution, that the process under discussion was that of determining “whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government by reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force”. Hamilton’s contribution to the dissemination of the advanced political ideas, Madison’s contribution and that of John Jay rest primarily on their jointly publishing the Federalist, a series of eighty-five newspaper essays, which made Paul Johnson admit that their writings represent “the first major work of political theory ever produced in America, discussing with great clarity and force such fundamental questions of government as the distribution of authority between the centre and the periphery, between government and people, and the degree to which the constitutive elements of government, executive, legislature, and judiciary, ought to be separate”. Next to these outstanding contributions, James Wilson is also remembered for his unequalled speech made on November 24, 1787 to the Pennsylvania convention, in which he strongly emphasised the role played by elections and representation as the core of a solid constitution. He pointed out that what really differentiated the new American form of constitution from the ancient Greek and Roman models was the curious way of voting and the inherited right which made up the British Constitution. He further wrote “The world has left to America the glory and happiness of forming a government where representation shall at once supply the basis and the cement of the superstructure. For representation, Sir, is the true chain between the people and those to whom they entrust the administration of the government”. Such enlightened ideas brought Wilson the great merit of being the second great hand in shaping the Constitution, and after Hamilton’ s voice his voice urged the Constitution to be accepted.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, James Wilson, John Dickinson, and Roger Sherman were the elite representatives of the federalists.
The anti-federalists were led by prominent figures such as Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, Sam Adams, etc. They all voiced their fear of a strong government and shared the belief that a new federal congress and government would quickly fall into the hands of special interest groups who would eventually oppress the people, or as they claimed “would reduce us to a federal domination”. Despite Hamilton’s conviction that the class of disinterested “learned professional” lawyers could well conduct the nation’s affairs, the anti-federalists distrusted them, again showing their rejection. They said: “these lawyers, and men of learning, and monied men, that talk so finely, and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pills, expect to get into Congress themselves: expect to be managers of this Constitution, and get all the power and the money into their own hands, and then they will swallow up us little folks, like the great Leviathan”.
However, they were unable to counter the federalists’ proposal of a strong government, as what they proposed was a Small Government on the lines of the Swiss cantons, a completely non-functional counterproposal.
The point which the anti-federalists built their case on was that of stressing that the new Constitution said little or nothing about rights, particularly about individual rights, an issue very close to the Americans’ hearts. Still, the federalists admitted their fault, and promised that once the Constitution was ratified, the first thing was to draw up and pass a Bill of Rights. With this promise in mind the participants in the ratification process began the ratification procedure.
Thus the first ratifications took place December 1787- January 1788 and expressed the legal consent of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. In Massachusetts, the two prominent anti-federalists Sam Adams and John Hancock opposed it, and eventually agreed to accept it on condition that an amended Bill of Rights was added to it. All the other states adopted this attitude and made clear their condition. Maryland ratified the Constitution in April, South Carolina in May, New Hampshire and Virginia in June, and New York in July. The states, which ratified the Constitution so far, were eleven, and they already ensured the adoption of the Constitution. However, North Carolina’s convention adjourned without ratifying the Constitution and Rhode Island refused to summon a convention on the occasion. The promise of additional amendments to it, nevertheless, persuaded both states to later ratify the Constitution, i.e. in November 1789. Thus, eventually, all states ratified the Constitution unanimously. This historical event provoked Benjamin Franklin’s notable remark: “Our Constitution is an actual operation, and everything appears to promise that it will last: but in this world nothing can be said to be certain but death and taxes".
James Madison who had previously argued against the tyranny of interests or of the majority, providing instead for structural arrangements such as the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances, then, finally set out to examine all rights comprised in state constitutions and came forth with a synthesis. He also drew his inspiration from the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), composed by the anti-federalist George Mason. Quite early, in 1789, Madison produced drafts of ten amendments.
The ratification procedure went smoothly and on December 15, 1791, Virginia was the last state to ratify the Bills that became part of the American Constitution.

The Constitutional Context

The Founders of the Constitution established the role of Congress in policy making. The Founders also established its relationship with the other branches of government and with the people.
The basic principles included in the Constitution are: limited government, separation of powers, check and balances, and federalism. Despite the 200 years which have passed since the creation of the Constitution the aforementioned principles continue to govern the lawmaking process.

Limited government. It has been pointed out at an earlier date that the Framers of the Constitution wanted to create a strong and effective national government which, nevertheless, should not threaten personal or property rights. Consequently, they thought that by dividing the power among three branches of national government, and between the nation and the states, the national government could not acquire too much power so as to violate personal and property rights. The division of power, on the other hand, ensured both policy conflicts and effective cooperation, and the officials were made responsive to different constituencies, responsibilities and perceptions of the public welfare. Thus the Framers suggested that the “ACCUMULATION OF ALL POWERS, LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIARY, IN THE SAME HANDS…MAY JUSTLY BE PRONOUNCED THE VERY DEFINITION OF TYRANNY” and that was exactly what they feared most, given their first hand experience of the abuses of King George and his royal governors. The principle of separation of powers was also inspired by the political theorists Locke and Montesquieu, who pointed out the importance of these principles (separation of powers, checks and balances and popular control of government).

Separation of powers. The Framers established three independent branches of national government, none having the monopoly or overshadowing the others. Their objective was twofold. First, by separation of powers they sought to restrain the power of any of the branches, second, in order to be effective it had to ensure adequate collaboration and co-operation of the branches.
According to the first article of the Constitution Congress is the first branch of government and has “all legislative power”. It is granted, at the same time, explicit and implicit responsibilities. Article I further enumerates the specific powers of Congress.
Article II and III which refer to the executive and judicial branches, describe briefly the framework and the duties involved.
Although separation of powers implies that Congress “enacts” the laws, the President “executes” them, and the Supreme Court “interprets” them, the distinction between them is not so sharp. In particular, the Constitution even provides an open invitation to struggle for power by Congress and the President.

Checks and balances. This represents a system designed by the authors to impose limits to the three branches and to prevent any branch from overriding the other. Essentially it is a further system added to that of separation of powers. Although both systems were sought to ensure a smooth and fluent activity of Congress, however, they inevitably gave rise to conflicts.
To restrain Congress’s own legislative power the system was contrived to be effectively “checked” by establishing a bicameral body consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Furthermore, the laws passed by Congress must be vetoed by the president. Treaties and high- level presidential appointments require the approval of the Senate and many decisions and actions of Congress and the president are subject to review by the federal judiciary.
The establishment of the checks and balances system has a twofold effect: first it encourages co-operation and subsequent adjustment of the branches, and second, it may generate conflict. However, since 1789 Congress and the President have co-operated with each other and protected their power. Each branch depends on the other and this is what really makes them function together in unison.

Federalism. Just as the branches were designed to check each other, the state and federal governments are also countervailing forces. This division of power is another means to control governing power. The term “federalism” was not included in the Constitution, as was for example that of separation of powers or checks and balances, but the Founders realised that federalism was a form of government acceptable to all 13 original states. The “supremacy” clause of the Constitution prevented the states from passing unconstitutional laws; however, powers not granted to Congress remained with the states.
Federalism has infused “localism” into congressional proceedings. Congress is a representative institution and hence its members need to respond to the needs and interests of states and congressional districts. Thus it gives expression to the vast national diversity, especially as Congress legislators’ tenure depends on the continued support of their constituents.
Nevertheless, the Constitution has devised a sound and strong political system in which the power is divided among the branches and between the levels of government, and popular opinion and interest are reflected differently in each. On the other hand, both Congress and the president, each with different constituencies, terms of office, and times of election, can claim to represent majority sentiment on national issues. Given each branch’s independent and formidable powers, different perspectives on many issues, the intricate mix of formal and informal relationships, it is apparent that important national policies reflect the judgement of both the legislative and executive branches, and the views of pressure groups and influential persons.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

What is the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is a constitutional act, which comprises amendments to the Constitution intended to restrict the federal government’s power and to prevent it from interfering with certain basic rights of the people.
To ensure the success of his ideals and therewith the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison developed a compromise plan. He was convinced that if he presented it to Congress or to state legislatures, it would be rejected. Hence, he thought that the best way to get the Constitution ratified was to submit it to special ratifying conventions held separately in each state. The conventions would be elected by popular vote of the people for the sole purpose of approving the Constitution.
Madison’s plan centered on the idea exposed in the Preamble to the Constitution, which says “We the People…do ordain and establish this Constitution…” and is, therefore, a social contract, or a legal agreement among the people to create a government.
The Framers agreed to Madison’s plan. As Article VII of the Constitution stated that the Constitution would go into effect after it had been ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the Framers sought only the approval of nine states. Furthermore, they hastened the states to organize and elect delegates to the states ratifying conventions in order not to give the opponents (the anti-federalists) time to prepare arguments against it. By contrast, the federalists (the supporters of the Constitution and therewith of the federal government) had worked at the Constitution for almost four months and knew the arguments both for and against. However, they geared all their activity towards a speedy ratification.
Despite the federalists’ strategy, the anti-federalists put up a strong opposition which deterred the ratification for ten months. The debate turned out intense and heated. This is the point when, in order to support the federalists’ cause, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Joy stepped in writing a series of articles in favor of the ratification. These articles or pamphlets are now known as The Federalist and bring accurate evidence about the disputes over the Bill of Rights.
The anti-federalist leaders were George Mason, Richard Henry Lee (a revolutionary and signer of the Declaration of Independence), Patrick Henry, who at the time opposed the idea of a strong national government, and became a leading anti-federalist, Mercy Otis Warren, a playwright, etc.
Basically, all the arguments for and against brought into prominence three issues:
1. Would the new Constitution maintain a republican form of government?
2. Would the federal government have too much power?
3. Was the bill of rights, indeed, necessary to be added to the Constitution?
Soon the anti-federalists realized that the best way to resist the ratification was by using the issue of the bill of rights.
There was a wide spread fear of a strong and powerful government combined with the belief that a bill of rights was necessary to protect people from government. This idea was rooted in the assumption that if people needed to be protected from their relatively weak state governments, they would need more protection from the somewhat more powerful federal government. Consequently, the anti-federalists highlighted the lack of a bill of rights. The issue acquired an emotional connotation from the men and women who had just fought a revolution to secure their rights. Furthermore, in several states the question of a bill of rights was used effectively to organize opposition to the ratification of the Constitution.
Nonetheless, the federalists also used their strategy to convince different states to ratify the Constitution. One of these was to give in to the anti-federalists’ demand for a bill of rights, which eventually deprived the anti-federalists of their strongest weapon. In some states, Massachusetts for example, the agreement to add a bill of rights was enough to win ratification.
The last state (the ninth out of twelve) to be determined to ratify the Constitution was New Hampshire and it voted for ratification in exchange for the inclusion of a list of twelve amendments suggested as a bill of rights for the new nation. The other states were in consensus over the recommended amendments. Thus, although the anti-federalists lost their cause (that of defeating the Constitution or calling for its revision), they made their point by adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
George Washington became the first president of the US on April 30, 1789 when he was sworn into office. This event marked the beginning of the new government. It was for the first time in history that the people of a nation held the ultimate power of government by selecting the person they wanted to lead their government. What is further worthwhile noting is that the powers that the person was entitled to be limited by the new Constitution, which the president was sworn to uphold. Besides, the concern for freedom vowed in Washington’s inaugural address urged Congress to fulfill the promise to add a bill of rights to the Constitution.
The task of drawing up the bill of rights befell upon James Madison, a task that he devoted his full attention to. Although, in the beginning he had opposed the idea of a bill of rights and often referred to it calling it a “parchment barrier”, during the ratification debates he promised to add one. So, his pledge entitled him to the other title he had acquired that of “father of the Constitution”.
However, he set out on his task by revising the amendments whish were recommended by the individual states during the ratification debates. Most of these either placed additional limitations on the powers of the federal government or protected individual rights.
Madison focused his attention on the amendments, which promoted individual rights, such as freedom of speech, consciousness, press, religion, assembly, petition, and trial by jury, and neglected or dismissed all the suggestions, which limited severely the power of the federal government.
In drafting the Bills he relied on the colonial bills of rights and charters of liberty. Thus, for example, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties was adopted in 1641, even before the English Bill of Rights, and almost 48 years before the American Bill of Rights. It comprised 23 of the 27 rights enumerated in the Bill.
Madison introduced his amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. He further suggested that an introductory statement be added to the Constitution containing some basic ideas about government included in the Declaration of Independence. This statement should refer to the idea that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people and that the people are the ultimate source of its authority.
As Madison was convinced, along with the people at large, that the greatest danger to individual rights came not from the federal government, but from groups who could use their state governments to serve their selfish interests at the expense of others, he included what he considered “the most valuable amendment in the whole list” and which read: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal causes.”
Madison also included an amendment to respond for the possible omissions. This is the Ninth Amendment, which clearly states that the Bill of Rights is only a partial list of the people’s rights:
“The enumeration [listing] in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed [interpreted] to deny or disparage [make less important] others retained by the people.”
Finally, Madison argued that the amendments he had drafted should be introduced in the Constitution itself, while they were added as a separate list at the end of the Constitution.
Then the Bill underwent three subsequent stages. First, the jury sent it to the Senate where the anti-federalists dismissed the amendment that prohibited the state governments from violating freedom of conscience, speech, press, and trial in criminal causes. This amendment was added 150 years later.
Second, a joint committee of the House and Senate altered a few sections. In September 1789 Congress approved the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification. Congress passed only 12 amendments of which 2 were not subsequently ratified by the states. These dealt with reapportionment of the House of Representatives and the effective days of raises for members of Congress. On December 15, 1791 the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, when it was ratified by Virginia, the last state to ratify it.
Thomas Jefferson was serving as the first state secretary and was thus responsible for notifying the state governors of the actions of Congress. In 1792 Jefferson informed the governor that Congress “had taken action concerning fisheries, the post office, and postal roads”. At the end of his letter, nevertheless, almost as a post script, he informed them of the ratification of the Bill of Rights: “the ratification by three fourths of the…states, of certain articles in addition and amendment of the Constitution”.

A Comparison between the English Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights

A comparison of the two documents will shed light on the advantages brought about by the American Bill of Rights.
While the British Bill of Rights set out to justify the Glorious Revolution by explicating the political and religious crimes of the king and, hence to establish a government in which the power of the king was checked and balanced. By far the greatest concerns of the English Bill were to limit the power of the king, place the dominant power of the government on Parliament, and to ensure the establishment of the Church of England.
The Bill includes the trial by jury right, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, and the right to keep arms for personal defense. Some ideas expressed in it, however, influenced the American Bill of Rights. Such were the following:

Rule of Law, according to which all people must obey the laws of the land;
Parliamentary supremacy which made parliament the highest authority superior to the king;
Government by contract and consent, a rule by which Government is based on a contract between the rulers and the ruled;
Balance of Powers, a principle that seeks to establish a balance between the legislative and executive branches of government. This further made judges independent of both, and also represented the first step towards the ideas of separation of powers and checks and balances, later on taken up and developed in the American Constitution.

The English Bill of Rights was a law passed by Parliament and it could be changed by Parliament. Besides, it was primarily intended to limit the power of the king and increase that of the Parliament. It sought to prohibit the monarch from violating the right of Parliament. On the whole, the English Bill of Rights taught the Americans how to protect rights by limiting the power of government.
By contrast, the American Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress and ratified by the people and can only be changed by the people. It is primarily aimed at prohibiting the government from violating the individual rights of all people and protecting the rights of minorities from majorities.

The Bill of Rights – an Overview

From the amendments which were contrived as the Bill of Rights the First Amendment declares that the Congress cannot establish an official religion, that it can not prohibit free speech or freedom of the press, and that it cannot pass laws preventing people from assembling peacefully or from petitioning the government. The first amendment in fact means that the Americans have always had the right to march, to protest, and to petition, and that it has encouraged a particular style of populist politics. The amendment ensures freedom for the media, particularly for press, which cannot be censored, closed down or muzzled by government. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an organization purposefully set up to ensure that these rights are fully preserved. In this respect, ACLU lawyers have many times protected the rights of political minorities, including those of both the extreme left and right.
The Second Amendment guarantees to every citizen the right to bear arms. This provision was fully justified in those early days of the new nation, as the British had tried to prevent the colonists from having weapons. Then, around 1789 the Americans were farmers and hunters. Although things have changed dramatically over the last centuries, and a large number of people were killed by handguns, today it is very difficult to pass gun control laws, or prohibiting laws, as the right to carry a gun was ensured by the Constitution. The Third Amendment also was a reaction against the old colonial British practices, as it forbade the government from quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime without the consent of the owners.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the illegal search of people’s homes, persons, or papers by the police unless they have a warrant that describes what is being sought. Though in movies this amendment seems to be permanently broken, in real life this is hardly possible. In addition, evidence gathered without a warrant cannot be used in a criminal court case.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments deal with matters which regard the arrest of suspects and the conduct of criminal trials, providing rules that already in 1790 gave greater legal protection to Americans than Europeans enjoy today. The Fifth Amendment states that no one may be tried for a serious offence without previously being indicted by a Grand Jury, and that no one may be forced to be a witness against himself. During a trial the accused has the right to remain silent, and cannot be coerced to answer questions. Equally, the police may not under any circumstances torture a prisoner to extract a confessions, they may not hold a person for prisoner for more than two days without charging him or her with a crime. Hence prolonged imprisonment before a trial is illegal, and any confession elicited during such a confinement is not recognized by any American court of law. As a consequence of the Miranda decision of the Supreme Court (1966), an American prisoner may walk free if he confesses to a crime, unless the police have first told him that he has the right to remain silent, the right to consult a lawyer before making any statement, and the right to have a lawyer by his side during any questioning.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial by jury and gives the accused the right to confront witnesses against him, the right to compel witnesses to appear on his behalf, and the right to a lawyer.
The Seventh Amendment guarantees that facts established during a trial cannot be re-examined during appeals to a higher court.
The Eighth Amendment protects the guilty against excessive fines or “cruel and unusual punishments”.
The Ninth Amendment states that the rights not discussed or defined in the Constitution are “retained by the people”, while the Tenth Amendment reads “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.

Bibliography

Walter J. Oleszek, 1984, Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, CQ Press, Washington, DC.
Siane Racitch and Abigail Thernstrom, 1992, The Democracy Reader, Harper Collin Publishers, NY.
Frances Moore Lappé, 1989, Rediscovering America’s Values, Balantice Bodes, NY.
James E Mickery, Jr. and Alexei Ugrinsky, 1996, Government Structure in the USAR the Sovereign States of the Former USSR, Greewook Press, London.
Paul Johnson, 1999, A History of the American People, Harper Perennial, NY.