Chapter 7 in Henretta is probably the most interesting chapter we’ve read in my opinion. I find it interesting to see how this group of colonist handles independence after its struggle against British control.
After a revolution fighting to gain power for the people, they question how much power the people should really have, they questioned how democratic America should be. This debate drew on for most of the rest of the 18th century. In 1787 delegates from everywhere but Rhode Island gathered in Philadelphia, where they debated between the use of the Virginia Plan or the New Jersey Plan in their discussion. After a month of debate, the delegates chose the Virginia Plan by a slim margin. With the differences between the two plans in mind, how would the choice of the New Jersey Plan affect the final shape of the U.S government?
Also I the uprising of women in this post war America caught my attention as well. Women like Abigal Adams that accused men of having tyrant like control much. I found it interesting that America went through an entire revolution based on enlightenment philosophies but yet still gave women so little rights. Its not until the 1790's any of the state governments would even allow girls to attend public schools. America uses John Locke’s philosophies of unalienable rights to shape the constitution, giving Americans the right to choose the their own government, but yet these rights extend only to white males. What would an enlightenment philosopher like John Locke say on the subject? In the early 1800's New Jersey allows property owning women to vote. Why do you think that New Jersey is alone in this change?
6 comments:
As a young woman I honestly did not even think about the fact that althought there were so many ideas in the enlightenment, there were few that involved women. This brought up a new perspective for me in the reading. I still don't know how to answer why government was so hesitant to give women their rights. Either government saw women as a lesser power or maybe government was afraid of what women would do with their power.
If the New Jersey plan had been implemented and we had built from that foundation, I think our government would be quite different. A bicameral legislation is very important. It divides influence among the states fairly. Also, the strong national government is an important aspect of the Virginia plan. The New Jersey plan supported state government over national government which would lead to a divided states which would not be strong enough to survive.
I found it interesting that women where actually given the right to vote in New Jersey in the early 1800's and that it was taken away from them. The right for women to vote became a struggle that lasted until women received full voting rights in 1920. What if instead of having it taken away from them, it had spread to other states? That would have changed the entire women's movement in the united States. I also think it would have influenced other inequalities if less had existed in the early stages of our country
The women voting issue in our book was interesting, because I have taken women's studies classes that have described this occurence in history differently. They made it sound like women were given the right to vote only because they rarely voted and when they did it was just for who their husband told them to vote for.
The government would have been very different if the founding fathers would have chosen the New Jersey Plan. The New Jersey Plan gave the states a lot of control and there was only a unicameral legislature. One of the good things about our government is the bicameral legislation, and I think that it would have really weakend the goverment to chose a unicameral legislation. Also the virginia plan had a strong national government which I think is important in keeping all the states united as a country instead of the possibility of the states splitting off into their own countries.
I think the equal rights is attendant to all citizens of the United States. I do feel like women are only counted dependent upon their husbands or their fathers. The colonists had come from Britain, when all they knew was of male dominance. It was enough of a step, I am sure they felt like, to allow women the standings in churches that their receieved. While I obviously don't agree with women not getting these equal rights, I think it was during a time when that was all they knew. I don't think they felt it was wrong or any different giving the male the dominance. It was something that would be eventually changed, but with all the other changes, that just wasn't what was first priority.
Post a Comment