History of Modern Psychology 10th Edition Schultz Test Bank

History of Modern Psychology 10th

Edition Schultz Test Bank
Visit to get the accurate and complete content:

https://testbankfan.com/download/history-of-modern-psychology-10th-edition-schultz-t
est-bank/

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

History of Modern Psychology 10th Edition Schultz Test Bank

Chapter 1

The Study of the History of Psychology

TESTBANK

ESSAY

1. Why is it important for psychology students to study the development of psychology?

ANS:
Answer not provided.

PTS: 1

2. Argue that Psychology's roots began 2000 years ago. Now argue that they began 200 years ago. What
fields came together to form Psychology?

ANS:
Answer not provided.

PTS: 1 MSC: WWW

3. Define historiography. How do the data of history differ from the data of science? Name and describe the
three major difficulties involved in recalling and presenting the data of history.

ANS:
Answer not provided.

PTS: 1

4. Discuss and give one example of each of the contextual forces that influenced the development of
psychology.

ANS:
Answer not provided.

PTS: 1

5. Describe, compare, and contrast the personalistic and naturalistic theories as conceptions of scientific
history. How could the contributions of Darwin be used to illustrate both?

ANS:
Answer not provided.

PTS: 1 MSC: WWW

6. Define "school of thought" and discuss it in terms of Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in scientific
evolution.

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

 ANS:
Answer not provided.

PTS: 1

MULTIPLE CHOICE

7. Psychology is unique among the sciences in its requirement that its students ____.
a. have a minor in the natural sciences
b. learn the experimental method
c. use carefully controlled observations in its procedures
d. study the history of psychology
e. have a liberal arts background in the humanities
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: Why Study the History of Psychology?

8. What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the Invisible Gorilla?

a. All psychology students can multitask when presented with multiple stimuli at one time
b. Extraordinary events can induce extreme stress when presented to unsuspecting people
c. It is difficult for people to pay attention to more than one stimulus at a time
d. Doing homework and watching television at the same time are as efficient as if the two are
done separately
e. Counting can be a difficult task when one is being watched
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: The Invisible Gorilla
MSC: WWW

9. Division ____ of the American Psychological Association is concerned with the study of the discipline's
history.
a. 1
b. 2
c. 26
d. 32
e. 42
ANS: C PTS: 1 REF: Why Study the History of Psychology?

10. In what year was the American Psychological Association founded?

a. 1892
b. 1932
c. 1952
d. 1969
e. 1979
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: Why Study the History of Psychology?

11. Psychology is marked by diversity and divisiveness. The one aspect of the discipline that provides
cohesiveness and a common ground for discourse is its ____.
a. reliance on the experimental method in all its research
b. focus on the study of overt behavior
c. use of the hypothetico-deductive method
 d. national organizations (APA and APS)
e. history
ANS: E PTS: 1 REF: Why Study the History of Psychology?
MSC: WWW

12. Perhaps the most valuable outcome of the study of the history of psychology is that one will learn the
____.
a. relationships among psychology's ideas, theories, and research strategies
b. contributions of the classic Greek philosophers
c. origins of the experimental methods
d. evolution of the scientist-practitioner model of clinical psychology
e. issues at the root of the pure versus applied research conflict in psychology
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: Why Study the History of Psychology?

13. According to Schultz & Schultz, a course in the history of psychology is useful because ____.
a. it helps us to understand why modern psychology has so many different movements
b. it helps to integrate the areas and issues that constitute modern psychology
c. it provides a fascinating story on its own
d. All of the choices are correct
e. None of the choices are correct
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: Why Study the History of Psychology?

14. As a scientific discipline, psychology is ____.

a. one of the newest
b. one of the oldest
c. the only one to have started in the United States
d. one of the newest and one of the oldest
e. None of the choices are correct
ANS: D PTS: 1 REF: The Development of Modern Psychology

15. Greek philosophers studied issues involving ____.

a. motivation
b. abnormal behavior
c. learning
d. thought
e. All of the choices are correct
ANS: E PTS: 1 REF: The Development of Modern Psychology

16. Modern psychology shares which of the following characteristics with ancient Greek philosophy?
a. An interest in the same kinds of questions about human nature
b. The development of common methods of research to answer questions about human
nature
c. A reliance upon biology to help in the understanding of human nature
d. The denial that humans are composed of a physical body and a spiritual soul
e. None of the choices are correct
ANS: A PTS: 1 REF: The Development of Modern Psychology
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The Project Gutenberg eBook of American
politics (non-partisan) from the beginning to
date
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: American politics (non-partisan) from the beginning to date

embodying a history of all the political parties, with their
views and records on all important questions. Great
speeches on all great issues, and tabulated history and
chronological events.

Author: Thomas V. Cooper

Hector T. Fenton

Release date: August 27, 2023 [eBook #71502]

Language: English

Original publication: Philadelpia: Fireside Publishing Company,

1892

Credits: Richard Tonsing, David Edwards, and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AMERICAN

POLITICS (NON-PARTISAN) FROM THE BEGINNING TO DATE ***
Transcriber’s Note:
New original cover art included with this eBook is
granted to the public domain.
 AMERICAN POLITICS
(NON-PARTISAN)

FROM THE BEGINNING TO DATE.

EMBODYING

A HISTORY OF ALL THE POLITICAL

PARTIES,
WITH

THEIR VIEWS AND RECORDS ON ALL

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
GREAT SPEECHES ON ALL GREAT ISSUES,
AND

TABULATED HISTORY AND

CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS.

By HON. THOMAS V. COOPER,

Member Pennsylvania House of Representatives, 1870–72. Senate, 1874–84.
Chairman Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania, 1881–82–83–84–85–
86–87.

AND
 HECTOR T. FENTON, Esq.,
Of the Philadelphia Bar.

FIFTEENTH AND REVISED EDITION.

PHILADELPHIA:
FIRESIDE PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1892.
 Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1892, by the
FIRESIDE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.

ALTEMUS’ BOOK BINDERY,

PHILADELPHIA.

Respectfully Dedicated
TO THE

PROPOSITION
THAT ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD TAKE AN INTEREST
IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
 PREFACE.

The writer of this volume, in the pursuit of his profession as an

editor, and throughout an active political life, has always felt the
need of a volume from which any important fact, theory or record
could be found at a moment’s glance, and without a search of many
records. He has also remarked the singular fact that no history of the
political parties of the country, as they have faced each other on all
leading issues, has ever been published. These things prompted an
undertaking of the work on his own part, and it is herewith presented
in the hope that it will meet the wants not only of those connected
with politics, but of all who take an interest in public affairs. In this
work very material aid has been rendered by the gentleman whose
name is also associated with its publication, and by many political
friends, who have freely responded during the past year to the calls
made upon them for records, which have been liberally employed in
the writing and compilation of this work.

THOS. V. COOPER.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 BOOK I.—HISTORY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES.
PAGE.
Colonial Parties—Whig and Tory 3
Particularists and Strong Government Whigs 5
Federals and Anti-Federals 6
Republicans and Federals 8
Downfall of the Federals 12
Democrats and Federals 17
Jefferson Democrats 19
Hartford Convention 20
Treaty of Ghent 20
Congressional Caucus 21
Protective Tariff 21
Monroe Doctrine 23
Missouri Compromise 24
Tariff—American System 25
Tenure of Office—Eligibility 27
Nullification—Democrats and Federals 29
United States Bank 31
Jackson’s Special Message on the United States Bank 33
Conception of Slavery Question 35
Democrats and Whigs 37
The Hour Rule 39
National Bank Bill—First 41
„ „ „ Second 43
Oregon Treaty of 1846 47
Treaty of Peace with Mexico 49
Clay’s Compromise Resolutions 51
Abolition Party—Rise and Progress of 53
Kansas-Nebraska Bill 55
Ritual of the American Party 57
Kansas Struggle 71
Lincoln and Douglas Debate 73
Charleston Convention—Democratic, 1860 81
Douglas Convention, 1860, Baltimore 86
Breckinridge Convention, 1860, Baltimore 86
Chicago Republican Convention, 1860 86
American Convention, 1860 87
Secession—Preparing for 87
Secession—Virginia Convention, 1861 91
„ Inter-State Commissioners 96
„ Southern Congress, Proceedings of 97
„ Confederate Constitution 97
„ Confederate States 98
Buchanan’s Views 99
Crittenden Compromise 104
Peace Convention 106
Actual Secession 109
„ „ Transferring Arms to the South 109
Fernando Wood’s Secession Message 112
Congress on the Eve of the Rebellion 113
Lincoln’s Views 115
Judge Black’s Views 115
Alexander H. Stephens’ Speech on Secession 116
Lincoln’s First Administration 120
Confederate Military Legislation 128
Guerrillas 129
Twenty-Negro Exemption Law 130
Douglas on the rebellion 130
Political Legislation Incident to the War 130
Thirty-Seventh Congress 131
Compensated Emancipation 135
Lincoln’s Appeal to the Border States 137
Reply of the Border States 138
Border State Slaves 139
Emancipation 141
„ Preliminary Proclamation of 141
„ Proclamation of 143
Loyal Governors, the Address of 144
Fugitive Slave Law, Repeal of 145
Financial Legislation 149
Seward as Secretary of State 149
Internal Taxes 151
Confederate Debt 152
Confederate Taxes 153
West Virginia—Admission of 158
Color in War Politics 159
Thirteenth Amendment—Passage of 167
Louisiana—Admission of Representatives 168
Reconstruction 169
Arkansas—Admission of 170
Reconstruction Measures—Text of 171
Fourteenth Amendment 174
McClellan’s Political Letters 175
Lincoln’s Second Administration 177
Andrew Johnson and his Policy 178
„ „ —Impeachment Trial 179
Grant 191
Enforcement Acts 193
Readmission of Rebellious States 193
Legal Tender Decision 194
Greenback Party 194
Prohibitory Party 196
San Domingo—Annexation of 196
Alabama Claims 197
Force Bill 197
Civil Service—Order of President Hayes 198
Amnesty 199
Liberal Republicans 199
Reform in the Civil Service 200
Credit Mobilier 200
Salary Grab 214
Returning Boards 217
Grangers 218
„ —Illinois Railroad Act of 1873 218
Civil Rights Bill—Supplementary 221
Morton Amendment 222
Whisky Ring 222
Belknap Impeached 223
White League 223
Wheeler Compromise—Text of 226
Election of Hayes and Wheeler 228
Electoral Count 229
Title of President Hayes 233
Cipher Despatches 234
The Hayes Administration 239
Negro Exodus 240
Campaign of 1880 242
Three Per Cent. Funding Bill 244
History of the National Loans 245
Garfield and Arthur—Inauguration of 253
Republican Factions 253
The Caucus 256
Assassination of Garfield 260
Arthur, President 261
Boss Rule 261
Readjusters 263
Mormonism—Suppression of 264
„ Text of the Bill 265
South American Question 269
Star Route Scandal 277
The Coming States 278
Chinese Question 281
„ „ —Speech of Senator Miller on 281
„ „ —Reply of Senator Hoar 285
Merchant Marine 296
Current Politics 298
Political Changes in 1882, 1883, 1884 304–
318
Cleveland’s Administration 321
Contests of 1885, 1886, 1887 321
The Campaigns of 1884, 1886, 1887, 1888 318–
335
The National Conventions of 1888 336
The Presidential Election of 1888 337
President Harrison’s Message on the Chilean Troubles 339
The National Conventions of 1892 347
 BOOK II.—POLITICAL PLATFORMS.
Virginia Resolutions, 1798 2003
Virginia Resolutions, 1798—Answers of the State Legislatures 2006
Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 2010
Washington’s Farewell Address 2014
All National Platforms from 1800 to 1892 2021–
2079
Comparison of Platform Planks on Great Questions 2079–
2104

BOOK III.—GREAT SPEECHES ON GREAT ISSUES.

James Wilson’s Vindication of the Colonies 3003
Patrick Henry before Virginia Delegates 3007
John Adams on the Declaration 3008
Patrick Henry on the Federal Constitution 3010
John Randolph against Tariff 3013
Edward Everett on the Example of the Northern to the
Southern Republics of America 3018
Daniel Webster on the Greek Question 3019
John Randolph’s Reply to Webster 3020
Robert Y. Hayne against Tariff 3021
Henry Clay on his Land Bill 3023
John C. Calhoun’s Reply to Clay 3024
Robt. Y. Hayne on Sales of Public Land—the Foote Resolution 3025
Daniel Webster’s Great Reply to Hayne 3048
John C. Calhoun on the Rights of the States 3080
Henry Clay on the American Protective System 3086
James Buchanan on an Independent Treasury 3095
Lewis Cass on the Missouri Compromise 3096
Clement L. Vallandigham on Slavery 3097
Horace Greeley on Protection 3099
Henry A. Wise Against Know-Nothingism 3109
Kenneth Raynor on the Fusion of Fremont and Fillmore
Forces 3112
Religious Test—Debate on the Article in the Constitution in
Regard to it 3114
Henry Winter Davis on the American Party 3115
Joshua R. Giddings Against the Fugitive Slave Law 3116
Robert Toombs in Favor of Slavery 3117
Judah P. Benjamin on Slave Property 3119
William Lloyd Garrison on the Slavery Question 3120
Theodore Parker Against the Fugitive Slave Law and the
Return of Sims 3121
William H. Seward on the Higher Law 3122
Charles Sumner on the Fallibility of Judicial Tribunals 3123
Galusha A. Grow on his Homestead Bill 3123
Lincoln and Douglas Debate—
„ „ „ Douglas’s Speech 3126
„ „ „ Lincoln’s Reply 3133
„ „ „ Douglas’s Rejoinder 3143
Jefferson Davis on Retiring from the United States Senate 3147
Henry Wilson on the Greeley Canvass 3149
Oliver P. Morton on the National Idea 3151
J. Proctor Knott on “Duluth” 3154
Henry Carey on the Rates of Interest 3159
Simon Cameron on Internal Improvements 3163
John A. Logan on Self-Government 3165
James G. Blaine on the “False Issue” 3171
Roscoe Conkling on the Extra Session of 1879 3176
Lincoln’s Speech at Gettysburg 3186
John M. Broomall on Civil Rights 3186
Charles A. Eldridge against Civil Rights 3189
A. K. McClure on “What of the Republic?” 3191
Robt. G. Ingersoll Nominating Blaine 3201
Roscoe Conkling Nominating Grant 3202
James A. Garfield Nominating Sherman 3203
Daniel Dougherty Nominating Hancock 3205
George Gray Nominating Bayard 3205
William P. Frye Nominating Blaine (at Chicago) 3206
Senator Hill’s Denunciation of Mahone 3207
Senator Mahone’s Reply 3217
Justin S. Morrill on the Tariff Commission 3223
J. Don Cameron on Reduction of Revenue as Affecting the
Tariff 3233
Thomas H. Benton on the Election of Presidents 3237
James G. Blaine’s Eulogy on President Garfield 3240
G. H. Pendleton on Civil Service 3251
John J. Ingalls Against Civil Service 3262
Samuel J. Randall on the Tariff 3274
William McKinley, Jr., on the Tariff 3277
Chauncey M. Depew Nominating Harrison 3283
Leon Abbett Nominating Cleveland 3285

BOOK IV.—PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE, Etc.

Declaration of Independence 4003
Articles of Confederation 4006
Jefferson’s Manual 4022

BOOK V.—TABULATED HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGICAL

POLITICS.
Statistics of General Information 5003–
5024
Chronological Politics 5025
AMERICAN POLITICS.
 BOOK I.
HISTORY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES.
 Colonial Parties—Whig and Tory.

The parties peculiar to our Colonial times hardly have a place in

American politics. They divided people in sentiment simply, as they
did in the mother country, but here there was little or no power to
act, and were to gather results from party victories. Men were then
Whigs or Tories because they had been prior to their emigration
here, or because their parents had been, or because it has ever been
natural to show division in individual sentiment. Political contests,
however, were unknown, for none enjoyed the pleasures and profits
of power; the crown made and unmade rulers. The local self-
government which our forefathers enjoyed, were secured to them by
their charters, and these were held to be contracts not to be changed
without the consent of both parties. All of the inhabitants of the
colonies claimed and were justly entitled to the rights guaranteed by
the Magna Charta, and in addition to these they insisted upon the
supervision of all internal interests and the power to levy and collect
taxes. These claims were conceded until their growing prosperity and
England’s need of additional revenues suggested schemes of indirect
taxation. Against these the colony of Plymouth protested as early as
1636, and spasmodic protests from all the colonies followed. These
increased in frequency and force with the growing demands of King
George III. In 1651 the navigation laws imposed upon the colonies
required both exports and imports to be carried in British ships, and
all who traded were compelled to do it with England. In 1672 inter-
colonial duties were imposed, and when manufacturing sought to
flank this policy, their establishment was forbidden by law.
The passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 caused high excitement, and
for the first time parties began to take definite shape and manifest
open antagonisms, and the words Whig and Tory then had a plainer
meaning in America than in England. The Stamp Act was denounced
by the Whigs as direct taxation, since it provided, that stamps
previously paid for should be affixed to all legal papers. The colonies
resented, and so general were the protests that for a time it seemed
that only those who owed their livings to the Crown, or expected aid
and comfort from it, remained with the Tories. The Whigs were the
patriots. The war for the rights of the colonies began in 1775, and it
was supported by majorities in all of the Colonial Assemblies. These
majorities were as carefully organized then as now to promote a
popular cause, and this in the face of adverse action on the part of
the several Colonial Governors. Thus in Virginia, Lord Dunmore had
from time to time, until 1773, prorogued the Virginia Assembly,
when it seized the opportunity to pass resolves instituting a
committee of correspondence, and recommending joint action by the
legislatures of the other colonies. In the next year, the same body,
under the lead of Henry, Randolph, Lee, Washington, Wythe and
other patriots, officially deprecated the closing of the port of Boston,
and set apart a day to implore Divine interposition in behalf of the
colonies. The Governor dissolved the House for this act, and the
delegates, 89 in number, repaired to a tavern, organized themselves
into a committee, signed articles of association, and advised with
other colonial committees the expediency of “appointing deputies to
meet in a general correspondence”—really a suggestion for a
Congress. The idea of a Congress, however, originated with Doctor
Franklin the year before, and it had then been approved by town
meetings in Providence, Boston and New York. The action of Virginia
lifted the proposal above individual advice and the action of town
meetings, and called to it the attention of all the colonial legislatures.
It was indeed fortunate in the incipiency of these political
movements, that the people were practically unanimous. Only the
far-seeing realized the drift and danger, while nearly all could join
their voices against oppressive taxes and imposts.
The war went on for colonial rights, the Whigs wisely insisting that
they were willing to remain as colonists if their rights should be
guaranteed by the mother country; the Tories, chiefly fed by the
Crown, were willing to remain without guarantee—a negative
position, and one which in the high excitement of the times excited
little attention, save where the holders of such views made
themselves odious by the enjoyment of high official position, or by
harsh criticism upon, or treatment of the patriots.
 The first Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in
September, 1774, and there laid the foundations of the Republic.
While its assemblage was first recommended by home meetings, the
cause, as already shown, was taken up by the assemblies of
Massachusetts and Virginia. Georgia alone was not represented. The
members were called delegates, who declared in their official papers
that they were “appointed by the good people of these colonies.” It
was called the “revolutionary government,” because it derived its
power from the people, and not from the functionaries of any
existing government. In it each colony was allowed but a single vote,
regardless of the number of delegates, and here began not only the
unit rule, but the practice which obtains in the election of a President
when the contest reaches, under the constitution and law, the
National House of Representatives. The original object was to give
equality to the colonies as colonies.
In 1776, the second Continental Congress assembled at
Philadelphia, all the colonies being again represented save Georgia.
The delegates were chosen principally by conventions of the people,
though some were sent by the popular branches of the colonial
legislatures. In July, and soon after the commencement of hostilities,
Georgia entered the Confederacy.
The Declaration of Independence, passed in 1776, drew yet plainer
lines between the Whigs and Tories. A gulf of hatred separated the
opposing parties, and the Tory was far more despised than the open
foe, when he was not such, and was the first sought when he was.
Men who contend for liberty ever regard those who are not for them
as against them—a feeling which led to the expression of a political
maxim of apparent undying force, for it has since found frequent
repetition in every earnest campaign. After the adoption of the
Declaration by the Continental Congress, the Whigs favored the most
direct and absolute separation, while the Tories supported the
Crown. On the 7th of June, 1776, Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia,
moved the Declaration in these words:
“Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be,
free and independent states; that they are absolved from all
allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be,
totally dissolved.”
 Then followed preparations for the formal declaration, which was
adopted on the 4th of July, 1776, in the precise language submitted
by Thomas Jefferson. All of the state papers of the Continental
Congress evince the highest talent, and the evils which led to its
exhibition must have been long but very impatiently endured to
impel the study of the questions involved. Possibly only the best lives
in our memory invite our perusal, but certain it is that higher
capacity was never called to the performance of graver political
duties in the history of the world.
It has been said that the Declaration is in imitation of that
published by the United Netherlands, but whether this be true or
false, the liberty-loving world has for more than a century accepted it
as the best protest against oppression known to political history. A
great occasion conspired with a great author to make it grandly
great.
Dr. Franklin, as early as July, 1775, first prepared a sketch of
articles of confederation between the colonies, to continue until their
reconciliation with Great Britain, and in failure thereof to be
perpetual. John Quincy Adams says this plan was never discussed in
Congress. June 11, 1776, a committee was appointed to prepare the
force of a colonial confederation, and the day following one member
from each colony was appointed to perform the duty. The report was
submitted, laid aside August 20, 1776, taken up April 7, 1777, and
debated from time to time until November 15th, of the same year,
when the report was agreed to. It was then submitted to the
legislatures of the several states, these being advised to authorize
their delegates in Congress to ratify the same. On the 26th of June,
1778, the ratification was ordered to be engrossed and signed by the
delegates. Those of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South
Carolina signed July 9th, 1778; those of North Carolina July 21st;
Georgia July 24th; Jersey November 26th, same year; Delaware
February 22d and May 5th, 1779. Maryland refused to ratify until the
question of the conflicting claims of the Union and of the separate
States to the property of the crown-lands should be adjusted. This
was accomplished by the cession of the lands in dispute to the United
States, and Maryland signed March 1st, 1781. On the 2d of March,
Congress assembled under the new powers, and continued to act for
the Confederacy until the 4th of March, 1789, the date of the
organization of the government under the Federal constitution. Our
political life has therefore three periods, “the revolutionary
government,” “the confederation,” and that of the “federal
constitution,” which still obtains.
The federal constitution is the result of the labors of a convention
called at Philadelphia in May, 1787, at a time when it was feared by
many that the Union was in the greatest danger, from inability to pay
soldiers who had, in 1783, been disbanded on a declaration of peace
and an acknowledgment of independence; from prostration of the
public credit and faith of the nation; from the neglect to provide for
the payment of even the interest on the public debt; and from the
disappointed hopes of many who thought freedom did not need to
face responsibilities. A large portion of the convention of 1787 still
clung to the confederacy of the states, and advocated as a substitute
for the constitution a revival of the old articles of confederation with
additional powers to Congress. A long discussion followed, and a
most able one, but a constitution for the people, embodying a
division of legislative, judicial and executive powers prevailed, and
the result is now daily witnessed in the federal constitution. While
the revolutionary war lasted but seven years, the political revolution
incident to, identified with and directing it, lasted thirteen years.
This was completed on the 30th of April, 1789, the day on which
Washington was inaugurated as the first President under the federal
constitution.
 The Particularists.

As questions of government were evolved by the struggles for

independence, the Whigs, who of course greatly outnumbered all
others during the Revolution, naturally divided in sentiment, though
their divisions were not sufficiently serious to excite the
establishment of rival parties—something which the great majority of
our forefathers were too wise to think of in time of war. When the
war closed, however, and the question of establishing the Union was
brought clear to the view of all, one class of the Whigs believed that
state government should be supreme, and that no central power
should have sufficient authority to coerce a state, or keep it to the
compact against its will. All accepted the idea of a central
government; all realized the necessity of union, but the fear that the
states would lose their power, or surrender their independence was
very great, and this fear was more naturally shown by both the larger
and the smaller states. This class of thinkers were then called
Particularists. Their views were opposed by the
 Strong Government Whigs

who argued that local self-government was inadequate to the

establishment and perpetuation of political freedom, and that it
afforded little or no power to successfully resist foreign invasion.
Some of these went so far as to favor a government patterned after
that of England, save that it should be republican in name and spirit.
The essential differences, if they can be reduced to two sentences,
were these: The Particularist Whigs desired a government republican
in form and democratic in spirit, with rights of local self-government
and state rights ever uppermost. The Strong Government Whigs
desired a government republican in form, with checks upon the
impulses or passions of the people; liberty, sternly regulated by law,
and that law strengthened and confirmed by central authority—the
authority of the national government to be final in appeals.
As we have stated, the weakness of the confederation was
acknowledged by many men, and the majority, as it proved to be
after much agitation and discussion thought it too imperfect to
amend. The power of the confederacy was not acknowledged by the
states, its congress not respected by the people. Its requisitions were
disregarded, foreign trade could not be successfully regulated;
foreign nations refused to bind themselves by commercial treaties,
and there was a rapid growth of very dangerous business rivalries
and jealousies between the several states. Those which were
fortunate enough, independent of congress, to possess or secure
ports for domestic or foreign commerce, taxed the imports of their
sister states. There was confusion which must soon have approached
violence, for no authority beyond the limits of the state was
respected, and Congress was notably powerless in its attempts to
command aid from the states to meet the payment of the war debt, or
the interest thereon. Instead of general respect for, there was almost
general disregard of law on the part of legislative bodies, and the
people were not slow in imitating their representatives. Civil strife
became imminent, and Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts was the
first warlike manifestation of the spirit which was abroad in the land.
Alive to the new dangers, the Assembly of Virginia in 1786,
appointed commissioners to invite all the states to take part in a
convention for the consideration of questions of commerce, and the
propriety of altering the Articles of Confederation. This convention
met at Annapolis, Sept. 11th, 1786. But five states sent
representatives, the others regarding the movement with jealousy.
This convention, however, adapted a report which urged the
appointment of commissioners by all the states, “to devise such other
provisions as shall, to them seem necessary to render the condition
of the Federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union;
and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in
Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them and afterwards
confirmed by the legislatures of every state, will effectually provide
for the same.” Congress approved this action, and passed resolutions
favoring a meeting in convention for the “sole and express purpose of
revising the Articles of Confederation, and report to Congress and
the State legislatures.” The convention met in Philadelphia in May,
1787, and continued its sessions until September 17th, of the same
year. The Strong Government Whigs had previously made every
possible effort for a full and able representation, and the result did
not disappoint them, for instead of simply revising the Articles of
Confederation, the convention framed a constitution, and sent it to
Congress to be submitted to that body and through it to the several
legislatures. The act submitting it provided that, if it should be
ratified by nine of the thirteen states, it should be binding upon those
ratifying the same. Just here was started the custom which has since
passed into law, that amendments to the national constitution shall
be submitted after approval by Congress, to the legislatures of the
several states, and after approval by three-fourths thereof, it shall be
binding upon all—a very proper exercise of constitutional authority,
as it seems now, but which would not have won popular approval
when Virginia proposed the Annapolis convention in 1786. Indeed,
the reader of our political history must ever be impressed with the
fact that changes and reforms ever moved slowly, and that those of
slowest growth seem to abide the longest.
 The Federal and Anti-Federal Parties.

The Strong Government Whigs, on the submission of the

constitution of 1787 to Congress and the legislatures, and indirectly
through the latter to the people, who elect the members on this issue,
became the Federal party, and all of its power was used to promote
the ratification of the instrument. Its ablest men, headed by
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, advocated adoption before
the people, and their pens supplied much of the current political
literature of that day. Eighty-five essays, still noted and quoted for
their ability, under the nom de plume of “Publius,” were published in
“The Federalist.” They were written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay,
and with irresistible force advocated the Federal constitution, which
was ratified by the nine needed states, and Congress was officially
informed of the fact July 2d, 1788, and the first Wednesday in
March, 1789, was fixed as the time “for commencing proceedings
under the constitution.”
This struggle for the first time gave the Federalists an admitted
majority. The complexion of the State legislature prior to it showed
them in fact to be in a minority, and the Particularist Whigs, or Anti-
Federals opposed every preliminary step looking to the
abandonment of the Articles of Confederation and the adoption of a
Federal constitution. They were called Anti-Federals because they
opposed a federal government and constitution and adhered to the
rights of the States and those of local self-government. Doubtless
party rancor, then as now, led men to oppose a system of
government which it seems they must have approved after fighting
for it, but the earlier jealousies of the States and the prevailing ideas
of liberty certainly gave the Anti-Federals a popularity which only a
test so sensible as that proposed could have shaken. They were not
without popular orators and leaders. Patrick Henry, the earliest of
the patriots, and “the-old-man-eloquent,” Samuel Adams, took
special pride in espousing their cause. The war questions between
Whig and Tory must have passed quickly away, as living issues,
though the newspapers and contemporaneous history show that the
old taunts and battle cries were applied to the new situation with a
plainness and virulence that must still be envied by the sensational
and more bitterly partisan journals of our own day. To read these
now, and some of our facts are gathered from such sources, is to
account for the frequent use of the saying touching “the ingratitude
of republics,” for when partisan hatred could deride the still recent
utterances of Henry before the startled assembly of Virginians, and
of Adams in advocating the adoption of the Declaration, there must
at least to every surface view have been rank ingratitude. Their good
names, however, survived the struggle, as good names in our
republic have ever survived the passions of the law. In politics the
Americans then as now, hated with promptness and forgave with
generosity.
The Anti-Federals denied nearly all that the Federals asserted. The
latter had for the first time assumed the aggressive, and had the
advantage of position. They showed the deplorable condition of the
country, and their opponents had to bear the burdens of denial at a
time when nearly all public and private obligations were dishonored;
when labor was poorly paid, workmen getting but twenty-five cents a
day, with little to do at that; when even the rich in lands were poor in
purse, and when commerce on the seas was checked by the coldness
of foreign nations and restricted by the action of the States
themselves; when manufactures were without protection of any kind,
and when the people thought their struggle for freedom was about to
end in national poverty. Still Henry, and Adams and Hancock, with
hosts of others, claimed that the aspirations of the Anti-Federals
were the freest, that they pointed to personal liberty and local
sovereignty. Yet many Anti-Federals must have accepted the views of
the Federals, who under the circumstances must have presented the
better reason, and the result was as stated, the ratification of the
Federal constitution of 1787 by three-fourths of the States of the
Union. After this the Anti-Federalists were given a new name, that of
“Close Constructionists,” because they naturally desired to interpret
the new instrument in such a way as to bend it to their views. The
Federalists became “Broad Constructionists,” because they
interpreted the constitution in a way calculated to broaden the power
of the national government.