Making History and Making the United States

1998 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID THELEN
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Hard Work ◽  
The Political ◽  
National Narrative ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
The 1960S

In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson became the first American to put history to work to create a nation. He blazed a path that historians have been following ever since. Consider the difficulty Jefferson faced. Different events were happening in thirteen intensely local and isolated colonies among people with different traditions, languages, religions, and circumstances. Jefferson turned these scattered events into a national narrative. Behind these individual acts by agents of the British Crown aimed at different colonies was a single menace, Jefferson insisted, that should inspire these isolated individuals to discover and act upon what they shared as bearers of the traditional liberties of Englishmen. To introduce his stunning attempt to fit isolated events into a single narrative, Jefferson began by boldly declaring that it was “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with another.” The colonists, Jefferson proclaimed, were “one people.” Jefferson knew that the colonists were not “one people.” But in order to invent one nation, Jefferson had to invent one people, and in order to invent one people Jefferson had to invent one history that might unite that “one people.” It has been hard work ever since.From 1776 until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, it was possible to believe – indeed, it was hard to question – that nations were, or even should be, the embodiment of people's destinies – that nations could express their identities, solve their problems, and be entrusted with their dreams and fates. The modern practice of history was born a couple of centuries ago to serve this process, to invent narratives and persuade peoples to interpret their personal experiences within national terms and narratives.

Having Their Say, Leaving Their Mark

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-153
Author(s):  
Adolphus G. Belk ◽  
Robert C. Smith ◽  
Sherri L. Wallace
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civic Engagement ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Black People ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Historical Documents ◽  
Adverse Conditions ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Independent Organization

In general, the founders of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists were “movement people.” Powerful agents of socialization such as the uprisings of the 1960s molded them into scholars with tremendous resolve to tackle systemic inequalities in the political science discipline. In forming NCOBPS as an independent organization, many sought to develop a Black perspective in political science to push the boundaries of knowledge and to use that scholarship to ameliorate the adverse conditions confronting Black people in the United States and around the globe. This paper utilizes historical documents, speeches, interviews, and other scholarly works to detail the lasting contributions of the founders and Black political scientists to the discipline, paying particular attention to their scholarship, teaching, mentoring, and civic engagement. It finds that while political science is much improved as a result of their efforts, there is still work to do if their goals are to be achieved.

scholarly journals Race and Politics in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 174-179
Author(s):  
Howard A. Palley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Black Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Pursuit Of Happiness ◽  
George Washington ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Chattel Slavery ◽  
Race And Politics ◽  
Inalienable Rights

Abstract The Declaration of Independence asserts that “All men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nevertheless, the United States, at its foundation has been faced with the contradiction of initially supporting chattel slavery --- a form of slavery that treated black slaves from Africa purely as a commercial commodity. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom had some discomfort with slavery, were slaveholders who both utilized slaves as a commodity. Article 1 of our Constitution initially treated black slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of apportioning representation in order to increase Southern representation in Congress. So initially the Constitution’s commitment to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” did not include the enslaved black population. This essay contends that the residue of this initial dilemma still affects our politics --- in a significant manner.

The Political Economy of John Taylor of Caroline

1980 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Macleod
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
The Political ◽  
Thought Processes ◽  
John Adams ◽  
John Taylor ◽  
The Government ◽  
Style Of Writing ◽  
To Receive

After years of comparative neglect John Taylor of Caroline has recently begun to receive again a degree of attention more in keeping with his true importance. That his impact upon both his own generation and upon subsequent generations of historians has always been less than it might have been is due largely to his tortured style of writing and the tortuous thought processes it reflected. John Randolph of Roanoke once commented that Taylor needed only a translator to make an impact, and Thomas Jefferson, replying to a communication from John Adams in 1814, wrote that a book received by Adams must have been Taylor's An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: “neither the style nor the stuff of the author of Arator can ever be mistaken. [I]n the latter work, as you observe, there are some good things, but so involved in quaint, in far-fetched, affected, mystical conceipts [sic], and flimsy theories, that who can take the trouble of getting at them?” Taylor himself appeared to hold a fluent style in contempt, commenting that “A talent for fine writing is often a great misfortune to politicians.”Although Taylor's style renders study of his writings far from congenial, the consistency of his purpose and thought make it relatively easy to extract the main thrusts of his arguments. Far from a rigorous theorist he provides a running commentary upon the politics of his times. In that capacity, however, he never felt compelled to define clearly, even to himself perhaps, some of the central premises from which his arguments derived.

Précis: The Rights Revolution in the Twentieth Century

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 446-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Tushnet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Warren Court ◽  
Inalienable Rights

The idea of rights has been central to U.S. political and constitutional discourse from the beginning. The Declaration of Independence appealed to “inalienable rights,” and the first amendments to the Constitution were universally described as a bill of rights. Yet, something distinctive appears to have happened to the idea of rights over the course of the twentieth century. By the end of the century, rights-claims were being asserted in locations, such as schools and prisons, where they had not been found at the century's beginning, and they were being asserted on behalf of claimants, such as fetuses and new arrivals to the United States, who were outside the domain of rights earlier. Even the content of rights-claims changed. Much of the Warren Court's work completed a constitutional agenda outlined, albeit unclearly, in the 1940s and early 1950s as part of the New Deal's constitutional vindication. The Warren Court added something new—an emphasis on personal autonomy—to the New Deal's concerns for fairness in the political process.

Mathematics and Our Founding Fathers

1976 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-307
Author(s):  
H. Howard Frisinger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Early Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Benjamin Franklin ◽  
George Washington ◽  
John Adams ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Founding Fathers

On july 4, 1776, fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence. This paper will discuss the contributions to mathematics or the interest in mathematics of four of these men. Two of these four, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, made significant contributions to the early development of mathematics in the United States. In addition to the mathematical contributions of Franklin and Jefferson, we shall briefly consider the mathematical interests of George Washington and John Adams.

Jefferson, Madison, and the Making of the Constitution

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Broadwater
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Revolution ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Early Period ◽  
The United States ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Constitutional Thought

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” were two of the most important Founders of the United States as well as the closest of political allies. Yet historians have often seen a tension between the idealistic rhetoric of the Declaration and the more pedestrian language of the Constitution. Moreover, to some, the adoption of the Constitution represented a repudiation of the democractic values of the Revolution. In this book, Jeff Broadwater explores the evolution of the constitutional thought of these two seminal American figures, from the beginning of the American Revolution through the adoption of the Bill of Rights. In explaining how the two political compatriots could have produced such seemingly dissimilar documents but then come to a common constitutional ground, Broadwater reveals how their collaboration ---and their disagreements---influenced the full range of constitutional questions during this early period of the American republic.

The origins of French archaeology

Antiquity ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 73 (279) ◽  
pp. 176-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Olivier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Market ◽  
The Political ◽  
Mass Consumption ◽  
American Science ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The 19Th Century

In contemporary scientific research, the most marked result of the last 30 years has been the development of a specifically American science and its emancipation from the old European intellectual heritage of the 19th century and the interwar period. This movement, marked in archaeology by the birth of the New Archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s, followed by the anti-processual reaction of the 1980s and 1990s, has been accompanied by a process of globalization of the archaeological discipline, leading to the unification of methods and theory. The birth of a world market dominated by the United States, characterized by mass consumption and the hegemony of the economic over the political, has imposed new practices of archaeology, which post-processual scholars have been quick to exploit.

scholarly journals Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Power, and the Finality of Constitutional Rulings

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 1067-1081
Author(s):  
Scott E. Lemieux
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
Power Functions ◽  
Political Empowerment ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Constitutional Meaning

It is widely assumed that the Supreme Court of the United States has established supremacy over contested constitutional questions, with the power to make final determinations of constitutional meaning. Since the 1960s, most scholars have assumed that legislatures and courts are engaged in a power struggle in which countermajoritarian courts can assert their will over majoritarian legislatures. More recently, a new generation of scholarship has demonstrated that judicial power often expands as a result of the willful empowerment of the judiciary by actors in other branches. Most scholars working with the latter framework, however, do not dispute that the United States has a regime of judicial supremacy—they simply see the political empowerment of courts as an explanation for why judicial supremacy has emerged despite the initially weak position of the judiciary. I argue that the insights of the political empowerment literature should be pressed further. It makes little sense to use the general label “judicial supremacy” for a system in which judicial power remains dependent on choices made by other political actors. Examining several cases that are generally seen as canonical examples of assertions of judicial supremacy, I find that courts were unable to settle constitutional debates, and in addition often either were unable to achieve their policy aims or did not actually require other political actors to do anything. The logic of new empirical findings about the sources of judicial power should compel scholars to question whether aggressive assertions of supremacy in judicial opinions are in fact accurate descriptions of how judicial power functions in the United States.

Protestant Clergymen and American Destiny: I. Promise and Judgment, 1781–1800

1963 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-231
Author(s):  
James H. Smylie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
The United States ◽  
Western Civilization ◽  
The Political ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Common Experience ◽  
Democratic Revolution ◽  
The Common

Americans in “search” of the “goals,” “prospects,” and “purpose” of the United States share an interest in the latter part of the eighteenth century. This was the age of the democratic revolution in Western civilization which produced the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, those primary and permanent legacies paramount to our national existence. Although remote in time this period is the common experience of Americans because our lives are still regulated by the political instruments it produced.

Anxious and Active: Muslim Perception of Discrimination and Treatment and its Political Consequences in the Post-September 11, 2001 United States

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farida Jalalzai
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
The Political ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Muslim Americans ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
Religious Salience ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
Post September 11

AbstractUtilizing both quantitative and qualitative analysis, this article assesses discrimination and anxiety among Muslims in the post-September 11, 2001 United States. Substantial portions of Muslim-Americans are indeed anxious and report personal and group discrimination. However, this is guided by many factors including religious salience, age, education, political attentiveness, native born status, and years lived in the United States. Respondents who are more anxious and know victims of religious discrimination are also more active in politics. However, personal experiences with discrimination are unrelated to political participation. Overall, in spite of or perhaps because of anxiety over their present status, Muslim-Americans are highly functional in the political sphere. Many are now more active in politics than prior to September 11, 2001.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document