The Party System: Friend or Foe?

After America's Constitution was written in 1787,  two political parties formed in the 1790s: the more fiscally conservative Federalist Party led by U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who believed in a strong central government, and the Republican Party( derived from the Anti-Federalists) , led by James Madison, writer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, who believed that the country was based upon agrarian farmers and thus the common good of the United States should be the basis of  government decisions.   However, the two parties were constantly fighting.  In the 1780s, much dissension arose among members of Congress after Hamilton's various bills were introduced.   The most controversy occurred when Hamilton proposed the bank bill.  The Anti-Federalist members adamantly insisted that since a national bank plan was omitted from the Constitution,  a national bank should not exist.  Regardless, Congress ceded to his proposal and the Bank Bill was passed, with the official Bank of the United States opening in 1791.  Overall, Hamilton got his way in most matters of Congress, mostly due to the fact that his opinion was valid and respected among the members of Congress.   However, not everyone supported him and his ideals.  Agrarian farmers who provided the basis of the economy expressed unhappiness with the taxes he imposed.  They also complained that the Federalist Party  as a whole did not keep the good of the common people in mind and instead appealed to the small amount of wealthy property owners.  Soon after,  Madison and Jefferson began to concur with the grievances of the farmers.  The Federalists, they believed, did not have the common people's best interest at heart and used corrupt political practices to reward their supporters and gain advantages in the system.  Hamilton's opponents went so far as to  compare the Federalists to the abhorrent British systems that the colonists of the 1770s had tried so hard to defeat!  All this dissension and disagreement inevitably resulted in organized oppositions to Federalist domination (the official creation of the Republican Party which had been called the Anti-Federalist Party before).  The Republicans tried to assemble meetings with hopes of gaining more of a majority. 

 So, was the Party System detrimental or helpful to the infant nation?  I believe that it was both.  The Federalists created a very strong system that was and still is a good basis of government.  Without doubt, Hamilton certainly made innumerable substantial contributions to the young nation, and his ideals are still in effect today.  And the Republicans' fundamental ideas of looking out for the common good are very valid as well.  But also, all the dissension and lack of unity that occurred between the two parties was detrimental to the young States.  They were too busy arguing to strengthen themselves as a nation and become aware of the dangers and challenges ahead as a new country.  The strong feeling of unity and morale that was instilled in America throughout the Revolution diminished.  The citizens did not share the same ideas anymore, which obviously is inevitable as new ideas form.  Instead, the cutthroat environment of the American politics that we see today were beginning to form, and furthermore the nation was more open to attack because of the internal problems.  Therefore, while altogether the party system helped establish core beliefs and ideals of American government and politics, the party system at the time stunted America's growth as a nation because of the internal dissent and lack of unity.

The Boston Massacre: An Argument on the Behalf of the British

For most Americans, the Boston Massacre is the ultimate symbol of the oppression and cruelty that the American colonies withstood while they were under British rule.   The events of March 5, 1770 are portrayed as a vile assault on the rights, liberties, and lives of supposedly innocent American colonists by heartless British soldiers.  However, there is another side to this argument.  What no one knows is that these young British soldiers that were held responsible for the deaths of five Americans were simply doing their jobs, after being provoked relentlessly by colonists.
             The British troops were brought into Boston in the first place for the purpose of enforcing the Townsend Acts, which were taxes on glass, paper, paint, lead, and tea that had been met with a lot of contention in the colonies, particularly the especially radical city of Boston.  Even though the Townsend Acts were a result of the debt that Britain faced after the French and Indian War (1756-1763) which essentially saved the homes of the colonists, they still were very opposed to the fact that they would have to be responsible for making up the debt as well as Britain.  The colonists' unwillingness to pay the taxes led to smuggling and boycotts of the taxed goods and thus influenced Britain to send troops to America in 1768.   In one case, John Hancock's ship was taken into British custody on the grounds that he was smuggling in untaxed goods to Boston, which created a big stir. All these consecutive events led up to the massacre as threats rebellion rose.  
            According to  the British Captain Thomas Preston's account of the Boston Massacre, the Bostonians had been relentlessly provoking and threatening any  British soldiers that crossed their paths. On the night of the Massacre, some rabble-rousing colonists assaulted two British soldiers and proceeded to ring the bells of the meeting houses, which usually symbolized fire but in this case was a call to fight.  The colonists then arrived at the square carrying various weapons such as clubs and bats and shouting offensive insults left and right, such as, in the account cited above, "Fire if you dare, God damn you, fire and be damned".  Certainly, this disproves the assumption that the British fired upon a crowd of innocent, peaceful Bostonians who were minding their own buissness.   Repeatedly the colonists shouted "Fire!!" and were now beating the soldiers with their bats and throwing snowballs at them with rocks.  At this point, the soldiers became enveloped by the confusion and at last fired their guns, possibly mistaking the colonists' cries of "Fire!" for the Captain's orders to fire.  However, Thomas Preston said that not once did he order his troops to fire.
During the trial , (the soldiers were branded on the thumb with a hot poker on the grounds that they were guilty of manslaughter), in which John Adams argued on behalf of Preston and his men, Preston, felt that "So bitter and inveterate are many of the malcontents here that they are industriously using every method to fish out evidence to prove it was a concerted scheme to murder the inhabitants. Others are infusing the utmost malice and revenge into the minds of the people who are to be my jurors by false publications, votes of towns, and all other artifices."  The British soldiers were venturing into a place where there was so much hatred and prejudice for them that there was barely a glimmer of a hope for anyone to be on their side.  Furthermore,  I believe that the Americans were truly looking for a fight and incited this to happen.  The British soldiers who were convicted simply were chess pieces on their boards.  They did exactly what the colonists wanted them to do:fire.  But in perspective, a soldier's job is to protect their country.  The Americans were assaulting and degrading the soldiers while screaming "FIRE!" at the top of their lungs, which certainly would have caused confusion and disorentation in such a heated moment.  For protection and safety, the soldiers fired. 
What does everyone think? Do you think the soldiers were innocent? Or do you believe that the Americans were right in this situation?

Sources cited:  Picture