Early American History
Let's start at the very beginning.
- Course Length: 3 weeks
- Course Type: Short Course
- Category:
- High School
- History and Social Science
- Writing
Schools and Districts: We offer customized programs that won't break the bank. Get a quote.
If you're one of those people who sees terms like "historical skills" and dies a little on the inside, let us assure you that historians are more like Indiana Jones than Professor Binns. Okay, you won't be running from a giant rolling boulder in this course, but you'll probably learn that it's unwise to snatch people's primary material sources and run off with them. You'll also learn about the biggest debates in the study of American history, and how to find, evaluate, and cite sources of your very own.
Finally, we'll cover several hundred years of American history in about 30 seconds. With lesson intros, readings, activities, and one, big whopping final exam, you will...
- summarize the most significant debates in American historiography and the most common historical fallacies.
- conduct well-organized digital research, including online searching, source evaluation, citations, and primary source analysis.
- trace the growth of religious freedom and development of diverse religious expression through the various religious revivals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as well as understand the backlash of religious intolerance and discrimination.
- explain the ideologies and events behind the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.
- discuss the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the context of early American independence and the early disagreements over federal versus state power.
- evaluate the legal debates surrounding slavery, expansionism, and states' rights that plagued the nation in the years following the drafting of the Constitution.
- describe the major cultural and economic divides between the North and South, the leading causes of the Civil War, and some of the earliest consequences of the war for the South.
So sharpen your pencils and set your phasers to "I heart American history," because it's go time.
Unit Breakdown
1 Early American History - U.S. History: 1492–1877
What was that whole Constitution thing again? This unit gives a much-needed refresher on early American history, from the independence movement all the way through the Civil War. Oh, and it also stocks up your historian's toolbox with info on digital research, evaluating primary and secondary sources, and citing sources correctly.
Sample Lesson - Introduction
Lesson 1.07: Ideology in the American Revolution: The Enlightenment
You've filled up your historian's tool belt with all of the academic tools you'll need to start analyzing some history: You know about the problems of historical research, the uses of primary sources, and how to use a citation like a pro. You're ready to dive into history, right? Well, not quite. We still want to get some of the context nailed down. First up: How did this little thing called "democracy" get started in the first place?
Constitutional democracies haven't always been around. With the exception of ancient Greece and Rome, most European countries had monarchies of some kind. So when the American colonies drew up this little document called the Declaration of Independence, which stated that "all men are created equal" and set the stage for an American democracy to be created, it was new, it was crazy, it was a big deal. It kicked off a democratic form of government that we've been fiddling with ever since.
We think that any attempt to understand our history and the ideas that we hold dear starts with understanding the context of our founding. So in this lesson, we'll head on back in time and chill with the founding fathers as we explore the rise of democratic ideas in the Enlightenment period and how they influenced the Declaration of Independence.
Sample Lesson - Reading
Reading 1.1.07: The Enlightened Ones: Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, and Montesquieu
Our country was founded during a time when European thinkers tossed out some of the ideas of the past and looked to human reason to discover the truth about the world. The period was called the Enlightenment. And when these thinkers began to try and reason through the nature of man, the ideal structure of governments, and what humans should strive for in life, democratic ideas started to become popular. In this reading, we'll study four bigwig Enlightenment dudes who influenced our founding fathers: Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, and Montesquieu.
Thomas Hobbes
Beginning with Thomas Hobbes in the middle of the 1600s, the idea that monarchy was the best form of government began to be picked apart. Hobbes witnessed the English Civil War (1642-1648), which pitted two factions against each other—and ended up being the first time a king was publically executed. Since the king was now no more, Hobbes now had the opportunity to consider other possibilities.
In the middle of the 17th century (translation: the 1600s), Hobbes looked around and saw all sorts of advances being made in the sciences. The causes of natural events in the world were being investigated, from plants to animals to the solar system. Hobbes thought human beings could be thought of and dissected in the same way. With this influence of discovering new ideas, and being totally afraid of the Civil War, Hobbes wrote his political manifesto, Leviathan.
Hobbes theorized that human beings operate primarily on the basis of self-interest. In other words, we are selfish brats who will do whatever we can at whatever cost to take care of ol' numero uno.
Hobbes imagined a time when humans lived in nature, outside of any organized society. No police force, no grand buildings, not even a Department of Motor Vehicles. He called this lawless society the State of Nature. In this fantasy land, there are two important points to be made:
- We are all essentially equal.
- We are all essentially selfish.
According to Hobbes, it's in human nature for all of us to act like the first edition of Survivor. We all want to be the last one standing, and we'll use any variety of methods to defeat our rivals—even those who may appear stronger. Because of that, life in the State of Nature is marked by "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Let's repeat that line, because it's a famous quote (especially that last part of it).
It's Hobbesian human nature to have "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Famous quote repeated, let's move on.
Hobbes argued that our main goal is self-preservation (e.g. to stay alive). As a result, Hobbes reasoned that in order to bring some order out of the chaos, we would have to all agree to leave the State of Nature and give up certain rights and freedoms in order to be at least reasonably secure.
How do we give up those freedoms and learn to not attack each other? To Hobbes, the only practical way to do this is to give all power to a supreme figure or ruler. Because of that, even though Hobbes didn't think monarchs had the right to rule, he still thought a monarch of sorts is the best person to turn our rights over to. He also thought we should avoid rebellion at all cost, or else we'd get to that scary post-apocalyptical State of Nature.
In the interest of security, Hobbes does not believe that we have the right to rebel against the authority that we put in place. In his eyes this would take us right back to the State of Nature—a place to be avoided at all costs.
John Locke
Locke wasn't nearly as cynical about human beings as Hobbes was. In fact, Locke thought that the State of Nature was a pretty okay place, because at the heart of things, human beings are pretty decent.
Whereas Hobbes viewed the State of Nature as something like Battle Royale, Locke views it in a more familial way. Locke thought all people were born equal and called general human decency the Law of Nature, a law instilled in us by God and that we all just naturally know. According to the law, you don't mess around with other people's "life, health, liberty, or possessions."
It's much easier to imagine a more peaceful State of Nature if everyone followed Locke's Law of Nature and respected each other and their stuff. So...where does the government fit in?
Locke thought that, for the most part, everyone naturally sees the logic of the Law and plays nice, but conflicts do arise sometimes, especially when it comes to private property (homes, land, etc.). If fighting breaks out between two people over property, it can grow and grow without anyone there to keep the peace.
According to Locke, people decide to give up a few freedoms and come together in a society and government in order to protect their private property and their rights. If people don't treat others according to the Law of Nature, it's the government's job to protect our Natural Rights to "life, liberty, and property." (Sound familiar?)
Locke also pointed out that if a government fails in its job to protect people's life, liberty, health, and property, then the people have the right to overthrow that government. Of course, this would mean a return to the State of Nature until the people can cook up something new. For Locke, that's not such a bad thing. For the nasty, brutish, and short Hobbes, State of Nature is something to be avoided at all costs.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
For Rousseau, the State of Nature was a place of peace and harmony. Ever an optimist, Jean Jacques Rousseau thought that nature provided more than enough for everyone. Competition was unnecessary.
As populations grew, however, people began to live in bigger groups. When crops and animals were domesticated and other labor saving devices invented, there was more leisure time. Blue-collar and white-collar jobs were created. People began to look at each other and see differences. Bad feelings like jealousy, pride, and selfish competition emerged. Rousseau argued that what primarily fueled all this was the invention of private property. So, he condemned private property as a socializing force, unlike Locke, who praised it.
Rousseau argued that as larger and larger communities were formed, the landowners who were in possession of property saw the advantage of forming governments—governments that could be designed to protect their property. In modern terms, the 1% created governments to protect their interests and keep the 99% in a subservient role.
Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau argues that people didn't leave the State of Nature and willingly enter into a Social Contract to act "all civilized"; the State of Nature was taken away from the people by a small minority of property owners. (If you haven't noticed by now, there's an interesting mix of both Hobbes and Locke in Rousseau's writings.)
Rousseau sums up the problem at the beginning of his famous essay, The Social Contract, by writing: "Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains." He then proceeds to offer his solution to this problem.
Get ready for something big:
Since we're all born equal and free, no person or group has the right to rule over others. With this idea, Rousseau hates on the idea of monarchy and representative democracy, like the kind we have in the United States. Rousseau argued for a pure democracy, where decisions are made by all the people together. In order for this to happen, the individual has to agree to transfer his individual rights to the rights of the people as a whole. Rousseau calls this coming together, this collective decision-making body, the "general will."
(Sure, you might want to drive a monster truck downtown while texting the whole time, but you've agreed to obey the same rules that the general will set for everyone.)
In order to enjoy as many of the freedoms that exist in the State of Nature as possible, people must come together regularly to make collective decisions about the laws that will govern everyone. Rousseau actually said that this coming-together could only happen within a small geographic area. In a larger area, people would not be able to travel to a central location; they would know nothing about their neighbors; they would be divided by too many different interests. This early idea of voting is pretty different than what we do today, but his seed was planted.
Spoiler alert: This is the kind of argument people make about why the states should have more power than the federal government.
Montesquieu
Montesquieu was a heavy-hitting contributor to the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. His work, The Spirit of the Laws, was published in 1748 right before the American Revolution. Montesquieu's writings greatly influenced the political thought of the founders of the United States as they tried to brainstorm a system of government that could promote freedom.
Montesquieu examined how different kinds of government "go bad." He describes how monarchs can become despots if they stop following the law (*cough* King George *cough*) and how democracies can stop being democratic if, for example, one group takes advantage of another.
The solution he came up with to keep governments from going bad is separation of powers. He suggests that the political authority of a government be divided into legislative, executive, and judicial branches and that each branch be separate, independent, and able to check the other branches.
However, he didn't think there was only one good form of government. He recognized that people around the world were different, and he thought that each group of people should pick whatever form of government was best suited to their culture, religion, climate, and particular context. The important thing isn't democracy vs. monarchy, it's that people feel protected from harm, both from other citizens and from their government.
So how does Montesquieu weigh in on the whole State of Nature debate? His take is a little more complicated, but we can think of him as emphasizing the importance of balance. In most situations, people are pretty self-interested, but with the right mix of patriotism, personal liberty, and respect for chosen leaders they're able to put the interests of the group first.
In other words, people in democracies have the right to pick their leaders, and to replace them if they do a bad job, but they don't get to make every decision ever—that's like another form of self-interest.
This balance is very delicate, though, sort of like walking a tightrope: One misstep in either direction and bam! Our peaceful democracy is transformed into a despotic hellscape. That's where the separation of powers comes in: If people are offered the opportunity to be self-interested, they probably will be, so better to just keep that juicy, delicious absolute power well out of reach. (Kind of like how Shmoop had to hide the Waffle Crisp from our brother to keep him from finishing it in one sitting.)
Sample Lesson - Activity
Activity 1.07a: Differences in Enlightenment Thought
We've got four very different Enlightenment philosophers on our hands with different ideas about human nature and the role of government. But yet, all of their thoughts swirled together in the founding fathers' heads and out came the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
We'll discuss their specific influences in the next lesson, but for now, let's sort through some of Hobbes', Locke's, Rousseau's, and Montesquieu's ideas.
Representing Information Rubric - 25 Points
Sample Lesson - Activity
Activity 1.07b: Declaring Some Independence
Hey, did you guess that John Locke had the biggest influence on Thomas Jefferson as he was writing the Declaration of Independence? Yeah, you know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" line? It totally echoes Locke's idea that governments should protect "life, liberty, and estate."
In this activity, we'd like you to tell us how the Declaration of Independence reflects the Enlightenment's fancy new democratic ideas.
Here's how it'll go:
Step One:
Read through the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. As you read, think about what the document has to say about:
- natural rights
- the role of the government
- why the people are able to rebel
- the role of the people in forming and sustaining a government
Preamble:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Step Two:
Once you've worked through the text and figured out how exactly it reflects Enlightenment ideas, answer the following questions, making sure to quote the text to back up your points.
Representing Information Rubric - 25 Points
- Course Length: 3 weeks
- Course Type: Short Course
- Category:
- High School
- History and Social Science
- Writing
Schools and Districts: We offer customized programs that won't break the bank. Get a quote.