46 terms


Three questions to remember while reviewing for the test:
What is the ID Question?
Why is it important?
How does it relate to the course?
Mohammed Bouazizi:
Mohamed Bouazizi was a Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire in January of 2011, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the harassment and humiliation that he reported was inflicted on him by a municipal official and her aides. His act became a catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution and the wider Arab Spring, inciting demonstrations and riots throughout Tunisia in protest of social and political issues in the country. The public's anger and violence intensified following Bouazizi's death, leading then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down on 14 January 2011, after 23 years in power.
The success of the Tunisian protests inspired protests in several other Arab countries, plus several non-Arab countries. The protests included several men who emulated Bouazizi's act of self-immolation, in an attempt to bring an end to their own autocratic governments. Those men and Bouazizi were hailed by some Arab commentators as "heroic martyrs of a new Middle Eastern revolution."

(Mohamed Bouazizi, a father and husband working as a street vendor in Tunisia. The country's economic and social state made it so difficult or even impossible to find work to support one's family. Even though an education had been accomplished, corruption and poor ruling by the government made it useless. Means optional to Bouazizi was to put himself on fire as a sign of protest to the inequalities in the country. This act of one human being started the riots in Tunisia. Further, resembling a contagion, the riots spread and started the Arab Spring. This event is comparable with history where inequalities and poor leadership have been countered of riots by the masses.)
Socrates' "Two Cities":
In a timocracy, Socrates speaks of a city's reality of being two "cities:" a city of the rich and a city of the poor, which are always at war with each other because of the constant plotting against the other and the dissimilar goals. This inequality of class and money leads to revolutions. This city has five faults according to Socrates. First, it is ruled by people who are not fit to rule. Second, it is not one city but two: one city of rich people and one of poor. These two factions do not make up a single city because they are always plotting against one another, and do not have common aims. Third, this city cannot fight a war because in order to fight, the rulers would have to arm the people, but they are even more afraid of the people—who hate them—than of outsiders. Fourth, it has no principle of specialization. The rulers also have peripheral money-making occupations. This city is the first to allow the greatest evil: people who live in the city without belonging to any class or having any role; people who are not producers, warriors, or rulers. This group includes beggars and criminals. Socrates calls these people "drones" and divides them into two sorts: harmless and dangerous, or "stinging." Therefore leading back to the idea of inequality and the separation specifically between income inequality which has been an issue throughout history , and even more of an issue in the present day.
Supermarket of Constitutions:
In its heyday, Athens was the freest nation in the world. The Athenian definition of "liberty" was, in private matters, "living as one pleases," and in public matters, "ruling and being ruled in turn." By and large Athens lived up to these ideals. The Athenian statesman Pericles, in a famous funeral oration, boasted that in Athens no one even got sour looks from his neighbors if he chose to live his own life in his own way f— an exaggeration, no doubt, but one with which Athens' critics agreed, charging that Athens was, in Plato's words, a supermarket where everyone could pick his own constitution, as if each person were living under a different regime of his own choosing.

According to the Plato reading:
· Democracy emerges "when the poor are victorious" and live by a "supermarket of constitutions" (Plato 227)
· People in a democracy are free to do whatever they want. (227)
· "Under this constitution" you can find "people of all varieties" (227)
· In a democracy with a supermarket of constitutions a person can "pick out whatever pleases him and establish that" (228).
· "there is no requirement to rule" and "distributes a sort of equality to both equals and unequals alike"
· Plato does not believe a system like this can last; the passage is a mocking of democracies.
According to Socrates, a timocracy (government where only those who own property can participate/hold office in government) is the first type of city to allow the "greatest evil:" people who live in the city without belonging to any class or having any role; people who are not producers, warriors, or rulers. This group includes beggars and criminals. Socrates calls these people "drones" and divides them into two sorts: harmless and dangerous, or "stinging."

Prof. sacarelli said that socrates or plato believed that democracy leads to tyranny and these people, since they just hang around the future tyrant, get seats of power by doing nothing but kissing ass.

These are the people who live in the city (well, cities) and usually have been led to bankruptcy and poverty by the ruler, so they sit in the city not filling a role, not holding a job, and not belonging to a class, just filled with resentment for the leadership.
Direct Democracy:
A form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives. A direct democracy would involve the participation of all citizens, meaning that everyone would have an equal say in political decisions, however equality is contradictory in the sense that all members of a society are not viewed equal, therefore their say in political affairs would not be heard.
Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are Participatory democracy and Deliberative democracy.
Chattel Slavery:
Chattel slavery, so named because people are treated as the personal property, chattels, of an owner and are bought and sold as commodities, is the original form of slavery. If you are a slave you are only a piece of space and have NO freedom what-so-ever. This was the "natural" thing to do. This idea shows how equality is contradictory because if we were all equal, no one would have the right to own another person, because everyone would be viewed as an equal.

Slaves are property that can be "Freely" and legally bought/sold.
Myth of the Metals:
To ensure that there is never controversy over who should rule, Plato suggests telling all citizens a useful fiction, usually termed "the myth of the metals." The myth contends that all citizens of the city were born out of the earth. This fiction persuades people to be patriotic. They have reason to swear loyalty to their particular plot of ground and their fellow citizens. That plot of ground is their mother, and their fellow citizens are their brothers and sisters. The myth holds that each citizen has a certain sort of metal mixed in with his soul. In the souls of those most fit to rule there is gold, in those suited to be auxiliaries there is silver, and in those suited to be producers there is either bronze or iron. The city must never be ruled by someone whose soul is mixed with the wrong metal; according to an oracle, the city will be ruined if that ever happens.The people must be told that though for the most part iron and bronze people=farmers and craftsmen, silver=soldiers, and gold=rulers (the philospher-king)

***The Myth of the Metals was developed by Plato in the Republic, more so than Socrates.

Myth of the creation of people that was told in a mythical fashion so they would believe it. Said that all humans were created of a certain metal..
Hobbes' "state of war":
Hobbes was a champion of absolutism for the sovereign but he also developed some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought: the right of the individual; the natural equality of all men; the artificial character of the political order (which led to the later distinction between civil society and the state); the view that all legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on the consent of the people; and a liberal interpretation of law which leaves people free to do whatever the law does not explicitly forbid. Hobbes describes a "state of war" to consist of complete chaos due to the absence of laws and government. He uses this description to support his stance on the necessity of structure and government because without laws nothing gets done and humanity can not thrive and progress. Hobbes is a huge proponent of having a large structured government. Hobbes believed that the best and only physical form of government is to obey the monarch. His use of "state of war" relates to the bigger picture that equality is expansive.
Hobbes mentions that there is three reasons for conflict: competition, diffidence, and glory. Men are led to war, in particular, civil war from all the injustices and jealousies seen by other fellow citizens.

· His state of war is in nature, like Locke's, however, he states that the absence of rule results in the dismal living conditions and severe harsh endurance of life which are the problems that cause humanity to enter into a "social contract"
· All men are made equal by nature, society categorizes them
· Reasons for inequality/quarrel between men:
o Competition = leads men to fight because of the opportunity to gain
o Diffidence (lacking confidence) = this leads to quarrel because of safety
o Glory = leads to quarrel because of reputation
§ Hobbes' "state of war" is in regards to competition, diffidence, and glory, whereas Locke's is a result of property war
§ Also his "state of war" is characterized by threat of physical harm rather then theft as Locke states
Locke's "state of war":
Locke's state of war consists of every man against every man when there is no government to enforce equality, laws, and provide protection.Locke believed that the government's duty was to serve the people because people enter society for the preservation of property. Moreover, Locke was against an absolute unchecked monarchy and used his ideas of the importance of preservation of property to illustrate that equality is expansive and that everyone has a right to protection by the government. Right to revolution.

How does too powerful of a government lead to war?- From reading the 'Second Treaties' we can see that what Locke was trying to get across was that the power that the people hold to overthrow their government should not be feared, since people rarely like change and would only go through with it if the legislative was truly in the gutter: full of corruption etc.The people will go to war if they are continuously being put down, not being heard, etc. (I hope this helps)

I talked to prof. Sacarelli and he said that in this theory we are unequal because there is a monarchy as opposed to Hobbes' theory that we are equal and all the equality brings on chaos and there needs to be a ruler in order to bring in harmony.
· Focuses on the natural state where government does not take one's interests into account and does not protect one's property
· Hobbes' "state of war" is in regards to competition, diffidence, and glory, whereas Locke's is a result of property war
· Trade, accumulation of wealth, etc, are all important parts of the reason humanity moves from nature to government rule (a.k.a. material things = most important/reason for fighting)
Long Train of Abuses:
Those listed in the Declaration of Independence and sent to the king in England which entitled the people of the colonies to rebel and break free of their monarchy to start their own form of government. In the declaration of independence the phrase "long train of abuses" refers to the acts of the British monarchy in dealing with the colonies. Though the monarchs neglect to recognize the colonies, give them fair and just representation, and a multitude of other unjust acts the colonists felt it was not only their right, but their duty, to establish a new, fair legislature of their own. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was not only to announce the colonies succession from Britain, but also to serve as a guideline for what the colonies did not want in their new form of government. In addition the Declaration of Independence shows the want for expansion in equality by the colonist because they wanted to escape monarchical rule and through that want for expansion manifested hope for the fight of equality. People have the right to get rid of the king because of all he has done to the colonies so they can now form a new government.

***Jefferson borrowed the concept of 'long train of abuses' from Locke; Locke suggest a long train of abuses is a justification for the right to revolution.

· Quotes back to Locke, who mentions that it is the job, right, and will of the people to overthrow a ruler when a "long train of abuses" leads to the government not performing its function (protecting property in his stance, ex: this is why property is in the declaration)
· The literal meaning in the Declaration is the list of what "he", the king, did
o Quartering armies in colonists homes
o Neglected/refused to pass laws
o Called meetings in difficult places, etc..
· "But when a long train of abuses & usurpations [begun at a distinguished period, &] 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 & to provide new guards for their future security"
Polyphemus's Den:
Locke's support right to revolution, is an analogy to which Locke argues there is no point in giving up to a ruler who promises peace because in the end you will always be in a constant state of war at the hands of whoever is the present ruler. this is found in the reader on pg 115 of the Locke's reading
In Homer's the Odyssey, Polyphemus is a ferocious, man-eating Cyclops who traps Ulysses and his men in his cave and begins to eat them. Ulysses devises a plan to blind Polyphemus and escape a dreadful death. Ulysses was a man who preached "passive obedience" and Locke includes this story to support his reason for not advocating passive obedience. Because, when one exerts power over another, Locke believes that that person has a right to stand up for themselves and protect their life rather than peacefully, idling by and letting this monster, which could take the form of government, delegate over people. This relates to the bigger picture that Locke supports the right to a revolution, where Polyphemus's Den is an analogy used to argue that there is no point in giving up to a ruler who promises peace because in the end you will always be in a constant state of war at the hands of whoever is the present ruler.

A reference to the Odyssey, where Odysseus' ship is taken captive by Polyphemus, a Cyclops, and Odysseus adopts a submissive attitude, losing his control and sense of individualism/beliefs, essentially conforming, just like people in a Democracy do when they accept without truly thinking
· Polyphemus's den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace, and such a government, wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do, but quietly to suffer themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission, by representing to them of what concernment peace was to mankind; and by shewing the inconveniences might happen, if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power over them.
Sphere of Circulation:
Marx uses the term sphere of circulation to describe the marketplace of goods and services where producers and consumers interact. He states that when you leave this market and observe instead the methods of production, rather than the final product, you will see that "it is the exclusive realm of Freedom, Equality, Property, and Bentham." Through his explanation of the presence of freedom, equality, and property Marx demonstrates the bigger presence of economic equality. Further, the presence of economic equality within the market shows that everyone is the same and that equality is in fact expansive because there are two classes. .

You give up your rights in the workplace.

· The circulation of money is first initiated by the transformation of a commodity into money. The commodity is taken from its natural state and transformed into its monetary state. When this happens the commodity "falls out of circulation into consumption." The previous commodity now in its monetary form replaces a new and different commodity continuing the circulation of money. In this process, money is the means for the movement and circulation of commodities. Money assumes the measure of value of a commodity, i.e. the socially necessary labor-time. The repetition of this process constantly removes commodities from their starting places, taking them out of the sphere of circulation. Money circulates in the sphere and fluctuates with the sum of all the commodities that co-exist within the sphere. The price of commodities varies by three factors: "the movement of prices, the quantity of commodities in circulation, and the velocity of circulation of money."
· Essentially, it is free market exchange in which in "theory" everyone was equal (in reality they were not because money was not equally distributed, so the sphere of circulation is skewed, not as it was in nature)
English Revolutions:
English Civil War 1642-1651: war between Parliament and King Charles
King Charles I Tried and Executed 1649
"Glorious Revolution" 1688: slave revolution
Hobbes was inspired by the revolution to write "Leviathan"
-The ultimate outcome of the Revolution was the discrediting of the idea of the divine right of kings, the belief that parliament was supreme in political matters, and that the English monarch had to rule in a manner which was limited by a constitutional agreement (i.e. the idea of a constitutional monarchy).

The Glorious Revolution was the overthrow of King James II by the English parliament. The English parliament chose William of Orange and Mary II of England. The overthrow was significant because it showed that a change of rulers from one family to another could occur without resulting to war and massive bloodshed.. The Glorious Revolution was also termed the Bloodless Revolution and ended any chance of Catholicism to be reestablished in England again.

· English Civil War: parliament vs. monarchy (1642-1651)
o King Charles I tried and executed (1649)
o Revolt against King Charles I rule and led to him being put to death
o Ended the English Church as the monarchy of Christian rule and a Protestant Church was established
o Declared it unconstitutional for a Monarch to rule/govern without parliament's consent
· Glorious Revolution (1688)
o Overthrew Kin James II of England by English parliamentarians
§ Ties to Catholicism and close ties with France were troubling to the people (also b/c the kind was not tolerant, religiously, or otherwise)
o William III invaded England with a Dutch fleet and he and his wife Mary II took over
§ The Tories and Whigs united against the King James II b/c he had a son who beset his daughter Mary, married to William III, from the throne
§ The Tories and Whigs call upon William for assistance
Shamwow guy:
Rousseau's view on property, the guy is clean and looks nice on tv when he is trying to sell you something but in reality he is a corrupt criminal nothing like the person he portrays when he is convincing you to buy the product. Property produces inequality that is unnatural.

· A typical politician, just a figurehead/person to look at, he actually has nothing to say except loaded catch phrases and words just like Paine describes many of the words in the English Constitution pre-Revolution were
· Also a reference to Barak Obama, who is considered, with his tax plan, to suck up your money and give it to other people (not working) just like the sham wow did b/c it was actually useless but just sold itself
James Otis:
He, along with Nathaniel Appleton, Benjamin Rush and Thomas Paine opposed slavery not because of a desire to see Blacks incorporated into society, but rather because they resented the competition of slave labor. Aspiration for equality was not the same interpretation for all, rebellions=freedom for equality.

During Tacky's Rebellion, a slave rebellion in Jamaica, a future revolutionary leader James Otis, in 1764 published a famous pamphlet that argued in favor of slaves and stated "slavery debased those who practiced it." Otis published this pamphlet in response to the rebellion in support for equality by putting a stop to the exploitation of a race of people. His motives for doing this was to once again create an even playing field within the market of competition for labor.
"The colonists are by law of nature freeborn as indeed all men are, white or black." If we are free and independent, the slaves should be too.

· He is a Quaker, a Christian group who opposed the Church of England at that time (just like the Puritans who came to America), and an example of how the idea of prosperity and equality spread to all levels of society
o "But when a long train of abuses & usurpations [begun at a distinguished period, &] 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 & to provide new guards for their future security"
Knowles Riot:
· Several thousand seamen riot against impressment, held several British officers captive
· The group was composed of "black and white, of many ethnic and national backgrounds (pg. 54)."
· One of the 1st instances of successful resistance against the British government
· Mob action such as this laid the foundation for key protests; they were also the most effective for combating control.
· Egalitarian aspect of the mobs - open to all members of the population; universal character that embodied the rights of all men, rather than white male property owners
The riot is an example of Locke's belief that when people have their natural rights broken, then they are obligated as the people to no longer obey the government and their authority.
example of how equality is expansive..

· The Knowles riot: Commodore Charles Knowles had anchored in Boston harbor with his British naval squadron to prepare for a trip to the West Indies. While anchored, many of his seamen deserted. To replace these men before sailing, on the 16th Knowles sent out armed men to impress civilians into the Royal Navy. By the next morning they had impressed 46 men, including many who were exempt from impressment under Massachusetts law. A mob of perhaps 300 seamen and others soon gathered to protest the illegal press, and in hopes of freeing their friends they captured several British officers and seamen and held them hostage. By evening a crowd numbering in the thousands surrounded the Town House and broke windows. Governor Shirley called out the militia the next morning, but they did not appear and so he fled to Castle William. Commodore Knowles threatened to bombard the town. In the end, after three days of rioting, Shirley negotiated the release of the impressed men, the militia came out and restored order, and Knowles sailed away.
o This was looked upon by Samuel Adams who remarked that it was "the most mixed type of people executing their rights to rebellion and freedom"
This is the act of a slave owner freeing their slaves before the 13th amendment (which was an amendment made to free the slaves). [Goldfield's- this thrust was huge and not all at once but progressively freed slaves. This gave the ability of a slave owner to free their slaves and increased drastically in the revolution. A slavery revolution because of egalitarian motives and made slaves eventually illegal in the North.]

· Originally some laws prohibited this, eventually they were removed, except in N. Carolina
Pursuit of Happiness:
Property or Happiness? Equality is the drive of declaration. "All men are created equal" and this is contradictory. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence but did not include property in it but instead put the pursuit of happiness. It meant something to him. Pursuit of happiness is a broader term that can mean to accumulate stuff and keep it safe. More profound egalitarian of pursuit of happiness. Left room for expansion and agreement. Aristotle believed that happiness is found within the people who use money well, not those who receive more valuables and keep it safe.
Jefferson used John Locke's phrase and changed it from "acquisition of property" to "pursuit of happiness" because property wouldn't lead to happiness.
edit - My notes say it's because they were one in the same to the framers
Left door open for expansion and development.

Jefferson- "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Aristole- not about get more and more & keep it safe.
Locke: was "life, liberty and property."- Obsessed with property

Jefferson and many others realized that property was their most valuable asset and did not include it in the declaration because not everyone can own property (because it is a scarce resource) so pursuit of happiness was included instead of property so the poor would not be focused on taking property from the rich. Also, excluding property and using something as vague as pursuit of happiness instead left the door open for expansion and change later on.
English Constitution:
This refers to the word of the English Monarch. The government had no constitution, so the kings word was the divine and unchecked law of the land
(Ok, so I would venture the fact that the Constitution has no check and balance system for the people. Also per page 69 of Locke, he states that it is too complex of a document to ensure rights.) it lacked power to check the king... there was a constitution, but it basically did nothing, if i'm correct.
The English Constitution was the political system in England. The English Constitution is not written, it is instead assumed with no legitimate paperwork stating the laws and regulations. The English Constitution was highly criticized by Thomas Paine in his work called "Common Sense." Paine was critical on the constitution because he saw it as bankrupt due to some of its un-egalitarian components. Paine particularly criticized the monarchy as being unnatural in the state of nature. Paine went on to say that those in power became "deaf and blind" to social reality. This meaning that the king who comes to power becomes distracted with power that he becomes unfit to rule rationally for the good of the people.

***The English Constitution, while not being a written document, is a commonwealth. Laws are practiced and decided upon as they go, so to speak. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine points out that the monarch is ignorant to social realities, and therefore, is unfit to rule the people as the monarch has no knowledge of what they are ruling.

Contradicted itself by implying that the king was not to be trusted because he needed to be checked in the first place, the commons being appointed to check the king implies that they are wiser/more worthy of power, and finally giving the kind the power to veto assumes that he is wiser than those who check him, circular reasoning and it contradicts itself.
· Monarchical tyranny = king
· Remains of aristocratically tyranny = persons of peers
o Supported the king
· New republican materials, in the persons of commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England
o Supported the people
o Only republican (for the people) section of the Constitution
William the Conqueror:
Mentioned in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" as, "a French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives," this was used to show Paine's disdain towards the idea of "divine rule". He continues on to say that William the Conqueror's reign over England was nowhere near godly, and thus, rulers should not be chosen this way. Basically a Tyrant can take over and run the place into ruins if there is no strong central gov't.
However, in America, Thomas Paine was opposed to a strong, central government.

brought up by Thomas Pain to combat the idea that the English monarchy was based on "the kings divine rights," stating that a Frenchman, William, who was called to defeat King Henry of England, was nonetheless included in the "divine rights of the king" than anyone else, yet he still ruled.
· Figure from Italian history cited in Paine's Common Sense - uses public discontent and desire for liberty to rally people to fight for him and put himself in power
· Paine argues against letting Massanello's dominate the movement for independence; calls for the public to take action while the time is right
Also, Paine used this as an example as to why he is inspiring the revolution for the people, and he is not trying to gain the power for himself (or elitist) after the revolution.

From Thomas Paine's Common Sense:
· A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello* may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering situation of things, will be a temptation for some desperate adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what a relief can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal business might be done; and ourselves suffering like the wretched Britons under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent, that barbarous and hellish power, which hath stirred up the Indians and Negroes to destroy us, the cruelty hath a double guilt, it is dealing brutally by us, and treacherously by them.
o (*Thomas Anello, otherwise Massanello, a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting up his countrymen in the public market place, against the oppression of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and in the space of a day become king.) Massanello instigated rebellion, and then rose charismatically to lead the people after they overthrew their government, promising peace and prosperity when in reality, he became the very force of government he had just helped to overthrow.

Out of chaos created by rebellion for want of democracy, a leader will rise up and that leader will create another monarchy/dictatorship.

The chaos period of our country, is the period in which Paine is trying to urge the people to create an effective government before a "Masanello" figure emerges.
Thomas Paine's Funeral:
only six people showed up, no church wanted his body and he died lonely.
· Paine leaves America and becomes deeply involved in equality
· When he returns to America he was severely displeased with the DOI and the changed political climate of America
· Americans were in deep opposition to his writings and his political views - he was not welcomed back and upon his death not many attended his funeral
· Upon leaving America, the feelings of unification and desire for political equality experienced by all Americans had lived on and deepened in Paine, while in America there was a drastic change in perspective. Divisions had been established and there was a push for a more centralized government - an institution Paine was opposed.
· The change in American political thought can be recognized in his reception and in the reaction to his death

Begins drinking because he was not allowed to vote, other "hijacked" the revolution instituting far right ideas (he believed in far left ones, universal suffrage, and religion not supported by government), no church would buy his body when he died, only a few people came. Going from the height of Common Sense to post-revolution unfavorable status shows that the ideology in the country changed post 1776 bc political ideology was hijacked by wealthy/powerful.
Shay's Rebellion:
Angry farmer who had armed an uprising that took place in central and western Massachusetts. Because they were being taxed a lot and their farms were being taken away. Heavily influenced the writings in the Federalist papers, especially #10.
· 1786 in Western Massachusetts
· Occurred before the ratification of the Constitution -> motivated the writing and ratification of the constitution
· Jefferson believed a little rebellion was a good thing
· The Rebellion:
· Illustrates class conflicts and contradictions
Madison and Federalists used this as an example why democracy is a bad idea and why there should be a strong, central government to protect against these types of uprisings.
Also, it's important to note, many farmers fought in the revolution and expected pardons for their debts while they were away fighting for the cause.

A debtor, Shays, tired of his situation and oppression (mostly financially) decided to start a rebellion which showed the weakness of Fed gov. Federalists used this to show the weakness of the federal government, but it also showed that people are motivated by their current situation and may not think of the greater good, but more what benefits them.
· Legal Shayism: same idea as Shay's rebellion, but accomplished by legal voting.
Jefferson's "tree of liberty":
Freedom spreads because people fight for it, he thinks its good because it creates fear for the powerful and elite. (Refers back to Shay's rebellion) People must fight and rebel to keep the gov't in check. Tree must be fed with the blood of tyrants and the work of the military. Rebellion is the soil from where liberty grows.

The "tree of liberty" Jefferson states, "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," advocating that liberty is inclusive of a process of revolutions, in which tyrants (those in power) eventually begin to keep information from the people and take advantage of them, so a revolution becomes necessary so the facts are set straight, also refreshing the tree is literally saying that patriots must fight and die or kill/remove these types of tyrants from power, and the absence of this step (for example, only 1 rebellion in USA in 11 years = Shay's Rebellion) is rather troubling and is an example of the imbalance of power. What Jefferson is trying to convey in this analogy, is that Liberty needs to be upkept and maintained, just as a tree needs. He says that the government needs to be reminded of the people's opinions, and is pro-rebellion because it keeps the government aware of social issues. Jefferson believes that the bloodshed from riots and rebellions is necessary in order to keep liberty active and growing.
(Interest groups) People that get together due to likes, "social class" because of self interest, property etc. Divisions among a large group into smaller groups to create barriers where the smaller groups have nothing in common therefore nothing that unites them to fight against their common enemy, instead are fighting against themselves and the common enemy keeps them turned against one another.
Madison, in Federalist 10, explains the problem with the "Tyranny of the majority", where the larger faction will have tyrannical power over the minority factions in a democracy, and how a strong, central government can potentially counteract this and recognize the minority as well as the majority.

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Publius' "improper or wicket project(s)":
Collective pseudonym adopted by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay as authors of The Federalist Papers (1787-8) Fed. Paper #10 (pg. 28). Publius Valerius, according to Plutarch's Lives, was a heroic figure responsible for establishing stable republican government in Rome after the fall of Tarquin.The wicked project was the fact that a raw democracy took place. Looks like it is more related to the fact that Madison is referring to the fact that the more factions that you have, the less likely that there will be a wicked project passed. I.E. the more factions you have, the less likely you will have something that restrains rights/equality to become widespread because of the natural self-interest of the factions. I thought it was just their signature so that they wouldn't use their names and let that influence the readers of the papers. Yes, it's a pseudonym. And yes, wicked projects were unlikely as long as factions were kept small and geographically separated. From Fed. #10... "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general of conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

"A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."
· Since Madison acknowledges that factionalism is borne in human nature and naturally occurs, so these acts, attempting to abolish factionalism are counterintuitive to liberty, and would be like the first choice of combating factionalism, destroying its cause (which is the same as destroying liberty), rather than taking the second, more favorable choice, controlling its effects, as dictated by Madison. To my understanding, "Wicked Projects" are objectives that seek to further complete equality. The Federalists want there to be factions, because they fear the power of a united people. The Federalists support a republic and while not everyone can be happy in this situation, the authors of the Federalist papers understand that the people need to sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to accumulate security. (Fed. No.1)
Governeur Morris:
Leader at the Constitutional Convention. This is the author of much of the constitution. He represented Pennsylvania and he was one of the first people who thought of a unified America, and not just the sovereign states. He wrote the Constitution with a gifted knowledge of language. However, even though it sounds nice, he forgot to specify what he really meant by a few of his sayings like, "all men are created equal". Even though it was meant to rule all men, the way it was interpreted did not give everyone an equal share. He constantly rose up the question " what are we fighting for? He claimed that the purpose of the revolution was to protect property not to please disturbed peasants.
He questions what they are fighting for now because he believes the rights of the property owners must be secured, not the rights of the "poor reptiles"
(Those who have a stake in society should have a vote, those with property.
Early in 1774 an astute young gentleman named Gouverneur Morris found himself standing on a balcony as a New York City meeting debated how to respond to the Intolerable Acts(?). On one side were the merchants and property-owners, men like Morris himself. On the other were 'all the tradesmen, etc., who thought it worthwhile to leave daily labor for the good of the country.' 'The mob begin to think and to reason,' he wrote. First stage and second stage?? ** Morris was always a bit melodramatic, but he understood what he saw. Nine years of activity in the resistance movement had given these people a new political identity and a voice that would not be stilled.)

Gouverneur Morris was one of the few delegates at the Philadelphia Convention who spoke openly against domestic slavery. According to James Madison who took notes at the Convention, Morris spoke openly against slavery on August 8:
· He [Gouverneur Morris] never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed. ...with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other states having slaves.... Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included?
· Also, he was part of the committee that wanted to build a canal from lake Michigan to New York.
Legal Shayism:
The effort between farmers and legislator since they came together to pass laws that would benefit farmers. Popular democracy through legal terms and methods not by violence. Farmers that fought in war could have lost land but did not lose it. A question came up: what did we fight for? To preserve land. The Tender Act lowered costs of products. The Stay Act protected farmer land. Printing paper money would lead to inflation but the Tender Act did not allow that. PROCESS: Prices decreased, property was safe, money value decreased. Big banks were mad but monority people were happy because there was more money floating around. So debt that was paid with the money at this time made the banks mad because, although it was paid, the value was worthless. Legal Shayism describes what was happening in different state legislatures.
Madison is worried about state legislatures expanding power
Hamilton worried about state governments undermining the foundations of property & credit
Adams: annoyed by a poor farmer..."half the nation are debtors... surely if the country gets into their hands, to what purpose have we sacrificed?... this would be a mistake"
Madison: "'...a rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division off property, or for any other improper or wicked project..."
Property-owners hated:
Tender Acts: - price controls for basic commodities
Stay Laws: postponement of debt collection
Paper Money - printed by each state, effectively devalued debt

The idea that Shay's Rebellion attempted to fight for, direct political power of the people. However, it advocated creating this possibility within the legal system versus having to revolt in order to be heard. Series of laws allowing more to have the vote, so poor farmers like Shay, would have a say and not need to revolt. Essentially this equated to redistribution measures. Pushed the Constitution to compromise and add some anti-federalist sentiments.
"Caucasian" Race:
The term "caucasian" was coined by the pseudo-scientist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach who believed that the inhabitants of the Caucous Mountains had 'the most beautiful skulls'. This term was included to support the idea that racial categorizing has no real scientific value.

Social construction of race. Race is a fantasy, and has no scientific validity, no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so called race from all the members of another so called race. Caucasian as the racial term used for labeling the "white" race, the reason why it was called that was that one scientist said that it was the shape of the skull that was the most beautiful. This is significant in the question of historical roots of American slavery and racial labeling black and racism, made up and arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice).

called simply "white" by Americans but constituted many different ethnic groups (essentially everyone who was not African American). This divide was caused by Southern plantation owners who were scared by rebellions, like Shay's and Bacon's, and decided firm control was needed on the labor class for capitalism to thrive, and blacks were designated for socio-economic reasons. Thus, everyone who was not a slave was identified as white in order to bring them together in opposition against blacks and elevate their status so they would not unite with them.
US v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923):
This was a case of an Indian (a person from India) protesting to get his citizenship. He went to the supreme court to argue that he was white but he was told that he was not "white enough" to have his citizenship, even though he clearly had the right to live here in America. Indians are in fact Caucasian, Northern India has many people with fair complexion
Basically shows how race is arbitrary and does not exist.

was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, who was a Punjabi Sikh, settled in Oregon, could not be a naturalized citizen of the United States, because he was not a "white person" in the sense intended in the relevant 1790 statute governing naturalization. Although Thind argued that as an Indian he belonged to the Aryan and therefore the Caucasian race, the Court found that "the Aryan theory, as a racial basis, seems to be discredited by most, if not all, modern writers on the subject of ethnology," and noted that "the Caucasian division of the human family is 'in point of fact the most debatable field in the whole range of anthropological studies.'" The Court found that the authors of the 1790 statute probably ascribed to "the Adamite theory of creation" and understood "white people" in its popular, and not scientific, sense.
· Aryan Theory: Indo-Europeans are considered members of the Caucasian race, i.e. Indians included, versus the modern Aryan conception of Nordic/Germanic dissent.
· Adamite Theory": the conventional religious belief that Adam was history's first human.
Indentured Servants:
Were servants that were promised many different things if they were to come to work for the people in America. These people were the indentured servants of Great Britain. This included the Irish. These people were promised land if they were to come and work for the people trying to cultivate the land of America. Unfortunately, the owners understood that these slaves were not "cheap" because they had to pay them something after their indenture servitude was finished. It was also not like what they were promised was the best. This eventually lead to the need for straight up slavery. Great Britain and Portugal worked closely together to start the slave trade. These people did not get anything for their service and their freedom was taken away.
Many times, conditions for slaves and indentured servants were similar with horrific travelling means and abusive situations. In many situations, indentured servants did not benefit from their service other than having their (awful) voyage paid for to America. It's important to note that during this time, many of the poor Irish were not considered white Americans, thus they were inferior. It wasn't until after the transition from European indentured servants to African slaves that the race question and stereotype that blacks were inferior began arising in America.

European countries' small labor resources led them to resort to slavery as a method of fulfilling their expansionism. The interesting feature of early colonial America is that, contrary to much belief, it was largely made up of British and European indentured servants rather than African Americans, like in many other British and European colonies.They experience the same conditions, with no protection of their rights, as African Americans later would. This is later the class that would make up the "White Race" after Rebellions like Bacon's caused need for further labor class distinction, i.e. the "middle-class" buffer between rich and poor. Considered equal with African American slaves. Indentured servants terms were also too complicated for plantation owners to make a steady profit, combined with an economic incentive of cheaper African slave labor due to a downturn in the Caribbean slave economy, led American Plantations to turn to "black" labor. Also the fact that the elite figured the labor class needed to be divided to be controlled and prevents like Bacon's Rebellion, etc.
Sir Francis Drake:
An English pirate
A british explorer, slave trader, privateer, and naval officer. He was heavily involved in the slave trade

Serves as an example that Europeans and other races regarded themselves as equals at one point in time because of his relations with Cimarrons, a Panamanian colony of ex-slaves. His followers here fought the Spanish together, celebrated together, ate together, and acted in a manner that suggested little racial prejudice. This "English tolerance" is what had to be broken with Africans, in the minds of the elite, in order to dominate labor control.
Bacon's Rebellion:
A man, Nathaniel Bacon, was upset with the Governor of Virginia at the time, who favored Indians, Bacon did not like that idea so he told any slave that if they were to join him he would give them their freedom. (Refers back to Madison and other people who fought for the revolution was this what they fought for more revolutions? What was their cause now that the revolution was over)
--Black and white soldiers to fight and indentured servants were promised freedom at end of fighting. They had more things in common than un-common (like color of skin) they were allies because they related to one another b/c they were property-less and did not see race first --no color line yet formed. Led to the buffering of a a social line so that working classes could not get together and rebel.

Nathaniel Bacon, himself a member of the colonial elite in Virginia but involved in a dispute with the governor, was pressed by the logic of events to offer freedom to servants and slaves who would join him. Bacon forced the House of Burgesses to pass a series of democratic measures, burned Jamestown to the ground (After Governor Berkeley had accused Bacon of treason), and then temporarily forced the governor and his allies to flee the colony. Both African-Americans and whites responded to Bacon's egalitarian appeal in large numbers. Even after the death of Bacon from dissenters effectively undermined the revolution, over 100 Black and white followers stuck together to the end, refusing to yield.
Pliny the Elder:
Ancient Roman officer described differences in man fantastically, mystically, almost naive, but were not racially judgmental (inferior). Slavery in the Roman empire was different because slaves were men who were defeated and then taken in as slaves (from Europe, Middle East, etc.).
Pliny described and portrayed each "race" of human as a fantastical creature, almost glorifying the differences in a humorous way.
Hypo → "One Drop" of that other race would mean you are whatever other "drop"/race you are. You're the minority. Normally the race with "bad" qualities dominated.
Hyper → Full American or full-"whatever other race." This was used to identify minorities and treat others as inferiors based on what you call each other.

Categorizing people of mixed race with the more socially accepted race; opposite of hypodescent (relation to minority group and being classified as part of that group).

Pertains to racial classification in places like Indonesia where a person of mixed descent is automatically classified to the more dominant social group (ex: 20% white/80% black = white) Specifically, in Indonesia, English/Indonesian children were seen as English citizens rather then in the U.S. where they would be relegated to the subordinate social class.
· In societies that regard some races of people as dominant or superior and others as subordinate or inferior, hypodescent is the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union or mating between members of different socioeconomic groups or ethnic groups to the subordinate group. The opposite practice is hyperdescent, in which children are assigned to the race that is considered dominant or superior.
Sir Francis Drake:
An English pirate/explorer who, along with his men joined slaves in Panama known as Cimarrons to fight the Spanish for colonial expansion. This is significant because their union had no racial divisions. This was referenced in Goldfield Ch. 1 (pg. 38-40).

Serves as an example that Europeans and other races regarded themselves as equals at one point in time because of his relations with Cimarron's, a Panamanian colony of ex-slaves. His followers here fought the Spanish together, celebrated together, ate together, and acted in a manner that suggested little racial prejudice. This "English tolerance" is what had to be broken with Africans, in the minds of the elite, in order to dominate labor control.
Cotton Gin:
After the cotton gin slave owners had a greater economic incentive to expand slavery and enforce it. It was intended to save labor, but ended up strengthening slavery.
U.S. Cotton exports:
1793: 500,000 pounds
1810: 93 million pounds
Hardened attitude of slave owners became dominant in South- called the King cotton. Made slaves a very important factor for the production of cotton and encouraged slavery to make profits

A machine invented by Yale graduate Eli Whitney, it separated the cotton fibers from the seed. It was intended to reduce manpower needed, and therefore, lessen slavery. However, its efficiency (1793: 500k lbs cotton produced à 1810: 93 million lbs produced) made cotton even more profitable, therefore fueling the slave trade to the strata it reached. It essentially fueled the textile industry in Great Britain as well.
· King Cotton: nickname for cotton because it dominated the economy, politics, and hardened the attitudes of slave-owners. It was the most important thing, and backbone of the Southern economy, which was the most powerful in America.
Haitian Revolution:
1791 "Significant number of Americans celebrated the initial revolt as a continuation of the principles of the American Revolution. For the slave owners and their allies, on the other hand, Haiti represented the horror of horrors, a justification for heightened vigilance, tighter restriction, and no mercy for any but the most servile behavior" Goldfield pg. 78
Slaves in Haiti overthrew their masters, which caused the slave-owners in the south to become more intolerant and harsh on their slaves because they feared that what happened in Haiti would happen to them

Slaves in Haiti rebelled and killed all the white people/slave owners. It is seen as the greatest horrors of horrors for slave-owners, but for slaves and abolitionists it signified the process of continuing the American Revolution. This was problematic however, because like Bacon's Rebellion it led slave-owners to want a stricter control over the slavery population (i.e. a sharpening of the color line, followed by more race directed slavery). Furthermore, it led slave-owners to develop a more strict/intolerable attitude towards slaves in general.
· First successful slave revolution
· First successful revolution in American Colonies
Freehold Requirement:
A voting qualification, which was dependent on the amount of land owned by a member of society. The qualification differed from state to state. Kept people without property from voting so voting rights WERE NOT EXPANDED!

This was a requirement that slave-owners favored. It required that your "property," needed to vote, was measured specifically in land, versus personal property requirements, which were favored by merchants and allowed the liquid assets to prove property ownership and thus attain the right to vote. In the end John Adams advice was heeded and property rights were not defined or added to the constitution. However, this was debated at the Constitutional Convention (Philadelphia) and most states did require property rights at one point.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 of US Constitution:
"The electors in each state shall have Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the state legislative"
Once again the voting rights were not expanded. Adams said not to expand the vote because people would take advantage of it and you would have women and teens would want to vote as well.

Explains how to elect a member of the House of Representatives, by election only, instead of appointment, so that local Gov. could not simply appoint people to gain power. This seems to be part of Jacksonian Democracy.
· House reps elected every 2 years, must follow state laws about elections
· Lessened inherited power because elites were not necessarily appointed but elected by people
· Demanded elected (not appointed) judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values
o Actually gave power of vote to the people
Jacksonian Democracy:
Andrew Jackson U.S. President 1829-1837
Leader of the new " Democratic Party"
1790: 10 of the 13 states had property qualifications
1850: 4 of 31 people couldn't vote
1790: 3 of the 13 states had racial qualifications
1850: 25 of 31
Jackson : fought for white democracy
strong supporter of slavery
wealthy slave owner
supported movement that extended the suffrage to poor whites
Jackson's (white) populism: government should work not just for wealthy but for the poor as well ( poor whites).

· Jackson was president from 1829-1837, but Jacksonian Democracy is actually considered to be from 1830-1850 (when he was more of a symbol)
· = rise of Democratic Party (orig. party of slave owners)
o First mass part in the U.S. of people who had common reasons to reach out to poor whites, but was really dominated by slave-owners
· This changed slaveowners worry of property ownership necessary for vote because the division of race took precedence and was enough to stop blacks from voting (property qualifications à race qualifications)
· Lured poor whites into alignment with slave owners because they conceded some rights to whites, but none to blacks (however whites missed out on universal education, shorter workdays, and other rights that smaller parties advocated for by voting for Jackson)
· 1790 = 10/13 states with property qualifications, 1850 = 4/31
· 1790 = 3/13 had race qualifications
· 1850 = 25/31
· Jackson's Policies:
o Enforced Indian removal/relocation (Trail of Tears)
o Fought rich banks/money holders
o Extended sufferage to poor whites
o Attached slave owner features to poor whites
o Elected, rather than appointed judges
o Fought for Democracy, but only for whites
Orestes Brownson:
(1803- 1876) The Labouring Classes (1840) "rich hereditary nobility" - you want money,okay, but why should you inherit it how do you deserve it. That is not always the case. It is critical to observe the next generation to discover their class of soul. Those who are born to producers but seem to have the nature of a guardian or an auxiliary will be whisked away and raised with other such children. Similarly, those born to guardians or auxiliaries who seem more fit as producers will be removed to that class of society. Although the just society is rigid in terms of adult mobility between classes, it is not as rigid in terms of heredity. Abolishing hereditary property.

Orestes Augustus Brownson (1803-1876) was a New England intellectual and activist, preacher, labor organizer, and noted Catholic convert and writer. Brownson was a publicist, a career which spanned his affiliation with the New England Transcendentalists, through his subsequent conversion to Roman Catholicism.
· Wanted to abolish hereditary property
o Ex: Paris Hilton's dad's property would become the property of the state upon his death and could not be passed on to secure power
· Regarded slave owners as political ally (a.k.a. he sided with Jacksonian Democracy)
· Whites only, worked to put white laborers into democratic party
Essays Tips:
Only one of these two essays will appear on the exam (see syllabus and instructions):
Include ID's, but you don't have to define them (assume the TA's know the background information on this). Make sure your ID's relate to the argument.
Essay 1:
Essay 1:
What are the different theoretical facets of equality, as explained in the lectures? Your answer should include historical illustrations of each point, and must address the American Revolution, as well as Thomas Paine's Common Sense. (Plato-Republic selections from books 2 & 8, Hobbes-Leviathan Chapter 13,Locke-Second Treatise of Government selection from chapter Rousseau-discourse on the Origin of Inequality selections,Marx-Capital Vol 1 selections, Jefferson- Declaration of Independence, Goldfield- Chapter 2,Paine-Common Sense)

I asked him he said that is not what the question is about. He wants to hear about the different thinkers (Plato through Paine), and show the effect of what they though was/was needed for equality on America at the time of the revolution and creation of our constitution
Can someone possibly elaborate what specifically he is asking...possibly examples of some ideas. I dont have my notes with me at the time, but the ideas of Jacques Rousseau and Hobbes are examples of this. If anyone has them written down please add them."Equality is expansive once one place gets freedom everyone wants it [Haitian Revolution after the American Revolution]), Equality is contradictory (Jackson fought for white democracy, and was a strong supporter of slavery. Wealthy slave owners supported movement that extended the suffrage to poor whites. Jackson's [white] populism: government should work not just for wealthy but for the poor as well [poor whites]) and equality is contested (if equality isn't being fought for, it's being fought against (American Revolution as an example of the need to be freed otherwise, it would be neglected. [insert Thomas Paine on British hostility on the colonies]) Another good example for this would be going back to the very first lectures, Professor Saccarelli spoke about the Greeks and their use of Direct Democracy, meaning every citizen gets to vote and voice their opinion. However, not all citizens could do this, slaves were not allowed to vote pointing to a fault in the system, Equality is Contradictory.

Okay here's what I have so far for the different ideas of each thinker on equality, if anyone wants to finish the last three out or help with the second essay?

Plato (Republic):
We shrink from the idea of living in Plato's Republic because we are driven by the wrong desires—by the desire for money, physical pleasure, and honor. He would add that if we were driven by the correct desires, the desire for truth, order, harmony, and the good of our society as a whole, we would be more open to adopting Plato's system of government.
The definition of justice as "treating friends well and enemies badly" is for Plato not only inadequate because it is too narrow, but also wrong because it is based on a mistaken belief of what justice is, namely, on the belief grounded in factionalism, which Socrates does not associate with the wise ones but with tyrants
All there is, is a domination by the powerful and privileged over the powerless. The moral language of justice is used merely instrumentally to conceal the interests of the dominant group and to make these interests appear universal.
justice, understood traditionally as virtue and related to goodness, is the foundation of a good political order, and as such is in everyone's interest. Justice, if rightly understood, Plato argues, is not to the exclusive advantage of any of the city's factions, but is concerned with the common good of the whole political community, and is to the advantage of everyone. It provides the city with a sense of unity, and thus, is a basic condition for its health.
For Plato, like for Solon, the starting point for the inquiry about the best political order is the fact of social diversity and conflicting interests, which involve the danger of civil strife.
The best political order for Plato is that which promotes social peace in the environment of cooperation and friendship among different social groups, each benefiting from and each adding to the common good. The best form of government, which he advances in the Republic, is a philosophical aristocracy or monarchy, but that which he proposes in his last dialogue the Laws is a traditional polity: the mixed or composite constitution that reconciles different partisan interests and includes aristocratic, oligarchic, and democratic elements.

Hobbes (Leviathan):
As has already been noted, people are constantly moved by appetites and aversions, and as such, have certain ends in mind which they strive to attain. Since one or more men may desire the same end (for example, food or shelter), they are in a constant state of conflict and competition with one another. If man's appetites were finite this would not be so problematic, but as Hobbes argued in the above chapters, we are never satisfied with any amount of power (the means to attain certain ends), and are thus always in a constant power struggle with others.
Men are by nature equal in their powers, as even "the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger as himself." From this equality in the state of nature where even the weak can kill the strong, combined with a finite amount of resources and distrust of other men, arises a perpetual state of conflict. Without a common power to mediate amongst men and distribute resources, the state of nature is nothing but a state of constant war, where "the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. He wrote that chaos or civil war - situations identified with a state of nature- could only be averted by strong central government.
Hobbes is an innovation: Hobbes suggests that men by nature are enemies, not fellow citizens. The other alternative is
what interests Hobbes

Locke (Second Treatise of Government):
Civil society exists to protect the property and liberty of its members--if something break s down anywhere in its government and it no longer fulfills this function, something has gone awry and the people have a right to rid themselves of that government.
If the government in power is not working for them, it is not a just government, and people would be better off in a state of nature.
Locke also notes that all concerns about revolution are foolish, because they represent a fear of a righteous process: it is rightful and dignified for people to rebel against unjust oppression.

Rousseau (Discourse on origin of inequality):
The implication is that the way in which property is distributed is the key factor in the growth of inequality. But without property, there would be no inequality at all, and no rich or poor.
The solution to this terrible conflict is a contract, proposed by the rich, to form political societies. This contract is a grotesque trick played by the rich on the poor. The poor are made to believe that, by agreeing to the creation of political society, they will be made safe and preserve their freedom.
by implication, democracy is the best and most equal system because it is closest to natural freedom.
Rousseau's overall hostility to existing laws and institutions becomes clear in this section. He thinks that they are either useless—because they cannot really regulate behavior—or that they are actively harmful because they take man further away from the state of nature and encourage the vices that they should prevent.
conclusions are not that surprising: that inequality has its origins in the rise of reason and enlightenment; that it is legitimated by laws and property; and that it is against natural law unless it is related to physical inequality.

Jefferson (Declaration of Independence):
-The reason why we have man-made governments is to protect these rights, not to interfere with them
When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," he did not mean that all men were equal in all respects. In other places he wrote with conviction about the existence of a natural aristocracy among men, based upon virtue and talent. Yet, many today quote Jefferson as though he intended to state that all men ought to be made as equal as possible. This is to speak of equality of condition, a position rejected by Jefferson and all political thinkers in the Age of the American Revolution. It was rejected because even a cursory examination of human nature reveals ineradicable differences among men.
Much has been written on the history of equality, especially in the twentieth century. Yet, most of what has been written does not help much to clear up the confusion that surrounds the term, confusion arising, for example, from the fact that Jefferson could state his belief in both equality and inequality without a sense of contradiction.
How did the idea of equality come to be part of the intellectual baggage of the mind of the American Revolution? The concept of equality was not an invention of the Founders themselves, rather it was absorbed by them from the intellectual climate created by the Enlightenment and from colonial experience. The typical philosophe argued that since sovereignty in political society rests with the people, a certain sense of equality follows. Yet this sovereignty was delegated, the philosophe argued, to the crown or to other rulers. But the notion that equality could be part of society at all was part of their theoretical or mythical claim that equality had to be part of the State of Nature.

Goldfield (Chapter 2): Saw equality as equally inclusive, like the mobs that began the start of the force behind the American Revolution. It showed that people could unite together under a common goal, and Goldfield sees this as a particularly egalitarian moment (like Shay's Rebellion) because separate classes/races fought together without seeming to notice their distinctions. However, this is lost post Constitution b/c the united race/classes scared the rich into a needed division of the labor class (white vs. black) once again tipping the balance more towards that of unequal.

Thomas Paine (Common Sense): We have it in our power to begin the world over again. Paine wrote common sense in order to inspire a new way of thinking in the American people. He wanted them to realize the severe injustices that had been committed against them. If the government is not fulfilling it's purpose of protecting the people, then why submit to such a government at all? Also he urged that the distinguishing of people, king/subject and rich/poor destorys man's natural equality, which he believed in, and the English Monarchy at that time specifically broadened these distinctions. His ideas opened the eyes of the people to the thrashing of equality, which many agreed government was instituted to foster, in turn, helping spark the American Revolution, a chance for the distinctions to be removed in order to fight for a common goal, equality for all, which is later lost sight of post ratification of the constitution.

In essence, he wants the American people to realize that the British Monarchy is violating their natural rights. Natural rights being the basis for the fight for equality.

American Revolution:
the Revolutionary War had a significant effect on the rise of egalitarianism in American society. Even though this effect was somewhat unintentional, it has created a nation with a strong sense of values and determination. The American Revolution produced the equality-driven nation that is known to Americans as well as other societies around the world. These sentiments remain in the initial laws of the country but have since been compromised by further laws and the strengthening of the color line and other methods.

Can someone please clarify Rousseau's facet of equality or the "natural inequality" aspect?
In my notes I have that equality is expansive and "natural inequality" exists because we are born into a system which we cannot deny. I also have that the government must be responsible to its people and private property is unnatural and creates messed up people, which is why Rousseau questions the value of things. I'm not sure if that helps at all.

Rousseau states that natural inequality is formed by the vocation of man; Men are born the same but become unequal because of their different walks of life. Men in nature are their own masters, but as soon as society gives them desire for property
Essay 2:
In what ways did the period from the ratification of the Constitution to Jacksonian democracy mark a break with the egalitarian spirit of 1776? Your answer must include a discussion of Publius' Federalist Papers.

So we are not talking about what changed from Constitution --> Jacksonian, but from 1776 Declaration --> Jacksonian, including the period from Constitution up to Jacksonian. Jackson fought for white democracy, and was a strong supporter of slavery. Wealthy slave owners supported movement that extended the suffrage to poor whites. Jackson's (white) populism: government should work not just for wealthy but for the poor as well ( poor whites). Although this period of government did mention equality, it meant only equality for whites. The egalitarian spirit of 1776 allowed everyone, from slaves to slave owners, poor and rich, northern merchants and southern plantation owners, be on the same turf, which according to several writers, meant that every man was created equal, but after the ratification of the constitution, there was still no intent to free the slaves and poor white men couldn't vote, meaning that the "every man created equal" mindset had changed. Just to add to this a bit, the invention of the cotton gin and the use of free labor became too valuable to slave owners. Making the breaking of the egalitarian spirit of 1776 greater. Also, the fact that the Federalist Papers were issued on the Anti-Democratic platform of Madison and others helps illustrate the switch between these two periods because it was written to draw support for the Constitution, which was seen by Paine and others as similar to the English Constitution, which obviously lacked in its application of equality and was convoluted and complicated enough to check the power of the majority (yet, this was the essential goal in 1776 to give the majority a voice from the minority oppressing them). In addition, in Federalist #1 Hamilton makes it known that Direct Democracy is too susceptible to being "hijacked" by people's interests and passions and lead them not to seek truth. This is the main reason why the change from 1776 to Jacksonian democracy took place, because the power of the people was compromised for fear of any individual taking advantage of the power given under direct democracy, hence more supported large government under the Constitution, but this meant that they would settle for the ruling (rich) people's version of equality, white equality (this is why William Lloyd Garrison and other abolitionists opposed the Constitution, because it contradicted the spirit of 1776 in which freedom was guaranteed for "all men" who were "created equal"). In addition the switch from unrestricted equality to equality for whites only took place because of the beliefs of federalists, that "expanding the sphere of government, like that of a large Fed. government will lessent the possibility of the majority finding a common motive, therefore controlling factionalism" however, this also limited the voice of the people and established Senate and Congress as buffer between the people and government. Also, the framers of the constitution were rich property owning elites, so naturally they wanted to protect their property, which they thought could run out or become scarce if all had right to ownership, so they did not include property in the Constitution and instead opted for a Republic, like that proposed by Plato and Greece, instead of a Democracy because universal vote endangered property, even though the 1776 and Am. Revolution sentiments included property ownership as very important and the British abuse of such tyranny. Federalists want to limit equality, and create factions because factions divide the people and make them easier to govern. This can be contrasted with the 1776 when people were fighting side by side as Americans in order to liberate themselves from the English Monarchy

So, the break between the 1776 spirit and the Jacksonian spirit is essentially the want for limited equality (equality only for whites) as opposed to full equality(equality for America as a whole) Plato essentially creating the idea of the republic and that equality in the form of a direct democracy (everyone votes) as unsustainable and establishing the prerequisite for property qualifications all the way through locke, and the federalists papers. Fought Rev. to preserve all of their land/property, however federalists and strong central government was the rich Americans form of protecting their property from the rest of the men they had fought side by side.