A Prehistoric Excerpt of the Confederacy to Modern Day Government

Washitaw Indians
Washitaw Indians
Modern Day Creek Indians
Modern Day Creek Indians
Aboriginal Indians
Aboriginal Indians
Crow King Sioux
Crow King Sioux
Washitaw Indian
Washitaw Indian

The Early History of the Confederacy

Dr. John Henrick Clacke "History is not everything, but it is a starting point. History is a clock that people use to tell their political and cultural time of day. It is a compass they use to find themselves on the map of human geography.It tells them where they are, but more importantly, what they must be."

History of the Confederacy:

The Confederacy began with the natives, the Indian tribes. The Confederacy was organized by five Iroquois-speaking Nations. There are Monhawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. These five Iroquois-speaking nations’ forms what is known today as New York during the late 1500. By the years of 1600, tribes like the Delaware and Shawnee had already moved to West Virginia.

People often mistaken the Iroquois for Cherokee Indians which supported the Americans in their fights against other Indians. The Cherokee Indians originated in Oklahoma while the Iroquois in New York. As for the name Indian it's originated from Christopher Columbus, he called the natives Indian because they resemble other natives he had encountered in the Americas, such as Hispaniola.

However, by 1722 the Tuscaroras Tribe joined the Iroquois Confederacy which became known as the Six Nations. Europe entered West Virginia during the 1600, only to discover that the Natives had already occupied that land. The Confederacy had tried to dominate the Ohio Valley which at the time was a huge market for the fur industry. The Dutch came first then the British, the Confederacy control the Ohio valley while other tribes conducted trade with the British.

There was a battle between the Confederacy and other Tribes over the Ohio Valley. The European Colonist took advantage of that conflict to settle in the Ohio Valley, and by the year of 1607 the English Colonist had already settled in Jamestown, and Virginia. The French and the British explored the territory and when they were enough of them they began to set claims over West Virginia.

The Native Americans were force to move west. The trade that existed between the Indian and the Europeans provided the Indians with new weaponry, such as guns, steel, hatchets and other items which help the Indians grew stronger. The British forms union with the Iroquois Confederacy because they wanted them to leave from trading with the French. The six Nations accepted but secretly negotiated treaties and trade with the French.

The Land that the British took were not necessarily fought over, they negotiated with the Confederacy by way of treaties. The British own by rights the Treaty of Albany (1722), The Treaty of Lancaster (1744), and they negotiated with the Delaware and Shawnee Indians, the Treaty of Logstown (1752). However, they was a little confusion, while the Virginia negotiators comply with the six Nations to surrender their land to the “setting sun” the Confederacy interpreted this message as being the “crest of the Alleghenies” which the British accept as all of western Virginia. Nonetheless, there's one important concept of land ownership the Indians practiced. As John Alexander Williams describes in his book A History for Beginners:

“The Indians had no concept of "private property," as applied to the land. Only among the Delaware was it customary for families, during certain times of the year, to be assigned specific hunting territories. Apparently this was an unusual practice, not found among other Indians. Certainly, the idea of an individual having exclusive use of a particular piece of land was completely strange to Native Americans.”

It is said that the Indians practiced “communal land ownership” where the entire community own the land they live on without any restriction, except may be hunting rights.

The American Revolutionaries & the Power of Congress under the Confederacy:

The American revolutionaries were against paying taxes to the British House of Commons. They believe that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes to any House or Assembly if they representatives weren’t part of the assembly.

The Treaty of Paris (1783) established the recognition of the 13 colonies as free and sovereign states. The Mississippi River became the Country’s new Western Border, and then came the Land Ordinance of 1785 which divided western land into different region, offering a way for new territories to join the United States. The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided a way for congress to collect taxes on the lands that were sold. The small farmers couldn’t afford that many acres, the Ohio & Scioto Company purchased most of the lands.

The Northwest Ordinance:

The next Ordinance was in 1787. The Northwest Ordinance which ranges from the Appalachian Mountains & the Mississippi River promised a Republican form of government. This Ordinance was so important that it later became part of the United States Constitution, article four sections four. A new form of government had been established in this territory. Slavery had not yer been abolished.

This ordinance was split into 3 to 5 states. Congress appointed these states with a governor, secretary & three Judges. These Judges were not state Judge, they were appointed by the National Government under the Articles of Confederation. Although they purpose was to serve the states they were appointed to, by principle these judges should have been considered federal court judges since they were not appointed by the states.

The reason for the appointment was because these states weren’t as populated as other states. Congress announced that when these states reached a population of 5,000 adult men they would have gained the advantage to choose their own assembly, and send a nonvoting delegate to Congress. The migration to the west would derived from the Land Ordinances of 1785 – 1787.

“It is considered a tragedy that the anti-slavery provision was not extended to later territories. If so, the only slave states would have been the original 6: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. In the other 7 original states, provisions were made for the abolition of slavery, either immediately or over time. Provisions for Admission to Statehood for New Territories were, aside from winning the war, the greatest achievement of the Confederation. Gradually all western lands were ceded to government and quickly became states. The Indian inhabitants were unfortunately forced to move farther westward.” Nevertheless, in 1774 the Continental Congress approved of a resolution that would prohibit slave importations as a way to discourage American participation in the slave trade business.

The Shay’s Rebellions of 1787:

The Shay's Rebellion came about when a group of Massachusetts farmers who had protested the rising taxes of Land imposed by the Federal Government? These farmers ended up attacking a Federal Court House which then prompted congress that they would need a stronger Federal Government if they wish to secure Federal Laws. It was these instances which essentially established the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation had no chief executive to enforce the laws that were set by congress. The Constitution provided Congress with a president as the head of the executive branch. The Confederation provided no national courts, state courts had Jurisdiction. The constitution made available states and national courts. The Confederation did not allow congress to tax; the constitution gave congress the power to tax. Under the Confederation each state coined their own currency, with the Constitution exist a national currency where only the Federal Government can coin money.

The Great Compromise of Connecticut:

This compromise was called to recognize a system of state representatives base on the house population & equal representation in the Senate. Unfortunately, not all state representatives agreed with the proposition. The largest states contributed more to militarily & economic. And because of this the largest states wanted more representation in congress than the smaller states. The smaller states argued that all states should have equal representation in congress.

Now comes the issue of 3/5 Compromise. A condition were three out of five blacks were accepted in Congress as a compromise between Northern & Southern States. A compromise which the Northern States did not wish to accept for the fear that the Southern States would become too powerful in congress. The Southern States Agricultural businesses depended on slavery for economic opportunities and advantages, while the northern states depended most on the manufacturing industry. In that respect, the Northern States were less dependent on slavery.

Finally they arrived at an agreement, for every five slaves owned by the Southern States three would be counted as proportional representation in the house. This compromise was not about blacks being considered less than a person, but more so a matter of distribution of political power. If it was up the Southern States all slaves would have been counted because these States would have had the advantage of gaining more representatives in the house of congress.

Benjamin Franklin agreed for the senate each state ought to have equal representation to vote in all matters, except in cases where money is the issue in focus. On 6 of July the Convention adopted the Great Compromise by a very small margin. Any change in heart could have resulted in a complete revocation of the new constitution. Luckily, this did not happen, the margin of error was only one vote.

Commerce Disputes:

When it came to commerce they had to have been some compromise. The Southern states did not agree for taxation on tobacco. They also did not want congress to interfere with the slave trade. Since they depended on it so much for agriculture, the Southern States sought to protect it. The Northern States wanted the constitution documented with a signature. The compromise was such that congress would not tax exports in all the States or interferes with slavery issues.

They had been many attempts to end slavery since early 1787. The historiography is as fallows: "The Northwest Ordinance prohibits slavery north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi. And 1792 Congress refuses to accept an antislavery petition from Quaker Warner Mifflin. In 1792 Congress rejects a proposal to prohibit slavery from Mississippi Territory. 1794 Congress prohibits Americans from engaging in the slave trade to foreign countries. 1798 Georgia prohibits further imports of slaves from outside the United States. 1799 New York adopts a gradual emancipation law. 1803 South Carolina reopens the African slave trade. 1804 Congress restricts slaves coming into Louisiana Territory to the property of actual settlers, but rejects a motion to limit slavery to one year. 1807 The British Parliament and the U.S. Congress vote to end the African slave trade." The implication for these attempts is better understood when considering the fear of being outnumbered by African Americans & African Slaves. No sensible government would allow more foreigners on an occupied land if they couldn't control them, especially if the foreigners are being mistreated. That in essence is the basis for immigration policies.

Before the 1900s, exactly 124 years after the Article of Confederation, many Europeans immigrated in the United States, among the first arrivals, Britons, Irishmen, Germans and Jewish. They were so much European Immigrants entering the United States that the Government started introducing quotas in 1929 to allow a maximum of 150,000 immigrants per year. The Europeans stayed in the Northern part of the country to avoid competing against the Southern States which were predominantly slaves States. The slave trade had ended almost a century ago, but those who had slaves kept them, the European who entered U.S in the 1900 did not own slave unless purchased from a previous owner.

According to historical development of the U.S government, I would vote on the most important compromise as being the same as suggested by Benjamin Franklin, except with the exclusion of monitory matters. I believe that equal representation means equal representation, therefore any exception would not have validate the notion of equality.

Proportional v. Equal Representation:

Nevertheless, if Roger Sherman dual system of congressional representation was not introduced, I would have had to end that the system of proportional representation was a good solution. I would not have wanted to allocate equal representation to States like Alaska with 710, 231 people, Wyoming 563, 626 people, Vermont 625, 741 people, South Dakota 814, 180 people, North Dakota 672, 591 people, Montana 989, 415 people, DC 601, 723 people. These states would send one representative to senate. And when that state reached one million people they would have been allowed two senate members.

I think they exist an imbalance when come to decision-making process in congress. States with less than a million people have two representatives in the senate. I believe for the amount of power that small states exhibit in congress, the population count does not coincide with other States that are far more numerous with a lot more responsibility. Come to think of it, even the million men marches organized by the Muslims have proved to have had more participants than the State of Alaska.

It is my belief that States under a million people have less experience dealing with the diversity of the American public. Governors, Senators & Mayors of larger States are likely to know about the many cultures found within the American public. Consider Texas with a population of 25 million people, would it be reasonable to assume that the senators of Texas to have had experience on immigration issues. It is likely for the Governor of Arizona to have more experience on immigration issues than the Governor of Alaska. My point exactly is that State representatives of larger population have gained more experience on the complexity of the issues facing the nation. I think this is a reasonable conclusion to draw. But there are instances when State representatives may have a better understanding about the issues because of educational reasons, and not experience.

Compare & Contrast:

In earlier days, when the nation was being formed, Congress announced that when the under populated states reached a population of 5,000 adult men, the representatives would choose their own assembly, and send a nonvoting delegate to Congress. Thus, what I'm saying here is that had Roger Sherman not come with a middle ground, the best supposition would have been interpreted as: when smaller states reached a set population that merit two senators, congress will permit equal representatives in the senate, while the house would have remained the same.

It is obvious that If Congress were to consider the two senates rule in relation to population growth, they would have had to consider a formula for it. This rule could have been used to decide the states that would become under populated within 10 years time. Every decade the Census Bureau could have determined which state is under populated depending on how much the U.S population has grown.

e.g Vermont with a population of 625, 741 residence could become more populated than New Hampshire within 10 years time. In that sense, New Hampshire would have become under populated. We would have had to know the average by which each state has grown in population within ten years in order for us to know which state is under populated. And it is from there we would know which state would end up with one senator or which state would end up with two.

Hypothetically speaking this change in the constitution would have enhanced performance, decision-making process in Congress. It would have also caused the under populated states to become more innovative, Artistic and demographically attractive to investors. It may even cause under populated states to improve on their education system as well as infrastructure if they so wish to increase on population for the advantage of having two senators in the house of representatives. The more important question however, is what reason do state representatives have at this moment to make their cities & states more attractive to local and foreign investors?

Although it's very unlikely to change the constitution, the emphasis is to encourage under populated state governors, mayors and senators to improve their districts to stay competitive in the world market. This provision would have help create some sort of balance across states in terms of population. We may want to ask ourselves why is it that some states seem more attractive than others. Is it sorely a matter of region or are all states capable of attracting investors?

States like California, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada are all between 2 - 4 time the state of New York. Meanwhile, only two states more populated than New York. Among which are Texas and California. With a population of 37 million people, California is not even near being over populated. Nevertheless, the urban area is over populated. It would take longer to develop new cities than for people to migrate into other existing cities.

Although region do play a major factor when come to migration, I'm not sure it's admissible to close that location in particular is the problem. Location may play a small part in it, depending on the person, but location for the most part is attractive because of people, transportation, businesses, and investors. In most region, a decline in population is the cause of poor transportation, jobs & infrastructure.

Wherever the availability of jobs increase population will follow. To cut on the overall population in the urban areas, good jobs would have had to be available in the Rural Areas. If it would take an employee 60 - 120 minutes to travel 579 miles between Utah & California at 300 mph, this employee would not mind working in Utah while living in California. If the traveling fee per round trip was only $7.00, with a pay scale of $21.00 hr it might have been worth it.

Considering traveling time due to high-speed rail, the advantage is technology. We could have end up reducing on many issues in term of unemployment rates as well as over populated cities. But also recognize that jobs are not the only reason why people migrates into other cities, culture for the most part has a lot to do with it. Oklahoma for instant has the lowest percentage of unemployment rate. There's no reason an employee who lives in Arizona, Illinois or Texas shouldn't have access to a jobs in Oklahoma. The only opportunity that's stopping this market expansion in human capital is the lack of High Speed Rail. A technology which could eventually link any skill worker to a good paying job.

The War of 1812 - The History of the American Indians

Native American Clashes with European Settlers

U.S States and Territories by population

Yale University Press Chapter 7

The Northwest Ordinance

More by this Author


No comments yet.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article