With the Continental Army's victory at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, the American Revolution ends with a British withdrawal. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 grants the new nation a significant claim to territories in the Americas. Governing this large nation is a real challenge with not many models to follow.
The First Nations' empire of the Iroquois will be the first model that the new nation looks to and that Confederation style of government is attempted by the United States.
The key issue is of course is not replacing British Rule with something that is just as oppressive.
Answer this question in the comments and is our practice, reply to two others:
What is the easiest way to guarantee that a new national government can never become oppressive? What choices can be made in its design? (Name One and defend your point)
(i feel like this one is kind of obvious but i think its necessary) Maybe talk to the people who already lived there and try to come to some sort of agreement. this helps to not be oppressive to the people who already live there. But as we have seen throughout history, this has been attempted but failed miserably.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it would be important to sort out compromises with the people who are already living there so that the new government doesn't come in and change everything.
DeleteYeah I agree, let people decide what happens in government, but this is sort of what America has done with our democracy.
DeleteI agree as well, this is key so that the needs of the society are met. The people who lived there before will know the best what needs to be changed so that it is better.
DeleteI agree with this. If they did not do communicate with the people already there (and they didn't really) it would make the government more like the English government, in that they made a group of people have little to no say about what happens.
DeleteI agree as well, communication with all types of people will be more successful in having a non-oppressive government. Not only communication but actually listening to that communication otherwise nothing would come of it.
DeleteThe easiest way to ensure that a government is not oppressive is for it to be checked by the people. This is commonly in the form of a democracy. While there are issues with every system, including this one, it certainly helps avoid oppression of the people by the government. After all, why would regular people vote for representatives who would oppress them?
ReplyDeleteI agree with this as well, a democracy is an easy way to ensure that a government isn't oppressive because more than one person is making the overall decisions.
DeleteI agree with this. The people who will live with the government should be able to check and control their power.
DeleteI agree having this kind of government prevents someone or a gruop from having complete control.
DeleteI agree with this. If the people are given enough a voice, there should theoretically be no reason that an oppressive government would be in place.
DeleteI agree. The powerful people have to be held accountable and the system must make sure that you can't just get away with anything.
Deletegood job jonny
DeleteI agree, this ensures that the government doesn't go completely out of control
DeleteI think that a democracy is the easiest way to guarantee that a government will never become oppressive. With a democracy, you have different people with different backgrounds sharing theirs opinions so one person isn't making the decisions.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and I think that the founders did as well. As long as the people have a say in government, their needs will be met.
DeleteI agree, I think democracy is the best way to reach balance within the government, because it literally gives power to everyone, even if it is a small amount.
DeleteSakari
DeleteWhile I do believe democracy is a somewhat good way to give power to the people (a very limited amount of power albeit), it isn't the best way. Democracy, as it is currently formed, isn't really helping anything, or else there would be no oppression at all, anywhere, right? Direct democracy could do it better, sure, but problems would still arise, especially when majority vote causes the downfall of some people (and nature and animals)
I agree, and I think that this is exactly why we have democracy in the US
DeleteI think that one way a nation can try to sop itself from becoming oppressive, is by making rules for their leaders that they have to follow no matter what. This can stop leaders from making decisions that only benefit themselves, or are decisions that oppress the people.
ReplyDeleteI think this is true, and it adds to the idea that no leader should have complete control. If there are restriction placed upon a powerful person by someone else, that means there is a balanced system where no one has overwhelming power.
DeleteI agree and think this is very key to make sure that government can not oppress the people.
DeleteI agree. This is similar to the point that no one is above the law.
DeleteYes, this is why the government is formed with checks and balances, so that no one has too much power.
DeleteI agree with this, im assuming you're referring to something like check and balances?
DeleteI think any system with checks and balances is necessary to guarantee a government never becomes oppressive. Additionally the checks and balances must adequately represent everyone is the society. The reason this is important is because it balances the power so that no one person or group can ever use their power to oppress another group.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree; I think a system of checks and balances can not only assure that all groups are never oppressed, but also represent the people.
DeleteI agree with what you said. Checks and balances is a definite way of stopping oppression, and although it doesn't always represent the society well, it may do a very good job of doing so.
DeleteSakari
DeleteI also think that a checks and balance system is one of the best ways to control government.
Checks and balances are the best way to manage the government, especially when one of those checks is the will of the people.
DeleteI think a really great way to make sure a government does not become oppressive is by having checks and balances so that one group of people with certain ideas never get too much power. This way, no one group can oppress another. When there are numerous people and therefore opinions, it is almost certain that not one group will be singled out and/or oppressed.
ReplyDeleteI agree because it will ensure that one person won't have all the power over a nation, and instead will run together as a group.
DeleteI agree, this makes sure that the government doesn't do whatever they want and in some sort of way people get represented.
DeleteI believe that having checks and balances for all parts of government is key to being less oppressive. This can assure that one person does not have ultimate power and can not take over for the entire population. This way, government can be more representative for a wider array of the population.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. I think is is all about spreading power out rather than having it all fixated in one group or person.
DeleteI also agree because if they spread the power to the people then one group or person can abuse the power.
DeleteI totally agree, and I think that the lack of this was a big part of England's problem.
DeleteI agree because the checks and balances allow the people who have the power to see a set boundary, and if they cross that boundary they'll get removed
DeleteI think that having the system of checks and balances is a great way to prevent a government from being oppressive. This system assures that not only one person or group of people have majority of the power. In turn, it also terminates the possibility of one part of government overtaking another. Checks and balances provide a variety of opinions as well as security.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Checks and balances can prevent oppression from happening in many forms. However, as ways of oppressing people change over time, that is more of a temporary solution than a long term one.
DeleteEthan Lader
DeleteSakari
ReplyDeleteThis may seem like a cheap shot, but the easiest way to ensure oppression doesn't exist in government is to abolish government altogether. Something can't oppress you if it's not there, right?
But a serious answer: put the power in the hands of the people. I'm not talking about democracy, where you can vote for people in office or vote on laws being made, but people create laws that work for them, and run government in the best way possible for everyone. Of course, you can't just do this, a whole bunch of other stuff in society would have to change (like the way we view work, money, and society as a whole, etc. etc.), but it is a good place to continue off of. (Don't start with that, duh!)
Sakari
Deleteunrelated but I just know the Hamilton theatre kids are foaming at the mouth right now (but I can't blame them- it's a bop for sure)
I agree, if we don't have a government we can't have oppression, hah.
DeleteIn seriousness however, democracy is a great system to work with when ensuring that a government system will not be corrupt, because people are able to vote for the leaders that they want to, and the people in positions of power are chosen by its citizens fairly (mostly.) It's a good start, and is way better than the monarchy system that they had put in place back then in terms of trying to prevent a government from becoming corrupt.
This is interesting, but I'm not sure it works. If "people create laws that work for them," what happens when people disagree? Are there representatives, or can anyone just do anything? In that case, what rules are there to protect each other? If anyone can make rules with no system to manage/enforce those rules, are the rules actually there? I definitely agree that everyone should have a voice, but there needs to be a system for those voices to be heard in. It's the same with abolishing all government. It sounds great in theory, but when all's said and done, who's managing traffic laws, or paving roads? I might just be confused, but I'm not sure how what you're suggesting would function.
DeleteTo prevent a government form being oppressive is to have the citizens in the area all have some power in the government, because if they have power there is no reason they would make it oppressive, it would be them oppressing themselves. This also goes hand in hand with checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Having representation is critical to having a government thats “for the people.” If not for that many more conflicts would exist.
DeleteEthan Lader.
I think one of the best ways to prevent an oppressive government is balancing power. The system of checks and balance is very important, and it is important to have power checked by both other branches of government and citizens.
ReplyDeleteI think this makes complete sense. Having one group or leader with all the power leaves the people of the nation defenseless from oppression, by instilling checks and balances like you said this can be avoided.
DeleteYes, check and balances are most important. This way, if an oppressive faction controls one branch, it can be eliminated by the other two.
DeleteProbably the best way to prevent an oppressive government is to have representation of the entire population. If an oppressed group has some level of influence, that should be able to have some level of positive impact at preventing future oppression.
ReplyDeleteEthan Lader
I agree. You have to make sure everyone had a voice because in turn that allows the nation to be equal for all people.
DeleteI think the easiest way for a government to ensure it does not become oppressive is to have multiple different sections of government. If there is only one main branch of government it has all the power, in turn making it very easy for them to oppressive the people. By having multiple different sectors that all regulate each other you are able to spread out power.
ReplyDeleteI agree. When power is spread out, it becomes much harder for oppressive groups to gain it.
DeleteAgreed. If the power lays on multiple areas then it's really hard for one party to take all of it
DeleteI agree. I think in this case balance is key. If the scales are weighted too heavily in one direction then the whole system fails, but if a balance of power can be maintained then a dictatorship or a monarchy can be prevented.
DeleteThe best way to ensure there isn't an oppressive government in place is to establish a mutual respect between the government and the governed. If the residents of the nation have a certain level of say in what goes on within the government, any actions that are taken would need to be agreed on by both parties. As a result, a voice will be given to the people and it won't be oppressive or overbearing. Also the system of checks and balances is essential to prevent oppression because if any part of government oversteps their boundaries, the other part will quickly check them and balance their power. It won't give power to one person, and instead will be run collectively.
ReplyDeleteBalance out the different branches of government. This way, a republic cannot collapse until all three (the judicial, legislative, and executive) branches are overtaken. This would require decades of public support and would simply be too impractical to accomplish. It would safely protect the democratic principles of a nation.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, if there are multiple sections of the government that can each handle a different thing, then the power is not consolidated into one being or person like England had with King George, so it leads to a lesser chance of corruption. Having the three branches of government spread out will definitely ensure that there is not an oppressive and corrupt government.
DeleteIn my opinion, the easiest way to guarantee that a new national government can never become oppressive is by enacting a system of government that does not have all of the power resting solely on one person, like a monarchy would. In addition, power should be broken up into pieces, with many people each holding a piece, so it does not turn out to be like an oligarchy. The choices that can be made in this design is making multiple "sections" of government that each handle a different power, which is what the United States did, with each "branch" of government keeping each other in check.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Making sure power isn't held by one group alone is always a good idea.
DeleteThere's no actual way to ensure a government doesn't become oppressive, but it helps to make sure everyone, no matter their race/gender/economic status/etc is represented. This way, the government is full of people with different world views and ideas, and isn't solely controlled by the rich and disconnected.
ReplyDeleteI really like this idea that equal representation would create a diverse and balanced government. I really wish we could see such a government play out.
DeleteThe only viable way to make sure that the government doesn't oppress people is to make sure that the people can remove the government if they feel that it's being too oppressive.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest way to ensure that the government doesn't become oppressive is to provide a way for the people to change their leadership and possibly the system itself as well. It's easy to see this solution as being as simple as giving power to the people and creating something similar to a democracy, but I think even more important and crucial is to simply have a way where the people can have a clear path embedded in the constitution which will allow them to either 1, change leadership, or 2, change or amend the law/constitution. This way whatever is oppressing the people can always be remedied.
ReplyDeleteExactly, democracy without supports or other systems for regime change is hardly free.
DeleteThe best way to ensure a government doesn't become too oppressive is having a system of checks and balances for all parts of government. This ensures that political power is not concentrated in the hands of individuals or groups. This also helps represent the general population better.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to make sure that a government doesn't become oppressive over its people is to have a fair democracy, but to not have it available to only one specific race, it should as well include the opinions and input of the underprivileged communities that still identify as Americans in one democracy,
ReplyDeleteI believe that one way to make sure that a government doesn't become too oppressive is to make sure that no one class of people has too much power, maybe creating multiple systems, each that have equal power, and each run by different people.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are some interesting real world parallels to that idea, like in countries where there has been more extensive ethnic conflict they often, besides a purely democratic system which would favor whichever group is biggest in the population, have measures in place to make sure each ethnic group is represented. I wonder who would be the decider as to what groups are represented, as a simple majority vote would bring up the issue of the majority ethnic/class groups gerrymandering things for their gain.
DeleteThe easiest way to guarantee that a new national government can never become oppressive is to establish a democracy with checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of the government gains too much power and can oppress the citizen without the other two stabilizing.
ReplyDeleteA lot of others have said some variation on democracy or checks and balances, and this is also basically my position, but it is also important to have other ways for citizens to exercise power over their governments. Let the people have the same tools, perhaps even more, that the revolutionaries had to topple an oppressive regime, such as free speech to distribute inflammatory pamphlets of their own or even ownership of weapons, though this could have some unpleasant long term consequences. Just having democracy or checks and balances without the free press to spot oppression, free speech to spread this information, and freedom of assembly to act on it, is no way to assure freedom from oppression.
ReplyDelete