American Concepts of Property and State Development

The develop workforcet of the the Statesn democracy has been hard influenced by different understandings of post oer eon. What the unveiling fathers felt roughly shoes is non how wholly leaders support al focal points thought ab external it, and their opinions regarding snobbish position significantly influenced the choices they restore in developing the ground and its systems. This is reflected in their ahead of time writings. At the radical, spot was considered public for altogether. almost all the same feel this way. Today, however, and for the founding fathers, airscrew became privately featureed.Early n angiotensin-converting enzyme and entirely(a)s show that on that point was provided close to confusion in who could avouch keeping or if, in fact, rough(prenominal)one could ingest piazza at all. Most of the writers in the time of the founding fathers believed in paragon and felt that all of the world was condition to slice, in cosmopolita n, and so accepting some(prenominal) property independently was a elusive idea to grasp. However, they c at one timeded that reality did own approximately(prenominal) things, such as anything he had worked on himself. A earthly concern who nurtureed primer own what he produced, and could, to some degree, similarly own the solid ground that it came from beca utilisation the pop was tied to the production itself.Locke covers this idea in chapter 5 of his writing. Initially, all res publica did move to all work force, who were, in fact, created cope withly. This idea was feature prominently in the resolving power of Independence. entirely hands were created equal, states the Declaration. If, past, the founding fathers were thinking same Locke, owning property would be a touchy concept to grasp. It may non fuddle been easy in America, either, where all of the take was young and free to the colonists. There was so often land for the taking, since Native America ns did non concern the colonists at all. western United States expansion allowed for all work force to go property which they could farm and live on without carrying to officially own it. They owned the property via natural up remunerateness, that if they took negociate of the land and produced from it, that it would become theirs. Locke has this to say about the natural uprights of property Though the irrigate running in the fountain be e genuinely ones, yet who can doubt, nevertheless that in the pitcher is his simply who draw it out? His labour hath pretendn it out of the hands of personality, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself. That is, anything that comes from constitution or is a parting of nature belongs to anyone and e realone, just now when soul reaps from the land, or draws some small bit of it for himself, it belongs only to him. Locke is convinced that property is a widely distribute d concept, whereby e rattlingthing that doesnt belong to someone personally (and and so only because he possesses it) belongs to everyone. However, should someone gather food or assimilate for himself, to which is naturally composeise, he because owns what he has gathered.This leads to the idea that property is allowed when a man work the land. If he works it, and he can use what he produces, then he owns it. In Americas beginnings, nearly all men would hold back had to work land to some tip in nightclub to survive. They would also need land on which to house their families. So, the horizon of property soon grew out of spare need. The small politics expected that men would need to work land to survive. This was oddly true when the immigrants were few and there was no nearby of import disposal to bid for them.At first there were unless flat real civilizations, so very minuscular division of labor could apportion place. A mans life was outlined by working his la nd and financial backing his family that way, and so he would come to own the property he occupied. This definition of property owning would persist well into Americas history in veritable circumstances. For example, during West strugg guide expansion, all a man had to do to own the land was to live on it and work it for several consecutive months, and then he owned it. In humanitarian to this natural law of who could own property, there were certain considerations.A man should non take more than he can sanely use, because it would deny an opposite man land that he could use. Instead, the first man should take only what he needs, so that all men could have a misfortune to have their needs met through the use of property. This was, of course, more of an i fill out than an actual law at this time, precisely considered a incumbent courtesy. It was also a reaction to the one-man rule of the king of England. In the development of the owning of property in the new United States, the founding fathers were reacting very wholesomely to the monocracy of the king.The king, galore(postnominal) writers felt (including doubting Thomas Paine, who saw administration as a necessary malevolent and nonhing better), had taken what was naturally in stock(predicate) and made it his own when he should not have. The king was abusing his function, Paine wrote, and although God had given him some power, He had not given him as much as he had taken. Because this jot about the power was prevalent, the new regimen did not want to take away these natural laws that held that men were equal and were authorize to land they worked. The governing body salutaryly contend intervention and a major important authorities.Paine in particular was so unconnected to beefed-up judicature that he wrote this Monarchy is stratified in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in hold is denounced against them. Monarchy particularly was seen as wrong, because it destroyed the very nature of men as equal in the eyes of God. Of course, Paine, and other writers of the time, were hard concerned with the power of any strong central judicature, because these authoritiess had greed for land and power, and employ one to get the other. genus genus Otis was especially concerned with this connection.Another concern for the founding fathers was the nature and necessity of property in a government. Some seemed to feel that property was a necessary part of the government. That is, in order to really exist, the government had to own and deal with property. But in Otis Rights, the author claims that that isnt true. He writes, therefore government is not founded on property or its security alone, but at lest on something else in conjunction. That is, the government might have a need to deal with property, but owning property does not define a government.He goes on to say that a government need not be found on property, which is likely also a react ion to the British rule. The British owned the land for what became the United States, and therefore they had a right to govern it. This author does not agree with that philosophy. British rule employ the fact that they owned the land in their own state, and the land in this new world to their advantage, semi governmentally. Their empire had expanded, and they saw convulsion to treat the colonies in any way that would grant them more power.Many of the ways they hard-boilight-emitting diode the colonies soldiers constantly occupying their territory, for one were to maintain their potential and keep hold of their territory. Otis and others were very concerned about this misuse of power and property. With the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers were declaring that, in fact, England did not own them, and could no longer do the things that they were unhappy with, including high taxes governance without standard occupation during peace times forcing citizens to nat es soldiers, and more.England did not have rights to their property or anything in this country, and so would have to depart the control they had. In this way, citizens were declaring their own right to have property because of the natural rights that existed, and that God had given them as equal men. The political consequences of this move were obviously big. The Declaration itself brought about the American Revolution, in which the newly form United States fought for these rights against the British.Additionally, not all men within the colonies would have concur, which is why the Declaration itself went through so legion(predicate) versions in the beginning it was utmostized. Having so numerous different definitions of property was tough on the new Americans. Britain told them they did not own their land, while Americans felt that they did, since they lived on it and worked it. This of course led to a huge power struggle and ultimately the war amid England and the colonies. It also led to struggles between colonists who supported the war and those who remained loyal to England.Some in the colonies certainly felt that they were not entitled to own the property that because they had left field England to admirer England expand its empire, they owed what they had to the country. After the war was over, the government was left in pieces in America. The rulers were still determined to have no strong central government, to avoid the tyranny that they had just escaped from. Instead, states and individuals were given power. The focus was on the natural rights of man rather than any major leading body. This gave the American states a large amount of power in and of themselves.As they were developing, boundary lines began to be drawn, which essentially designated certain land as the individual states property. The states then took it upon themselves to create other arbitrary rules that citizens, and other states, would have to follow. They created their own mo ney, and certain tariffs on trade between the states. Effectively, the states became drunk with their own power. It is interesting that in trying to check the power of large, overbearing system that the government created many small systems of power that made life even more difficult for some.There is, however, other major problem with the original idea of property. Locke is absolutely certain that whoever works the land and makes use of what it produces is the owner of the land. He is also certain that whoever does this should be praised for his efforts, because real land cares for many and yields nourishment for citizens. God, he says, int terminate man to use what He had given them. However, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson primarily intended to put in a section that showed he abhorred slavery and it would not be tolerated.All men were not only equal, he wrote, but also independent. In deference to a couple of gray states, namely North Carolina and Georgia, thi s part was outside from the Declaration. It was not the only concession made, but it was an important one. Slaves were not considered to be men who were equal under the law, and they had no rights. However, they worked the land and they produced, so by Lockes argument, they should own the land on which they worked. Of course, they did not.Slaves themselves were owned as property, and could not own property themselves. This meant that their land owners should not own the land because they did not work it themselves, but they came to own two the land and the slaves. This was a point of feud in the original Congress, but as the Declaration could not be finished and signed until the delegates all agreed on something, the issue of slavery (despite its obvious contradictions) was left alone for the time being. Despite its general evils, writers believed that some form of government was necessary.In Otis Rights, the author states I affirm that government is founded on the necessity of our natures and that an original coercive Sovereign absolute, and uncontroulable, earthly power must exist in and preside over every society. This view of government did fly in the face of many others, including Paine, who still believed that the government was a barely necessary evil, and should not have much control over what went on. As Otis points out, though, due to the nature of man, some class of government was necessary. Without a strong, but bazar government, the country would find itself in disconcert again.Of course, within only a few years, the country cognise (despite their initial thoughts on the matter) that a complete lack of a central government was really no better than an overly strong central government. States squabbled amongst themselves over money, property rights, and more. The government had to look in and do something about it. The states were purpose themselves doing what the British government had owning property for the interestingness of ownin g it, rather than using it as a natural right that God had given them, and to be used for the protection and sweetener of all men.In this time, there were a mete out of logical fallacies that would have great political consequences in the future, such as in the late 1700s when the central government realized that it did need to take a firmer fictional character in running the country. Later on, the courteous War would result. Overall, the development of the American state took time, but boundary lines were drawn, and property was divided up for those states. This in itself was an interesting problem, as drawing boundary lines violated what many writers felt at the time.The states did not and could not really own the land by the arguments the writers gave, yet they did own the land. Within those states, men owned individual parts of the land, and that agreed with the natural laws as stated. In general, the American views on property took awhile to develop, and were very much in r eaction to the British stronghold in the beginning. Differences in ideas necessitated the beginning of the Continental Congress, the drafting of the Declaration, and the war itself.However, it also led to the development of the American states, careless(predicate) of any problems that they had initially. Reacting solely to Britains tyranny was not the best way to make decisions about a new government. Rather, the writers necessary to take into consideration what their masses currently needed, the way that Otis did in his writings. The nature of man is such that a government needs to watch over the people so that bad things do not happen to them, even if the government is a potential evil to them.Once the colonists realized this, things ended up fine for them, and the states developed a healthier relationship with one another(prenominal) and with other sources. Politically it was a winning time, no more so than any other in history, but one that shows the growth of a new country out of small, humble beginnings, belonging to another country entirely. Americans pushed for growth, freedom, and independence for all, even if the final version of the Declaration did not explicitly say so.This thirst for what was right, for restoring mans natural rights of property and of equality led the Americans to the political juncture they faced with England, and it led them to freedom as independent states. America would never be the same once the Declaration was written, not with all of the strong rebels that lived in the country. They persevered, and the result is the great country that we all now live in, a country where every person has the right to own property, and every state has some of its own rights.The early days factored intemperately into todays current perception, and it is pricy that it did. America is a country of freedom. Sources Jefferson, Thomas (1776). The Declaration of Independence. Locke, John (1776). Second Treatise on Civil Government. Accessed c elestial latitude 2, 2007. Website http//www. constitution. org/jl/2ndtreat. htm. Otis, James (1776). The Rights of the British Colonists Asserted and Proved. Paine, Thomas (1776). Common Sense. Accessed December 2, 2007. Website http//www. constitution. org/civ/comsense. htm.