1. According to Thomas Pownall, the fact of escaping from the rule of the British monarch did not entail the actual release from the British reign. Actual functioning of the colonies was possible owing to the financing and legislative regulatory activities of the latter. Parliament was not entitled to enforce any commerce or trade regulations, as well as taxes were exacted for the benefit of the Crown. It is obvious that Thomas Pownall's notion of a sovereign state is founded on the existence of a unified supreme power, judicial system and ruler.
In that line, the most appropriate solution in conformity with Powell's views was to endeavor the affect such relations with the British Empire, which could secure the lasting benefits for the colony. To that end, it would be necessary to device an arrangement providing the subsequent sharing of authority between the local principles and the authorized bodies sent from Great Britain.
Although, the actual state of affairs was far from the one, which could have granted reciprocal communication between the colony and the metropolis. There was a kind of inability or the lack of considerable trigger to assure the colonists’ fighting for their rights. To express this sentiment, Pownall wrote a letter to Westminster, where he explained that the sole way for the Americans to grant liberty the access to the work of Briton’s Parliament must be offered, or the ability to develop their own legislative authority must be allowed (Kerry and Holland, 49).
The following arguments may serve as objective justification of Pownell’s claims. Firstly, after Stuarts restoration in 1660 there was a dramatic increase of the control from English bureaucrats in order to gain profits from colonies’ economic growth. When the monarchy was restored after the period of commonwealth, both intellectual and financial basis of the most powerful trading and cultural venues was formed by Englishmen, who were remunerated by the King for their faithful support. Thus, the tradition of proprietorship influenced the existence of governments fully controlled by the owners, and to that extend, functioning as the means of realizing British policies and interests.
Secondly, the well-developed political and judicial system were incorporated from England primarily. The King appointed governors as well as councils in the majority of colonies. Functioning of the Board of Trade and Plantations contributed to furthering decentralization of American communities by means of tighter control and supervision from England.
Later when the colonies became more self-sufficient, the reliance on English trade demands scarcely diminished though. It was obvious that influence of international trade and markets could easily undermine economic prosperity of colonies.
Moreover, the fact that movement for independence was fueled by the increased taxation and strict policies can be also interpreted as the lack of inherent craving for self-rule and desire to organize their life remotely. They wanted Britain merely to revise their methods of government but not to eliminate it completely. Many residents of colonies long since remained loyal to the Crown (Kerry and Holland, 49).
The given obstacles were overcome by the following means. Spread of the theory of representation, including Lock`s philosophy and the spread of anti-colonial movement proclaiming the necessity to oppose the oppressive reign formed ideological basis for these changes.
Furthermore, the introduction of the Stamp act affected wide masses and for the first time, there was a common incentive for the huge number of residents of all classes for outbreak of discontent with the metropolises’ policy by creating various intercolonial associations, owing to which they succeeded to gain the repeal of the Act.
Inspired by their active participation in the Seven Year`s war, Americans for the first time had fully realized their capacity to influence the state of affairs. Concequently, more individuals, in particular statesmen and principals understood that they are able to communicate their political position, which advocated first and forehands the local interests and activities .Not only politicians but also those involved in commerce became interested in diverging the path of colonies from Britain. As the fact that they could do better off without British supremacy as well as they could act as separate actors on the international arena.
2. The last usage of “United States” in plural number can be traced to 1887. At least that is what newspapers and other data that deals with the crucial role of American Civil War repute. However, speaking matter-of-factly, the plural usage of the USA was an acceptable thing even in 1950- 1960s. Nevertheless, it does not matter much if we consider not the linguistic peculiarities but the paramount importance of the very event of the American Civil War that played a major role in reconciliation of the nation and forming the unified community of the citizens of the USA. This, I dare say, achievement was made possible owing to the American Civil War.
What Civil War issue/issues or incident/incidents transformed the United States from an “are” to an “is” by the war’s end in 1865, and why?
On the one hand, Americans increasingly believed in direct representation, and that they could only be represented by men, who lived nearby and whom they elected. They meant by the lower houses the representation of electorate regions. Americans were used to a government, which was far away on the other side of the ocean. Colonists believed in the dictum that it as a virtue of government to be remote from the community and exercised the minimum intervention in their domestic concerns (Norton, 79).
On the other hand, colonies used to be historically separated in all respects: economical, ethnic background, political structures and different demands from the unified policies of the state. Revolutionary War made it possible for these different states to be unified into one single nation. There is hardly any moment doubt, that on the first stages of cooperation there had to be disparities, and it took time to replace loyalist with the people deeply concerned with national’s ideals and interests (Norton, 106).
The analyses of the process of integration presents some convincing arguments proving that firstly the USA was the compilation of different states. For instance, there was a constant threat of possible usurpation of power like the one in colonial time, which was clearly indicated in numerous instruments. Separate codification was proceeded among several states among which were Vermont (1777) and Massachusetts (1780). The role of the people’s will to be the supreme sovereign compared to the times of Britain’s reign was often emphasized as a justification so as to preclude the State’s government from usurpation of power. Those, who drafted constitutions, made their absolute best to prevent the government of states of turning into tyrannies. Actually, the creation of such kind of weak constitutions caused the further need of revision (Norton, 204).
Another reason is that the states comprising the US were fundamentally different. Just to take North and South, which after the 1812 developed as two very diverse and sometimes even contradictory policies. Here the idea is not only in the economic separation, which stems from the fact that the North chose a path of a market economy, whereas the South primarily relied on its expansive slave system. There was ever-growing conflict between the federal government and individual states over the supremacy in political power. The highest peak was reached in the Civil War era, where the limits of the Federation’s intervening within the matters of concern which according to the Southern states were exclusively within their domestic jurisdiction. Presumably, the very fact that contemporary organization of government, public organs and judicial and legal systems differs, is an unbeatable historical argument supporting the claim that the US states tended to be autonomous for long time since.
Work Cited
Norton, Mary Beth. A People And A Nation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001. Print.
Kerry, Paul E, and Matthew Scott Holland. Benjamin Franklin's Intellectual World. Madison [N.J.]: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2012. Print.
