Why John Adams was the Worst President

John Adams was the 2nd president of the United States of America. John Adams served his term from 1797 to 1801, serving right after George Washington. However, compared to George Washington, John Adams was widely disliked and for good reason. From instances of power abuse to starting an unneeded war, John Adams had proven himself to be one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

Conflicts with France

John Adams despised the ongoing French Revolution during his presidency. He was fearful of the revolution weakening America but that was not the only problem he had with France. John Adams held a personal vendetta against France. It was unthinkable to him that France had overthrown their king and set up a more-egalitarian state than the United States that had also abolished slavery. His fear and own personal bias eventually led to a series of drastic and rash decisions.

John Adams had made his disdain for France apparent by voiding former financial loans, refusing to pay U.S’s leftover debt to France for any longer. With America not paying its debt anymore under John Adams’s orders as well as the Jay’s Treaty, reconciling with the French in the XYZ affair had failed. In conclusion, because of John Adams, America had gone into a needless war with France, their usually close ally, for the first and last time in history.

Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

John Adams was notorious for passing the unpopular Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798. This act made it harder for immigrants to become citizens due to the residency requirement being increased from 5 to 14 years. In addition to this, this act also allowed those considered “dangerous” to be imprisoned or deported from the U.S.

This act was widely disliked as it outlawed any criticism targeted towards the government. John Adams had essentially used his power to place a limit on free speech. In one instance, John Adams had imprisoned someone for calling him “his rotundancy”, a blatant overreach and abuse of his powers. Eventually, the Supreme Court had stepped in to undo this law and rightfully declare it as unconstitutional. Although, this did not make up for the damage that already occurred because of this law. Many people were unfairly imprisoned or deported as a result of John Adams.

Conclusion

John Adams was the worst president in U.S. history as none of the decisions made under him had helped America. In fact, John Adams had made America worse under his administration. In addition to the fact that he had gone to war with France, a close ally of America, he had also infringed the very constitution America was built on.

Sources:

https://americaspresidents.si.edu/research/object-groups/knowing-the-presidents-john-adams#:~:text=Because%20Adams%20believed%20in%20the,he%20avoided%20war%20with%20France.

The worst president was John Adams

Why the Constitution should NOT be Ratified, from an Anti-Federalist

The Constitutional Convention of 1787, as most people in America may not know of since it was done in secret, has scrapped the Articles of Confederation. In place of this, they drafted a constitution, currently being sent out to be ratified by the states. This should be a concern for all American citizens as the new constitution poses a major problem for the United States. The new constitution grants excessive power to the federal government’s hands. To prevent any abuse of power from plaguing the United States of America once again, the constitution should not be ratified.

The ratification of the constitution would put too much power in the national government’s hands. This new power granted to the national government raises many issues. To begin with, the central government could not possibly govern or create laws to represent the entirety of the United States for its size. The United States is becoming increasingly large with the addition of new colonies and the idea that such a small group of people holding so much power could represent the entirety of that population is flawed. Writings from great thinkers share this same philosophy. In Montesquieu’s ‘Spirit of Laws’, chap. xvi. vol I [book VIII], he states, “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.” As referenced by Montesquieu, the group of people at the head of the central government would mostly consist of wealthy landowners who couldn’t possibly understand or represent the experiences of the majority of citizens in America who are working-class. This could easily be abused leading to decisions only being made in the favor of wealthy landowners. Fair and effective representation would be unachievable.

Ratifying the constitution would also mean a massive imbalance between the national government and state government. The national government would hold far more power than it had before, leaving state governments in a vulnerable position and at risk of being completely eliminated. Power would not be divided among states to individually govern and represent their citizens but instead all concentrated into one place. This would lead to a loss of individual and states rights. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 states, “…make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution.” The powers given by this clause can be used to pass almost any law and can be exercised to abolish all state legislature. Granting that much power to the national government could place the nation in a similar spot we were in with Britain, with a supreme government that would greedily dictate all of our choices.

On the contrary, a federalist reading this may take a look and argue that the idea that the federal government would strip power from the states is absurd. Considering that the very senators and members of the House of Representatives make up the federal government, it would be redundant for them to strip power from their states during their term as they would have to return to their states. However, it is naive to assume that the federal government would not act in self-interest. It is human nature for those that have power to try to obtain more. There is nothing stopping senators and representatives under the new constitution from exploiting Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 to enact new laws to prolong their terms and strip power from the states in exchange for more of their own.

In conclusion, the constitution should not be ratified due to the amount of power it grants to the national government that can be abused. The national government would be able to instate laws that only benefitted them and abolish state governments completely with the new clauses such as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 in the new draft of the constitution. To prevent any tyranny similar to that of Britain from occurring ever again, the constitution should not be ratified.

The Effect of Africa’s Involvement in the Triangular Trade

What is the Triangular Trade?

The Triangular Trade, also known as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, was the exchange of slaves in return for goods in between Africa, Europe, and the North Americas. Captured Africans would be shipped through the Middle Passage to be sold into slavery in the Americas. In exchange for the slaves, nations who participated in the trade would get supplied with raw goods. This would continue to operate from the 1500s up until the 1800s.

The Rundown

The Triangular trade was rampant throughout all of Europe, Africa, and North America by the mid-1600s. It is widely believed that Europeans were the sole drive and force of the Triangular trade, forcibly invading Africa to enslave and impede on African culture. Contrary to popular belief, Europeans weren’t the only ones profiting from the trade.

Alamy’s 1888 depiction of a slave caravan in the Congo

Many African tribes and societies were involved in the triangular trade and resorted to enslaving other tribes in order to make money off of them. From 1440 to approx. 1883, merchants and even royalty would take part in enslaving Africans for the Triangular trade in exchange for various goods.

Royal Connections to the Triangular Trade

The kingdom of Dahomey, now known as Benin, was notorious for their involvement in the African slave trade. For over 200 years, Benin was a hub for Portuguese, French, and British merchants involved in the slave trade. The kingdom would capture slaves consisting of men and women, often from rival tribes. In one instance, they managed to capture and profit off of 10,000 slaves. Using these methods, Dahomey would continue to thrive off of the Triangular slave trade until the 18th century.

The Kingdom of Ashanti, now known as Ghana, used to be a small state but had grown into an empire after making Portugal a significant trading partner. By the early 1800s, Ashanti had become a major exporter for slaves in the Triangular Trade. The demand for slaves was increasing so steadily, that the kingdom would purposely war other countries for the purpose of enslaving civilians.

The result of these kingdoms selling their neighbors into slavery was devastating. They contributed to the slavery and racism against their own race in all other parts of the world. Not only that, these kingdoms had also started countless conflicts with other countries and tribes. These consequences would continue to affect Africa, even centuries later.

How This Still Affects Us

Participating in the Triangular Trade had devastating and longterm effects for Africa that affect us even today. Majority of the Africans enslaved by traders were healthy men and women, leaving the sick, elderly, and disabled who couldn’t contribute to the economy. This plunged many countries into poverty that they still haven’t recovered from today.

In addition, constant wars with neighboring countries to enslave each other is still actively affecting countries too. Currently, at least 15 African countries are at war. Since the end of the Cold War, Africa has been identified as the global epicenter of nonstate armed conflicts. Many people believe this is due to the lawlessness and violent atmosphere in Africa, the same atmosphere that had formed when the slave trade was rampant throughout Africa.

The consequences of Africa’s participation in the Triangular Trade were destructive and brutal for many Africans throughout the 16th century to the 21st century. Although the Europeans organizing the slave trade were a big contributing factor to Africa’s current struggles. Africa was the major cause of their own downfall.

The Advantageous Geography of Europe

Have you ever wondered how it was so easy for Europe to colonize the Americas? The Aztecs and Natives seemed to have outnumbered the Europeans in every way. The significant imbalance of power between Europe and the Americas was absurd.

It seems ridiculous until you take into account one significantly large detail. Europe had a massive geographical advantage over the Americas.

Here’s why.

North American and South American societies had no interaction with each other. It’s very likely that the two weren’t even aware of the other’s existence as there is no recorded instance of the two interacting with each other. This prevented the spread of new ideas and goods between the societies. This also eliminated the need for new inventions as there was nothing to compete against.

Map of Afro-Eurasia

Europe, Asia, and Africa were all interconnected through the Middle East. This allowed for trade to thrive between the three countries. Ideas and new inventions spread quickly through trade. Arms races also brewed between the societies which pushed certain inventions like guns, steel, and rapiers.

Under these geographical circumstances, Europe had a major advantage. The military horses that they rode combined with the sharp and delicately crafted swords that they used, made colonizing America incredibly easy. The Americas didn’t have the technology nor the animals to compete with Europe, regardless of the numbers that they possessed.

The Journey Begins

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton