Looking back into history and into Mandell’s reading on Wealth, Power, and the Early Republic were able to see early on how certain New England states such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts set to disagree with “Republicans” ideas of what is property and how property should be acquired. The idea of “Equality of an estate and property” did not truly exist, property was vested to only a certain few individuals to only promote industry, population, frugality, and morality (Mandell 81).
Many articles began coming out discussing the “fraud and injustice” in America’s part and how deeply flawed our country was. America had not yet departed from the rule of the right and had people paying taxes on the debt even knowing that they would be unable to afford it. Thus, leading to them being fraudulently being deprived from their possessions. The people in the northern states felt that they were mourning the “simplicity of manners” and had been “lost to luxury and its attending evils” (Mandell 83). The themes presented in history, with the conflicting views on heavy taxation, egalitarianism, distribution of wealth, and property as to what and who will also be considered property in the early rises of the emancipation.
Throughout this time Americans also became more sensitive to slavery causing a socioeconomic divide between the northern states and southern states. People like James Winthrop urged the people to go against the proposal given by the federal Constitution that would then make the northern states equally as the south with an unequal distribution of property. Accepting this will display a toleration of slavery and the ignorance of poverty of the lower classes, it was also explained northern taxation was traditionally democratic and generally more experienced and commented whereas those southern taxation suffered because the regions cultural “mastership” and made assessments seem to benefit dominating plantation owners.
With independent Americans causing commotion and disagreements over wealth and property. Throughout American history time and time again property rights and the distribution of those rights have always been a problem and the American people and government can never seem to come to a resolution. Mandell’s reading just proves that history always repeats itself or that it can just be that it’s never truly resolve.
Contrary to what you express in paragraph one, Mandell is arguing something quite different: that in fact ideas about economic equality not only existed, but there was a widespread consensus (agreement) about the desirability of a “rough” economic equality under a republican system of government (I’m unclear how you’re using that word). He argues that wealth was most evenly distributed in New England, were slavery was less significant; but even Virginians like St. George Tucker and Thomas Jefferson agreed that a rough equality of wealth and property was a good thing and that government should try to realize this goal.
For future posts, try to work on sentence structure and clarity. This one contains both run-on sentences (the last sentence in para 3) and incomplete sentences (the first sentence in para 4).