An Indentured Servant Writes Home (1623)
By 1618 the struggling Jamestown colony of the London Company had discovered a cash crop.
Tobacco grew well in Virginia and found a ready market back home. To encourage the
production of tobacco the Company offered a liberal headright system to new settlers. Persons
who relocated to Virginia received 50 acres of land for each "head" transported, and this
included their indentured servants as well as themselves. In return for free passage to Virginia,
indentured servants contracted to serve their master for seven years. Only at the end of the seven
years were they free to pursue their own fortunes in the New World. Even in the 1620s
conditions were harsh and dangerous in Virginia, and the death rate from disease and
malnutrition was very high In 1623 indentured servant Richard Frethorne wrote his mother and
father complaining of the bitter hardships he was enduring in Jamestown. Frethorne's woeful
letter survives in the records of the London Company, but nothing more is known of the young
man or of what ultimately happened to him. The chances are high that be too perished in 1623.
As you read this excerpt, consider what Richard Frethorne was trying to accomplish with his
letter home.
Loving and kind father and mother my most humble duty remembered to you hoping to God for
your good health. This is to let you understand that I your Child am in a most heavy case by
reason of the nature of the country. It Causeth much sickness, such as the scurvy and the bloody
flux, and diverse other diseases, which maketh the body poor, and weak. And when we are sick
there is nothing to comfort us; for since I came out of the ship, I have nothing to eat but peas. As
for deer or venison I never saw any since I came into this land. There is indeed some game fowl,
but we are not allowed to hunt. Instead we must work hard both early, and late for a mess of
gruel, and a mouthful of bread, and beef. People cry out day, and night.
I have nothing to comfort me, nor there is anything to be gotten here but sickness, and death. I
have nothing at all, no not a shirt to my back and but one pair of shoes and one cap. My Cloak
was stolen by one of my own fellows, and to his dying hour would not tell me what he did with it.
Some of my fellows saw him have butter and beef, which my cloak, I fear, paid for. But I am not
half a quarter so strong as I was in England, and all is for want of victuals, for I do say unto you,
that I have eaten more in a single day at home than I have here in a week.
Good father do not forget me, but have mercy and pity my miserable case. I know if you did but
see me you would weep. For God's sake pity me, I pray you to remember my love to all my
friends, and kindred. I hope all my Brothers and Sisters are in good health. The answer to this
letter will mean life or death to me, therefore good father send as soon as you can.
1.
2.
3.
What seems to have been the main purpose of Frethorne's letter home?
Of the many hardships of life in Virginia, what do you think bothered him the most?
What does Richard Frethorne's account suggest about the methods by which indentured
servants were recruited to go to Virginia?
Compare and Contrast the letter above to the modern immigrant letters. Answer the following
questions:
Immigrant Experience
1. What were some of the everyday concerns of Konstanty and Antoni
2. Identify the changes in the relationship between Konstanty and his parents
3. What does the correspondence reveal?
Towards Independence: Years of Decision 1763-1776
Summary:
Rights of the Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764)
1. Otis Argued that Parliament’s Legislative Power was “supreme” and “uncontroulable” and therefore that
the colonists were obligated to patiently submit regardless of how burdensome it proved to be; however,
he also claimed that Parliament could not tax the colonists without their consent. How do you explain this
apparent contradiction?
a. Overview: The French and Indian War in North America and the Seven Years War in Europe increased
the British National Debt by 75%. To pay off this debt, the British decide to heavily tax their North
American colonies, suddenly. A series of acts are imposed on everyday commodities utilized by the
colonies ranging from sugar to paper. The Molasses Act of 1733 was outdated. American merchants
simply created their own molasses brands in order to escape this tax. Parliament became wise to the
actions of the merchants. With the Sugar Act of 1764, the British clamped down on the basic material
needed in the production of molasses: sugar. The colonists, concerned firstly with the economic
impacts of such a tax, began to voice political objections based on the constitutionality of such an
act. James Otis, Jr., a Harvard lawyer, voiced questions against this act, however, urged colonists to
remain subservient.
b. The Natural Rights Argument: During the 1500s CE, a social movement defending the “inalienable
natural rights” of men, was led by the writings of Thomas Hobbs and John Locke, who engendered
this concept of a set of necessary rights given to men, such as shelter, food, and protection, agreed
with what Otis, Jr. said in his opening statement: “Let no man think I am about to commence advocate
for despotism (monarchy), because I affirm government is founded on the necessity of our natures;
and that an original supreme Sovereign, absolute and uncontrollable, earthly power must exist in and
preside over every society; from whose final decisions there can be no good appeal but directly to
Heaven.”
c. What Otis was saying is society is in a constant tug-of-war between the demands of the people and
the regulations implemented by the government, which supported the assertions of Hobbs and Locke
two centuries before. Society cannot function without an “earthly” governing presence. Government
provided stability. The contradiction within Otis‘ statement would not have been as blatant had the
American Revolution failed. It would take merely 6 years before anything of major consequence
would shift the AR onto an entirely new stage.
2. Was the Parliament ‘absolute and arbitrary’? The government has a “divine right” to rule there for it is
neither absolute nor arbitrary. By arbitrary, Otis meant the Parliament cannot implement taxes without
reason and on a personal whim.
3. How does Otis convince both sides of his viewpoint? He stated that the representatives that rise to
prominence within the government were once common people themselves and only King George the III, in
all of his divine wisdom can negotiate the balance between the governing body and the people.
Boston Massacre (1770)
1. Did the Bostonians have legitimate reasons for being unhappy that the British soldiers were being
stationed in their city according to Captain Preston?
a. Overview: By 1770, the presence of British troops in the American Colonies escalated the friction
between citizens and the laws that they were being forced to follow. The troops played the role of
enforcers ensuring the King’s laws were followed. The colonists faced unemployment as the soldiers,
their “protectors”, were allowed to take part-time jobs in the city of Boston, Massachusetts.
b. Preston generally admitted that the British presence was a nuisance, but he defended his perspective
fiercely.
2. Was the Boston Massacre a Massacre?? No. Clearly a 12-man squad of soldiers was not nearly enough
to control the mob of 100 or so colonists. The “firing incident” was claimed to have been staged by the
colonists themselves, as a voice from behind the squad shouted, “Damn your bloods, why don’t you fire!”
3. Is Preston believable? Perhaps Preston was innocent. He did receive an injury while trying to settle his
troops. He was a soldier after all. At the end of the day, an officer gives and receives orders. One cannot
easily ascertain Preston’s innocence when history tells us that the American colonists viewed the British
army as an occupying force and the British people living in Great Britain were generally indifferent to the
whole affair.
Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom (1786)
1. Religious Freedom Guaranteed?
a. Overview: During his reign, King Henry VIII (1509-1525) removed Great Britain from the jurisdiction of
the Roman Catholic Church, consolidating religious and political authority into his responsibilities.
The Anglican or Church of England was born. In a monarchical system of government, the political
authority is legitimized when the prevailing church acknowledges the reigning monarch’s right to rule.
Henry VIII’s reason for leaving the Catholic Church was more personal than political. He wanted to
divorce his wife. After American Independence was obtained centuries later, the question of
separation of church and state was asked because the political leaders, especially Thomas Jefferson,
wanted to distance the newly formed United States from anything British.
b. The Virginia Statute guaranteed religious freedom because it became a law.
2. What comparisons can be drawn to the Declaration of Independence?
a. The Virginia Statute promoted the natural rights of each citizen to follow his/her beliefs. We draw
commonalities in the inclusion of natural rights, which were championed in the D of I.
3. Why did Thomas Jefferson believe the church would undermine the state government?
a. One could base Jefferson’s theory of a church undermining a state government in his opening
statement, “Whereas God hath created the mind free”. Jefferson, a deist, one who believes in God
without following the codes of an organized church, stated in the First Statement that a government
acting in the Name of God, is actually acting on God’s behalf, and is acting as God Himself,
contradicting the belief to many of the contemporary religions of Jefferson’s time that man is beneath
God. Acting as God to enforce a system of laws would usurp the free-will of man to think and act for
himself and therefore also take away the natural rights of the common man.
Vices of the Political System of the United States (1787)
1. According to the conventional wisdom of the eighteenth century, the fate of a republic was dependent on
the “virtue” of its people. Did Madison share this belief?
a. Overview: James Madison busied himself trying to become an expert on the history of republican
societies. His resume was vast as a delegate on the Confederation Congress and a member of the
Virginia State Legislature. In his “Vices of the Political System of the United States”, Madison
highlights certain weaknesses in the American economic system under the Articles of Confederation.
Madison would become arguably the most significant American Forefather as he would draft the
American Constitution.
b. The conventional wisdom of the eighteenth century culture was contingent on a traditional viewpoint
leftover from the vestiges of a monarchical society based on the absolute rulership of a king or
emperor. In a monarchical society, people are expected to behave in a certain way, following their
monarch’s laws without question. A king’s or queen’s word was absolute, challenging it meant
certain death. Virtue means “behavior that displays high moral standards” (Apple Dictionary).
c. In 11.2, Line 9, Madison discussed a society’s virtues. He began with the question, “Whenever
therefore an apparent interest or common passion unites a majority what is to restrain them from
unjust violations of the rights and interests of the minority, or of individuals? Three motives only: 1. a
prudent (well-judged) to their own good as involved in the general and permanent good of the
community. This consideration although of decisive weight in itself, is found by experience to be too
often unheeded (heard or noticed but disregarded). It is often forgotten by nations, as well as
individuals, that honesty is often the best policy.” In this statement, Madison’s sentiment on virtue
became clear to me. As members of a society, the people who suffer the most scrutiny are the least
honest and least virtuous. Today’s examples of politicians, such as President Clinton, whose words
and body language conveyed two separate messages about his affair with Monica Lewinsky
2. Did the Constitutional Convention take note of what Madison’s Philosophy stated? If so, in what ways?
a. The Constitutional Convention took note of Madison. Although stacked up against the likes of
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the young Madison took it upon himself to
learn what was necessary about the republican form of government. He was also famous for
chronicling every event that occurred within the confines of the Continental Congress. His journals
are primary sources today of the meetings that formed our government. With the formation of the
Constitution, it is clear that Madison’s words were noted.
3. Compare this to the Federalist 10 Paper Madison wrote.
Federalist 10 (1787)
1. According to Madison, what causes factions to develop?
a. Overview: The Federalist Papers, which number in the hundreds or so in total, either criticize, warn, or
respond to criticisms circulating in American society. Primarily authored by James Madison, these documents
form the basis for how our government operates today. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay also authored
several of the famous essays. The American political scene ten years after the Declaration of Independence
was drafted had been split between two key factions: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. “The
Federalists emerged in the 1790s as a coalition of individuals who supported a
strong national government, diplomatic ties with Great Britain, and the political
leadership of men of property and experience. The term “Federalist” originally
applied to those who supported the ratification of the Federal Constitution. By the
mid-1790s, “Federalist” defined a group aligned with the administration of
President George Washington.” (Although Washington supported most Federalist
policies, he steadfastly avoided partisan activity.) (Federal Judicial Center). The
Anti-Federalists, who would soon be referred to as the Republicans, maintained
opposite views on everything that the Federalists wanted. “The Republicans of the
1790s coalesced around the broad issues of limiting federal power, defending
state authority, and expanding popular participation in politics. Republicans also
opposed any sort of alliance with Great Britain, which they believed would always
attempt to keep the United States in a kind of colonial dependence” (Federal
Judicial Center). John Adams was one of the more prominent Federalists, while
Thomas Jefferson was a staunch Republican (This Republican Party is in no way
related to the modern day Republican Party. This Republican Party would be
reformed into the Democratic-Republican Party under the Presidency of Andrew
Jackson. The “Republican” part of the party’s name would eventually be dropped
and would not re-emerge as its own party again until Abraham Lincoln runs for
President under the Republican banner. It is really Lincoln who shifted the ideals
of the “Republican mantra” to suit the needs of his generation, which, like
Jefferson’s generation, dealt with one chief American issue: slavery.)
b. Before we begin to interpret Madison’s view of factionalism, we must first review
American history up to the year 1787. During the American Revolution, each
colony had their own agenda it seemed. According to historical accounts from
both the British and American sides of the Revolution, the community of American
Historians generally agree that the colonists began to openly disagree with the
British Parliament around the year 1764, when the Sugar Act was implemented.
Boston, Massachusetts, during Colonial Times, was one of the largest trading
ports in the North American colonies of the British Empire, rivaled only by New
York and several Canadian cities. Mainstream American History accepts the
belief that Boston merchants carried the burden of British oppression
characterized by each of the Parliament’s “unjustified Acts”, and so for the sake of
this class, we will accept this claim, but not without understanding that the fact of
the matter is that all 13 Colonies felt the burden of the unfair British taxes, yet the
loudest voices came out of Boston, where revolutionary fervor reached a fever
pitch. It took the coming together of ideals of men like John Adams, a
Massachusetts resident, a farmer-lawyer, and a Federalist, and men like Thomas
Jefferson, a Virginian, a scientist, a plantation owner, a slave owner, and a
Republican, to agree on a logical approach to independence. For 12 years, from
1764-1776, factions existed in American politics. To Madison, passion for a
perspective or viewpoint causes factions to develop in America.
c. According to Madison, why are factions dangerous?
i. Factions diminish the strength of the central republic governing structure. States rise to prominence over
the central government, in a society of factions, which makes the government susceptible to outside
influences. “There are again two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its
causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” Madison continued stating that there are two methods of
“removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence, the
2.
other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”
Factionalism begets anarchy says Madison. “So strong is this propensity of mankind into mutual
animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions
have been sufficient enough to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. He
goes on to say that factionalism is caused by the separation between men with property and men without
property. The government, which is expected to evolve into a democracy, does so because of factions.
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, will be unable to
spread a general conflagration through the other States: a religious sect, may degenerate into a political
faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must
secure the national councils against any danger from that source: a rage for paper money for an abolition
of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to
pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such
malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district than an entire State.” He concludes by stating
that a Republican form of government will reduce factionalism in favor of a single party rule which will
promote the centralized form of government that the Federalists sought.
Given his assessment of how factions develop, can Madison be called an economic determinist? Why or why
not?
a.
I do not think that Madison wanted the capitalistic society we today take for granted. The fact that he
stated how social classes perpetuated is the clue to his thinking. Howard Zinn, in A People’s History of the
United States, used evidence from the Constitution’s Historian, Charles Beard, to state that the general
make-up of representatives in the Great Convention, the group that formed the Constitution and used
Madison’s instructions to accomplish it, were primarily wealthy landowners who had law degrees. This set
a tone for that time period, and to some degree today’s America, that the wealthy have a greater hand in
determining government policy than the middle class that works for them and the poor that work for the
middle class. The mindset of the fraternity that Madison was a part of, which consisted of Thomas
Jefferson (his friend and mentor), John Adams, and George Washington, landowners themselves, would
have been aligned with Madison’s personal views.
Federalist 54 (1787)
1. Did the fictional "Southern brethren” speak for Madison? In no other number of The Federalist did Madison resort
to this method of argumentation; what might explain his use of it here?
a. Overview: In 1787, the year in which the Constitution was drafted, the atmosphere for the coming American
Civil War was being set. On July 16, 1787, Madison and his fellow team of “architects” were forming the
structure of the United States Senate. The simpler issue of age limits for Senators had been set at 30
several weeks before this date. The larger, more complex issue of representation was yet to be
settled. This is the general description of the issue at hand: “ Delegates from the large states
believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation’s financial
and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the
Senate as well as in the House. Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable
intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses. When Sherman proposed
the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the
Senate in all matters—except those involving money.” (senate.gov). Connecticut delegate
Roger Sherman is credited with proposing the alternative of a "bicameral," or twochambered Congress, made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each state,
suggested Sherman, would send an equal number of representatives to the Senate, and one
representative to the House for each 30,000 residents of the state (Longley). This
compromise is sometimes referred to as the Connecticut Compromise, as its author, Roger
Sherman, was from Connecticut. This distinction helps to separate it from the Great
Compromise of 1850, which concerned representation again and heightened secessionist
feelings in the south.
b. The Southern Brethren were a voice that Madison used to project his own views while at
the same time appeal to his fellow southern delegates. Yes, the fictional Southern Brethren
portray Madison’s sentiment.
2. How did Madison advocate for southern interests counter the objection that other forms of "property"
were not being counted for interpretation?
a. “This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best
scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the
convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of
inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists
when the tariff of contribution was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected that the
Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves to some degree as men,
when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when
advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprised be expressed, that those who
reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their
human brethren, should themselves contend that the government to which all the states are to be
parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property,
than the very laws of which they complain?” This demonstrated that the delegates were wrestling
with the issue of calling African slaves human beings. By calling a slave 2/5 of a man, the dispute
was settled for the time being...
3. How did Madison justify the 3/5 Compromise?
a. “Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as
inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants; which regards
the slave as two fifths of the man.” He justified the argument by stating that the Constitution
created compromises among people, not property. “Government is instituted no less for property,
than of the persons, of individuals.”
4. What was the “fictional southerner’s” response to the charge of inconsistency in the interpretation of the
matter that no slave-holding state could count slaves in its determination of the amount of seats that it
could hold in the Legislature? “A State possesses no such influence over the other states,” no matter how
populous or wealthy it is.
5. Was this a states’ rights argument? No but it does defend southern interests and would perpetuate divisions that
would lead to the Civil War.
Jefferson’s Inaugural (1801)
1. According to Jefferson, why might some observers have misread the presidential election of 1800? Do you agree
with his observations? Why or why not?
a. Overview: George Washington was sworn in as President in 1789 and truly set the tone of the office, running
it as a seasoned commanding general should. Surrounding Washington was the greatest Presidential
Cabinet ever assembled in the history of the United States Government. His Vice President was John Adams.
His Secretary of War was Henry Knox. His Treasurer was Alexander Hamilton. Among these great names, a
key figure would make his mark in the American political scene was Thomas Jefferson, Washington’s
Secretary of State. In spite of his quiet demeanor, soft speaking voice, Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent
and determined leader, that in today’s history classrooms, is more known for his authorship of the Declaration
of Independence. His interest and expertise in European affairs made him a perfect Secretary of State and
indispensable to Washington as Washington’s job was to create a strong image of the United States for the
world. Jefferson would eventually show his true colors. He was the architect of a new political party, the
Republican Party, similar in name only to today’s modern Republican Party, but it had a philosophy similar to
today’s Democratic Party. Jefferson’s personal life was filled with scandal. As a widower, he took one of his
female slaves into his bed and allegedly had a child with her. But his professional and political life was nearly
flawless. His candidacy for President as Washington retired from public life created the Electoral College to
regulate the Popular Vote for Presidential Candidates. His closest friend and chief political rival, John Adams,
had been running against Jefferson to succeed Washington as President. What happened in this scenario set
the tone for today’s election process. Before the Electoral College was developed, Presidents were selected
purely on Popular Vote. It only took two elections before this policy was adjusted and amended in the
Constitution because John Adams a Federalist Party member won the Presidency, and Thomas Jefferson a
Republican, won the Vice-Presidency. This was the first and only time in our history when a President and
Vice-President were of two rival political parties and it defined American Politics. Surprisingly, it did not create
problems. Their friendship allowed the two men to have excellent synergy while in their respective offices. In
addition to that, they had one common goal to accomplish: lead the country toward a brighter future. In the
abstract of Thomas Jefferson’s Inaugural Address of 1801, it was mentioned that Jefferson’s Presidency was
“arranged” by Alexander Hamilton to control Jefferson’s extremist nature.
b. Hamilton, a Federalist like John Adams, believed that supporting Jefferson’s Presidency would turn Jefferson
into a more moderate politician. Evidence of the moderate Thomas Jefferson is stated in this quote at the end
of the second paragraph of his speech: “But every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle. We
have been called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all
Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,
let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion my be tolerated where
reason is left free to combat it”. Again, the lack of the presence of the Electoral College was present in
Jefferson’s Presidential Run. As the Federalist Party was disintegrating, the abstract states, ironically, the
Republican Party, as it was during Jefferson’s time, was also experiencing some confusion. The responsibility
of doing the nominating of candidates fell to the House of Representatives. This prompted Alexander
Hamilton, a Revolutionary War leader who recognized Jefferson’s experience and will as a fellow Continental
Congressman, to sponsor Jefferson over Aaron Burr, who Hamilton viewed as a scoundrel and a hardliner
when it came to party policy. Because of their experiences as Revolutionary War politicians, Hamilton
understood that Jefferson would put the United States‘ interests before Jefferson’s own interests or before the
Republican Party’s interests, in other words.
2. According to Jefferson, what is the "sacred principle" of American constitutional government?
a. “All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that through the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that
will to be the rightful must be reasonable, that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must
protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
3. Did the members of the Federalist Party have good reason to applaud Jefferson for his proclamation of that sacred
principle? Why or why not?
a. In addition to the information presented in the abstract which chronicled Jefferson’s rise to the Presidency with
the sponsorship of Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, the Federalist Party most likely did applaud Jefferson for
the following statement: “But every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle. We have been called
by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be
any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand
undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion my be tolerated where reason is left free
to combat it”. This statement is important in that it sets a tone for all Presidents who would follow Jefferson,
Presidents that would need to take a moderate stance on political views. If a President takes too firm of a
stance on an issue or on a party guideline, he or she will lose public confidence. Jefferson’s Presidency could
be arguably the standard to which the office was meant to be, an office of balance.
4. According to Jefferson what are "the essential principles of our Government"? Would Alexander Hamilton
generally agree or disagree with Jefferson's assertions? Why or why not?
a. “I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its
Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general
principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or
political, peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support
of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns
and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its
whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the
right of election by the people--a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of
revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority,
the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of
despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars
may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that
labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith;
encouragement of agriculture and commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of
all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of the person
under habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation
which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reform. The wisdom of our
sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our
political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust and
should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain
the road which leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”
b. List below goes to PowerPoint.
i. Justice should be without biases (any favoritism). The United States should not be connected to any
alliances. Open and honest friendship with anyone.
ii. State governments should support the Federal government and not go against national ideals or goals.
iii. The Federal Government needs to guard the Constitution and support its ideals against both domestic
and foreign threats.
iv. The majority should not rule in the republic.
v. A militia (National Guard) to defend against foreign incursions until the main forces arrive.
vi. To provide a productive economy for the public’s profit.
vii.The honest payment of debts will preserve the public’s faith.
viii.
An agricultural-based and trade-based economy will fuel the nation.
ix. Fair and reasonable court system.
x. Freedom of religion.
xi. Freedom of the press.
xii.Freedom of the individual under habeas corpus (the right of a criminal to have access to a fair and just
trial).
Marbury vs. Madison (1803)
1. How did the Supreme Court decide on the facts of the case? According to Marshall, did Marbury have a right to
the commission?
a. Overview: The case of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) placed Chief Justice John Marshall, one of President
Adams’ “Midnight Appointments”, in an embarrassing position. (When a President leaves office, he or she
does so at 12 AM the morning of when the new one takes office. This explains the “Midnight Appointments” of
John Adams.) John Adams, the President that was transitioning out of office when Thomas Jefferson was
transitioning in, took advantage of this changeover period by appointing a number of Federalists into key
government positions. This, Adams thought, would counterweigh the Republican Party ideals of Thomas
Jefferson. William Marbury, a Federalist that was appointed to one of Adams‘ positions, petitioned the
Supreme Court for a trial to override the commissions that Jefferson ordered to hold up the appointments until
he could figure out how to undo what Adams had done, requested a writ of mandamus (Latin for: We Order)
directing the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to give Marbury his commission. John Marshall was
placed in a predicament. On one hand if Marshall were to refuse the mandamus, he would be labeled a
coward in not standing up to President Jefferson, and the Supreme Court would lose its legitimacy in the
three-branch government structure. If Marshall were to accept the writ, then the Court would come into
conflict with the Executive Branch. Jefferson had a personal dislike for John Marshall. He would probably tell
Madison to ignore the order and in the prevailing state of public opinion, nothing could be done about it. This
would be an even more significant blow to the Judiciary Branch. Marshall’s educational background and
experience in law was not as developed as Adams’ or Jefferson’s, but his resourcefulness would be on
display. By right, William Marbury should have had his appointment. The Court could not legally require
Madison to give it to him. Marbury’s request for a writ of mandamus was based on the Judiciary Act of 1789
(the Congress repealed the Judiciary Act’s 1801 amendment as its first act when Adams left office.) Since the
Judiciary Act was ambiguous in how writs of mandamus could be requested, Marshall could rightfully declare
Marbury’s request unconstitutional because the Supreme Court could not perform such a request under the
current Constitution. Like a master chess player, Marshall sacrificed the pawn, Marbury, to establish the
power of the Supreme Court to invalidate Federal laws that were unconstitutional.
b. In the wake of the Marbury vs. Madison case, Jefferson became more determined to strike at the Federalistdominated courts, the more. He decided to press for judges more along party lines to be dismissed. He went
after Samuel Chase, a tenured Chief Justice in the Supreme Court since 1796 when Washington appointed
him to that opinion. Zealous followers of Jefferson tried to deem Chase’s actions during the Sedition Acts
high-handed and unconstitutional, however, Chase’s defense lawyers basically threw out their cases in
discussed at the one-sided ruling. It eventually drove Jefferson himself to accept Chase’s acquittal with poise.
c. “It is therefore decidedly the opinion of the court that when a commission has been signed by the President,
the appointment is made, and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been
affixed to it by the Secretary of State.”
d. “That having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver
which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.”
2. The Court did not issue a writ of mandamus, but it also rejected Jefferson position. How could it do both? How
was Marshall able to enhance the power of the Supreme Court while refusing to issue a writ in this case? Refer to 1a
and 1b.
3. Given the fact that Marshall was himself a midnight appointment and that his failure to deliver all of the judicial
commissions was the basis of Marbury suit in the first place, was he caught in a conflict of interest? Explain.
a. Personally, John Marshall was caught in a conflict of interest, but like a just, fair, and ethical politician would
do, he put his office before himself and followed the Constitution, the laws of our nation.
McClulloch vs. Maryland (1819)
1.What were the main points raised by the Marshall Court in declaring the Bank of the United States to be
constitutional? Did they differ from Hamilton’s 1791 arguments?
a. “The important case of McCulloch vs Maryland (1819) involved another incident in which an individual
state tried to assume authority and challenge the Constitution. Congress formed the 2nd Bank of the United States in
1816. This “national bank” had branches that competed with state-chartered banks. To enhance the
competitiveness of Maryland’s banks, Maryland’s legislature imposed a tax on notes issued by the Baltimore branch
of the Second Bank. The Second Bank refused to pay claiming that the tax infringed on national powers and was
therefore unconstitutional. The state’s lawyers then invoked Jefferson’s argument: Congress lacked constitutional
authority to charter a national bank. Even if a national bank was legitimate, lawyers argued, Maryland could tax
activities within this state. John Marshall, in his long tenure as a Supreme Court Justice, and nationalist-minded
Republicans on the Court firmly rejected both arguments. The Second Bank was constitutional because it was
“necessary and proper,” given the nature of how the Federal Government regulates national currency and credit.
Like Alexander Hamilton, Marshall was a loose constructionist: If the goal of a law is “within the scope of the
Constitution, all means which are appropriate” to secure that goal are also constitutional.
2. How did the Court interpret the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution? What are the strengths and
weaknesses of the Court's definition of "necessary''? The Second Bank was constitutional because it was
“necessary and proper,” given the nature of how the Federal Government regulates national currency and credit.
Like Alexander Hamilton, Marshall was a loose constructionist: If the goal of a law is “within the scope of the
Constitution, all means which are appropriate” to secure that goal are also constitutional.
3. The McCulloch decision ranks among the most important issued by the Marshall Court. How did it define federal
and state powers? How did it define the Tenth Amendment? How might states' rights advocates have responded to
the McCulloch decision? States reserve the right to tax within their borders. “The government of the United States,
then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the
supreme law of the land, ‘anything in the constitution or laws of any State, to the contrary, not withstanding.’” Among
the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in
the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that
everything granted shall be expressly and intimately described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for
the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word “expressly”, and declares
only that the powers “not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to
the people”; thus leaving the question, whether the particular power will become a subject of contest, has been
delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument.
The States might have been concerned with how they execute taxation. “If the States may tax one instrument,
employed by the government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument (industries
or services provided to consumers).” Conclusively, the Constitution is ranked above all other laws.
The Monroe Doctrine (1823)
The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message to
Congress, December 2, 1823:
. . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of
the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of
the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and
interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been
made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been
acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding
of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the
Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the
discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may
terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights
and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and
independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .
It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making
in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it
appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the
results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter
of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we
have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish
sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side
of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have
never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are
invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With
the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by
causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of
the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference
proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own,
which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom
of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this
whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing
between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on
their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and
safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered
and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and
maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles,
acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or
controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as
the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those
new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to
this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the
judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change
on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.
The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this
important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought
it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal
concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a
question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested,
even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in
regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated
that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal
concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government
for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and
manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from
none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.
It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either
continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our
southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally
impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If
we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and
their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the
true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will
pursue the same course. . . .
1. Identify and describe the issue with which the United States became involved. (150
Words)
1. As the United States was expanding, it came into conflict several times with its old
nemesis, Great Britain, and a rising world power, Russia. The issue at stake, the
reason for the Monroe Doctrine’s creation, was to prevent future colonization by
European powers of the Americas. At the basic level, the Monroe Doctrine was
2.
3.
4.
5.
meant to also legitimize the United States’ nationhood in the eyes of its European
counterparts. The Doctrine also attempted to keep the United States out of European
conflicts like the Seven Years War (1756-1763) and caused the American colonists, at
the time, to fight alongside the British to preserve their livelihoods. Little did the
colonists know that such an event would escalate into the American Revolution
caused by the British debt that was incurred during the Seven Years War.
What was Monroe's government trying to assert?
1. American independence, the inevitability that the United States would eventually
dominate the region, and if the European Powers were to continue their colonization
efforts in the Americas, it would derail the peaceful society being built in the United
States.
What modern issue for the United States does the parameters set by the second paragraph
foreshadow? Could be two events, as in the two World Wars.
What was the goal of the United States according to the Monroe Doctrine? To keep the
European powers out of the Americas in order to avoid conflict with them.
Is American foreign policy still an issue today? Why or why not? (250 Words)
1. Clearly, it is evident in this document that the Monroe Doctrine laid the foundation
for our current foreign policy. The continuation of conflicts of interests of the
European Powers have forced the United States out of an isolationist mentality and
into a prominent global role, a role in which it has been well-suited for since 1945,
the ending of the Second World War. Today, it seems that China is beginning its run
at the Number 1 spot in global rankings, but its society may not be the idealistic
example that American society has been. In other words, people of the world may not
take to a communist society as well as a democratic society. The United States has
three key issues that the Monroe Doctrine cannot deal with. The first issue is military
spending. The United States Government spends as much as 80% of its total budget
on its military. Although its military technology is far more advanced than China’s
military technology, the fact that America has the most sophisticated weapons,
vehicles, and troop training is not the main expense of the military budget. To
prevent a “Third World War”, the United States installed military bases in several of
the nations it has an alliance with in Europe, Asia, and Africa. These bases provide
the “comforts of home” to troops stationed on these bases such as free-housing, highquality public schools, and discounted grocery and utility stores. Several economists
and political scientists theorized that by just reducing between 25-50% of its military
expenditures, America would still rank #1 in military spending, but the government’s
budget could be focused into key areas such as education, repairing the banking
system, and healthcare and health research. The second issue is Middle Eastern
affairs. The removal of Saddam Hussein created a political vacuum in Iraq. Several
groups are vying for paramount leadership in this oil-rich region. The problem with
trying to impose a democratic system on a Middle Eastern culture is that traditionally,
Middle Eastern politics have been based upon “Hammurabi’s Code”, the list of rules
where we get the famous phrase, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Now the
United States has shifted its focus to purging the virus caused by Al-Qaeda’s terrorists
and crushing the Taliban’s Muslim Extremist tendencies. With the demise of Osama
bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 Attacks, the United States has actually created a
hydra by destabilizing the structure of Al-Qaeda. And finally, the third issue in our
foreign policy is how to deal with China. Is the United States going to enter another
Cold War scenario in which it becomes inspired again? Or is China simply a different
kind of a nation from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) that its
economic prowess is far too great? The solution for the United States in the matter of
China is to involve its Pacific Allies such as Japan and others in Southeast Asia in
offsetting the size of China’s military. The solution is still unclear.
A. Jackson on Indian Removal (1829)
1. Jackson contended that the federal government's Indian policy to date (1829) had been counterproductive to its
stated goals. What information did Jackson provide to support his position? Was his reasoning sound?
a. Overview: Georgia and Alabama were new states that were having an “Indian Problem” within their borders.
Andrew Jackson, a hero of the War of 1812, had a personal vendetta against the Native Americans. His
father-in-law was killed by Indians and several tribes plagued his wife and the settlers in Tennessee. He
fought as a young officer toward the latter stages of the American Revolution, was shaped to a certain extent
by Washington’s example of leadership, obtained a law degree, and entered the political realm fairly early in
his life. What Jackson’s main concern in this Indian Removal document had to be was the fact that certain
tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, and the Creek) were not meshing with white settlers in Delaware as well as
certain tribes were in the Southern regains. Jackson went beyond his own historical image as “the Indian
oppressor” by stating that he thought it was the US Government’s job to preserve the once proud culture of
each Native American tribe. Jackson thought that by moving west, the tribes he mentioned could start anew.
2. What did Elias Boudinot argue, and how did his position concerning federal Indian policy compare with Jackson's?
Elias Boudinot, a Native American obviously by his perspective in his article, was disenchanted with the
United States Government. To him it seemed that the USG was going back on its word, that Jackson was taking
away promises made by Jackson’s Presidential predecessors: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. In fact,
it seems that Elias Boudinot believed the words of the 4 Presidents to be fake. Elias Boudinot stated that it would
have been much easier for the Cherokee to bear the disappointment had they been told decades before during
Washington’s Presidency because their lifestyle had not yet been assimilated into the white culture.
3. Do you think Jackson truly believed that he was helping the Indians? Or was Jackson's rhetoric merely a cynical
cover for yet another white seizure of Indian lands? Explain.
a. Settlement of Indian lands was inevitable. As populations of the Eastern States overflowed, lands to the west
had to be opened up in order to enhance the production of farmland for the growing national population.
Jackson was a cynical President, especially toward the Native Americans. These events would culminate in
the Trail of Tears, where the Cherokee and several other tribes were forced west at gunpoint.
Cherokee vs. Georgia (1831)
1. What was the traditional way for the Federal Government to treat the Native American Tribes?
a. As foreign nations.
2. What is in Georgia’s defense?
a. Nothing. To the Marshall Court, the Cherokee grounds were perfectly legal. To President Jackson, where the
Cherokees stood in the matter, was a different story altogether.
3. Identify the essential question this case is dealing with then state its answer.
a. “Do the Cherokees constitute a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution? The answer is simply, yes.
Their defense lawyers showed that the Cherokee were conclusively not a State of the Union and therefore, by
the definition of the Constitution a foreign state and had been treated as such.
4. How does the State of Georgia appeal to the Supreme Court?
a. It was not the State of Georgia that was making the appeal. It was the Cherokee. This is evident in this
statement: “They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power, appeal to it for
relief to their wants; and address the President as their great father. They and their country are considered by
foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the
United States, that any attempt to acquire lands, or to form a political connection with them, would be
considered by all as an invasion of our territory, and an act of hostility. These considerations go far to support
the opinion that the framers of our Constitution had not the Indian tribes in view when they opened the courts
of the Union to controversies between a State and the citizens thereof, and foreign states.”
Manifest Destiny (1845)
1. Explain what John L. O'Sullivan meant by the term Manifest Destiny. By what right did O'Sullivan believe that the
United States must annex Texas? Do you agree with his argument?
a. Create your own destiny through venturing West. To protect the United States’ citizens residing in a Mexican
Territory. Yes, it supports the ideals of the original Revolutionaries in their quest to break oppression.
2. According to O'Sullivan, who was responsible for Texas's declaration of independence? Mexico’s oppression.
3. Why did O'Sullivan believe that California would "fall" next? For what reasons did he argue that California-would
inevitably declare its independence from Mexico? Why did O'Sullivan consider Mexico's title of sovereignty over
California to be "artificial"? California was geographically too far away from Mexico’s central government. California
was a territory of boundless growth potential; to protect its right to grow economically, it would need to become
independent, just as the United States had done. California’s development is of its own accord, with little influence
from Mexico.
Confederate Constitution (1860)
1. The committee that drafted the Confederate Constitution used the US Constitution as a model. Is this
surprising? An excerpt from the Confederate Constitutional Congress stated: With the people of
South Carolina we believe that the Federal Constitution "presents a complete scheme of
confederation, capable of being speedily put into operation;" that its provisions and true
import are familiar to the people of the South, "many of whom are believed to cherish a degree
of veneration for it," and that all "would feel safe under it when in their own hands for
interpretation and administration, especially as the portions that have been by perversion made
potent for mischief and oppression, in the hands of adverse and inimical interests, have
received a settled construction by the South; that a speedy confederation by the South is
desirable in the highest degree,which it is supposed must be temporary at first (if
accomplished as soon as it should be), and no better basis than the Constitution of the United
States is likely to be suggested or adopted." This convention, in the resolutions accompanying
the ordinance dissolving the Union have already responded to the invitation of the people of
South Carolina to Inter them in convention for the purpose indicated in their resolutions, and
have named Montgomery, in this State, and the 4th day of February, as the appropriate place
and time at which to meet. In fixing the time and place this convention hut concurred in the
suggestions of the honorable gentleman representing the people of South Carolina before this
body. We are aware that several of our sister States, which have indicated a disposition to
secede from the Union, and have called conventions of their people, may not be able to meet
us at so early a day, but the great importance to the States which have already seceded, and
which are likely to secede by that date, of having a common government to manage their
Federal and foreign affairs in the emergency now pressing upon them outweighed, in the
opinion of the committee, the consideration which suggested delay. The committee more
readily come to this conclusion, as the convention which will meet on the 4th of February will
at first be engaged in the formation of a provisional government, leaving the more important
question of a permanent government to be considered of at a later day, by which time it is
hoped and believed that all the Southern States will be in a condition to send deputies to the
convention and participate in its councils. It was thought also that the preposition to form the
provisional government upon the basis of the Federal Constitution, so much revered by all the
Southern States, will meet with the approval of all those who may secede. The committee are
also of opinion that the election of the deputies to meet the people of our sister States in
convention should be made by this convention. To submit the election to the people would
involve a dangerous delay and it would be impracticable to secure an election by the people
before the 4th of February next. Basically, the utilization of the United States’ Constitution
allowed the Confederacy to form more rapidly, in more unison, than if they were to draft a
completely new Constitution for their uses.
2. What are some of the more notable differences between the US Constitution and the Confederate
Constitution and the Confederate Constitution? Why are these differences significant? What do they
reveal? President was elected to 6-year terms in Confederacy as opposed to 4-years in the United
States. Members of the House were were elected to two-year terms and Senate to six-year
terms, with Senators being divided into three classes to ensure only one-third of the Senate
would stand for election every two years. Like the United States, the number of
representatives would be based on state population and each state would have two Senators.
The Bill of Rights, which are amendments to the United States Constitution, are incorporated
in full to the text of the Confederate Constitution. The main difference is that the Confederate
Constitution protects slavery and limits the power of the federal government to very specific actions.
(Yahoo! Blog). The Confederacy, the Southern States, wanted more control delegated to the individual
states than in the United States. The slavery issue, as was stated, was the significant difference in that
the economic lifestyle based on the use of human labor, was protected and promoted in the South.
3. Some of the more radical secessionists were disappointed by this Constitution. Why? How is slavery
dealt with under this Constitution? What is the significance in the inclusion of a “necessary and proper”
clause, and is this surprising? Was it possible for a non-slaveholding state to join the Confederacy
under the terms of this Constitution? It did not differ all that much from the US Constitution. Slavery is
protected in the Confederacy. The “necessary and proper” clause made it clear to what degree a right
or a protective measure from the government could extend. It clarifies the specific role of Congress in
both Constitutions.
4. There are no provisions for secession or nullification in this Constitution. Why not? Prevent another
secession.
Lincoln’s First and Second Inaugural Address (1861, 1865)
1. What was Lincoln saying about the treatment of African Americans in the United States?
a. The 2nd Inaugural Address stated that _____
2. In this speech, did Lincoln view the Civil War and slavery as a tragedy, a sin or a crime?
3. Which do you think Lincoln was emphasizing in his speech, the extraordinary radical statement about
race relations in America or the “with malice toward none” passage?
4. Compare and Contrast Lincoln’s First and Second Inaugural Addresses (Lincoln’s First Inaugural
Provided by Avalon Project in the space below this prompt). How would you describe the change in
Lincoln’s wording? Name the factors that shaped the Second Inaugural Address. Was Lincoln’s motive
consistent? What evidence from each speech promotes this?? Answer all of these questions in a 150
Word (Total, not Individual) Paragraph.
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you
briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States
to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about
which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a
Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be
endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most
ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is
found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from
one of those speeches when I declare that-I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States
where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many
similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform
for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution
which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of
each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment
exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our
political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any
State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most
conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no
section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all
the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be
cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to
one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause
I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor,
but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming
of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of
Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any
other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause
"shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good
temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to
keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by
State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be
surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done.
And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial
controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and
humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a
slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that
clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the
Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify
particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for
all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand
unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be
unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution.
During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession
administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many
perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon
the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A
disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is
perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national
governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic
law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National
Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some
action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature
of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who
made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to
lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the
Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the
Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and
continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all
the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles
of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and
establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the
Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the
Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence
within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or
revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to
the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me,
that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a
simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the
American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the
contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the
Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be
forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and
possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and
imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using
of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any
interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from
holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the
people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the
exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable
withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as
possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable
to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events
and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency
my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a
view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal
sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and
are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address
no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its
benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it?
Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you
fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the
real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true,
then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the
human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you
can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been
denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly
written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if
such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of
individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and
prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic
law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may
occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable
length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be
surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May
Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must
Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them
into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the
Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is
acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than
acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their
own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For
instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede
again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish
disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce
harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by
constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of
popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it
does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority,
as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle,
anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by
the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the
parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and
consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is
obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect
following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and
never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different
practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government
upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the
Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal
actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically
resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any
assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases
properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to
political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other
believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The
fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave
trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral
sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the
dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be
perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than
before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived
without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would
not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each
other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go
out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can
not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile,
must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or
more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can
make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among
friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both
sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of
intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall
grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending
it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that
many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended.
While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the
people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument
itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity
being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode
seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead
of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen
for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or
refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I
have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never
interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To
avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular
amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law,
I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon
him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they
choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present
Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any
better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being
in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side
of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the
judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their
public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return
of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and
vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the
Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable
can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which
you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good
object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution
unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new
Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted
that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason
for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has
never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present
difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of
civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being
yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government,
while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion
may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory,
stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over
this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will
be, by the better angels of our nature.