Table of Contents
Christopher Columbus, Letter to Luis de Sant’ Angel (1493)…………………………....1
Mayflower Compact……………………………………………………………………....3
Jonathan Edwards, from “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”……………………...4
John Dickinson, from Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1768)…………………...5
Right of Women in an Independent Republic…………………………………………....6
Patrick Henry Speaks Against Ratification of the Constitution (1788)…........................10
Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase (1803)……………………………………..12
President Andrew Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification (1832)…………….15
South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification (1832)…………………………………….26
Walt Whitman, Preface to Leaves of Grass (1855)……………………………………...28
Fredrick Douglass, Independence Day Speech (1852)………………………………….30
Harriet Beecher Stowe, from Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852)……………………………….32
Abraham Lincoln, “A House Divided” (1858)…………………………………………..34
Clara Barton, Medical Life at the Battlefield (1862)……………………………………35
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863)………………………………………….37
Christopher Columbus, Letter to Luis de Sant' Angel (1493)
Sir,
As I know that you will have pleasure of the great victory which our Lord hath given me in my voyage, I
write you this, by which you shall know that in [thirty-three] days I passed over the Indies with the fleet
which the most illustrious King and Queen, our Lords, gave me: where I found very many islands peopled
with inhabitants beyond number. And, of them all, I have taken possession for their Highnesses, with
proclamation and the royal standard displayed; and I was not gainsaid. On the first which I found, I put the
name Sant Salvador, in commemoration of His High Majesty, who marvelously hath given all this: the
Indians call it [Guanhani]. The second I named the Island of Santa Mar’a de Concepci—n, the third
Ferrandina, the fourth Fair Island, the fifth La Isla Juana; and so for each one a new name. When I reached
Juana, I followed its coast westwardly, and found it so large that I thought it might be the mainland
province of Cathay. And as I did not thus find any towns and villages on the seacoast, save small hamlets
with the people whereof I could not get speech, because they all fled away forthwith, I went on further in
the same direction, thinking I should not miss of great cities or towns. And at the end of many leagues,
seeing that there was no change, . . . [I] turned back as far as a port agreed upon; from which I sent two
men into the country to learn if there were a king, or any great cities. They traveled for three days, and
found interminable small villages and a numberless population, but nought of ruling authority; wherefore
they returned.
I understood sufficiently from other Indians . . . that this land, . . . was an island; and so I followed its coast
eastwardly for a hundred and seven leagues as far as where it terminated; from which headland I saw
another island to the east [eighteen] leagues distant from this, to which I at once gave the name La Spanola.
And I proceeded thither, and followed the northern coast, as with La Juana, eastwardly for a hundred and
[eighty-eight] great leagues in a direct easterly course, as with La Juana.
The which, and all the others, are more [fertile] to an excessive degree, and this extremely so. In it, there
are many havens on the seacoast, incomparable with any others that I know in Christendom, and plenty of
rivers so good and great that it is a marvel. The lands thereof are high, and in it are very many ranges of
hills, and most lofty mountains incomparably beyond the Island of [Tenerife]; all most beautiful in a
thousand shapes, and all accessible, and full of trees of a thousand kinds, so lofty that they seem to reach
the sky. And I am assured that they never lose their foliage; as may be imagined, since I saw them as green
and as beautiful as they are in Spain during May. . . .
And the nightingale was singing, and other birds of a thousand sorts, in the month of November, round
about the way I was going. There are palm trees of six or eight species, wondrous to see for their beautiful
variety; but so are the other trees, and fruits, and plants therein. There are wonderful pine groves, and very
large plains of verdure, and there is honey, and many kinds of birds, and many various fruits. In the earth
there are many mines of metals; and there is a population of incalculable number. Spanola is a marvel; the
mountains and hills, and plains, and fields, and land, so beautiful and rich for planting and sowing, for
breeding cattle of all sorts, for building of towns and villages.
There could be no believing, without seeing, such harbors as are here, as well as the many and great rivers,
and excellent waters, most of which contain gold. In the trees and fruits and plants, there are great
differences from those of Juana. In [La Spanola], there are many spiceries, and great mines of gold and
other metals.
The people of this island, and of all the others that I have found and seen, or not seen, all go naked, men
adwomen, just as their mothers bring them forth; although some women cover a single place with the leaf
of a plant, or a cotton something which they make for that purpose. They have no iron or steel, nor any
weapons; nor are they fit thereunto; not be because thebe not a well-formed people and of fair stature, but
1
that they are most wondrously timorous. They have no other weapons than the stems of reeds in their
seeding state, on the end of which they fix little sharpened stakes. Even these, they dare not use; for many
times has it happened that I sent two or three men ashore to some village to parley, and countless numbers
of them sallied forth, but as soon as they saw those approach, they fled away in such wise that even a father
would not wait for his son. And this was not because any hurt had ever done to any of them:-but such they
are, incurably timid. It is true that since they have become more assured, and are losing that terror, they are
artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as no one would believe but him who had seen
it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it,
and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts. And whether it be a thing of value, or
one of little worth, they are straightway content with whatsoever trifle of whatsoever kind may be given
them in return for it. I forbade that anything so worthless as fragments of broken platters, and pieces of
broken glass, and strap buckles, should be given them; although when they were able to get such things,
they seemed to think they had the best jewel in the world. . . .
And they knew no sect, nor idolatry; save that they all believe that power and goodness are in the sky, and
they believed very firmly that I, with these ships and crew, came from the sky; and in such opinion, they
received me at every place were I landed, after they had lost their terror. And this comes not because they
are ignorant; on the contrary, they are men of very subtle wit, who navigate all those seas, and who give a
marvellously good account of everything-but because they never saw men wearing clothes nor the like of
our ships. And as soon as I arrived in the Indies, in the first island that I found, I took some of them by
force to the intent that they should learn [our speech] and give me information of what there was in those
parts. And so it was, that very soon they understood [us] and we them, what by speech or what by signs;
and those [Indians] have been of much service . . . with loud cries of "Come! come to see the people from
heaven!"Then, as soon as their minds were reassured about us, every one came, men as well as women, so
that there remained none behind, big or little; and they all brought something to eat and drink, which they
gave with wondrous lovingness. . . .
It seems to me that in all those islands, the men are all content with a single wife; and to their chief or king
they give as many as twenty. The women, it appears to me, do more work than the men. Nor have I been
able to learn whether they held personal property, for it seemed to me that whatever one had, they all took
share of, especially of eatable things. Down to the present, I have not found in those islands any monstrous
men, as many expected, but on the contrary all the people are very comely; nor are they black like those in
Guinea, but have flowing hair; and they are not begotten where there is an excessive violence of the rays of
the sun. . . . In those islands, where there are lofty mountains, the cold was very keen there, this winter; but
they endured it by being accustomed thereto, and by the help of the meats which they eat with many and
inordinately hot spices. . . .
Since thus our Redeemer has given to our most illustrious King and Queen, and to their famous kingdoms,
this victory into high a matter, Christendom should take gladness therein and make great festivals, and give
solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity for the great exaltation they shall have by the conversion of so many
peoples to our holy faith; and next for the temporal benefit which will bring hither refreshment and profit,
not only to Spain, to all Christians. This briefly, in accordance with the facts. Dated, on the caravel, off the
Canary Islands, the 15 February of the year 1493.
Study Questions
1. Describe Columbus’ assessment of the quality of the natural resources of these “newly
discovered” islands. Give some specific examples of these resources.
2. According to Columbus, what are the primary characteristics of the people who
inhabit these islands? What behaviors seem to give Columbus these
impressions?
3. Summarize the treatment of Columbus and his crew by the native peoples. From
where do they think Columbus has come? In what ways does this affect their
attitude towards him and his companions?
2
The Mayflower Compact (1620)
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the
Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Having undertaken, for
the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage
to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in
the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body
Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof
to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from
time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which
we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names
at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England,
France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.
Study Questions
1. What are the ultimate goals of the signers of the Mayflower Compact, and how do
they provide for the achievement of these goals?
3
Jonathan Edwards, from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (1741)
. . . This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ. That world of misery,
that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing
flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon,
nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; 'tis only the power and mere
pleasure of God that holds you up.
You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but don't see the hand of God in it,
but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the
means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his
hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is
suspended in it.
Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and
pressure towards hell; and, if God should let you go, you would immediately sink, and swiftly descend and
plunge into the bottomless gulf; and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best
contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of
hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. . . .
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, mochas one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the
fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked. His wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as
worthy of nothing else button be cast into the fire. He is of purer eyes than to bear you in his sight; you are
ten thousand times as abominable in his eyes as the most hateful, venomous serpent is in ours. You have
offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince, and yet 'tis nothing but his hand that
holds you from falling into the fire every moment. . . .
O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in!'Tis a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit,
full of fire and of wrath that you are held over in the hand of that God whose wrath is provoked and
incensed as much against you as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with
the flames of Divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it and burn it asunder. . . .
It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer
it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite, horrible, misery. . . .
How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in danger of this great wrath and infinite misery!
But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral
and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh! that you would consider it, whether you be
young or old!
Study Questions
1. What methods does Edwards use to persuade his listeners to rely upon
God for salvation? What is the tone of this sermon?
2. Identify and explain Edwards’ vision of God and his attitude
toward man.
4
John Dickinson, from Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1768)
There is [a] late act of Parliament, which seems to me to be . . . destructive to the liberty of these colonies, .
. . that is the act for granting duties on paper, glass, etc. It appears to me to be unconstitutional.
The Parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain and all its
colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and its colonies and
necessary for the common good of all. He who considers these provinces as states distinct from the British
Empire has very slender notions of justice or of their interests. We are but parts of a whole; and therefore
there must exist a power somewhere to preside, and preserve the connection in due order. This power is
lodged in the Parliament, and we are as much dependent on Great Britain as a perfectly free people can be
on another.
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find
every one of them founded on this principle till the Stamp Act administration. All before are calculated to
preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the Empire.
And though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet those duties were always imposed with design to
restrain the commerce of one part that was injurious to another, and thus to promote the general welfare. . .
. Never did the British Parliament, till the period abovementioned, think of imposing duties in American for
the purpose of raising a revenue. . . .This I call an innovation, and a most dangerous innovation.
That we may be legally bound to pay any general duties on these commodities, relative to the regulation of
trade, is granted. But we being obliged by her laws to take them from Great Britain, any special duties
imposed on their exportation to us only, with intention to raise a revenue from us only, are as much taxes
upon us as those imposed by the Stamp Act. . . .It is nothing but the edition of a former book with a new
title page, . . . and will be attended with the very same consequences to American liberty.
Sorry I am to learn that there are some few persons,[who] shake their heads with solemn motion, and
pretend to wonder what can be the meaning of these letters. . . .I will now tell the gentlemen. . . . The
meaning of them is to convince the people of these colonies that they are at this moment exposed to the
most imminent dangers, and persuade them immediately, vigorously, and unanimously to exert themselves,
in the most firm, but most peaceable manner for obtaining relief. The cause of liberty is a cause of too
much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult. It ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her
nature. . . . I hope, my dear countrymen, that you will in every colony be upon your guard against those
who may at any time Endeavour to stir you up, under pretences of patriotism, to any measures disrespectful
to our sovereign and our mother country. Hot, rash, disorderly proceedings injure the reputation of a people
as to wisdom, valour and virtue, without procuring them the least benefit. . . .
Every government, at some time or other, falls into wrong measures. They may proceed from mistake or
passion. But every such measure does not dissolve the obligation between the governors and the governed.
The mistake may be corrected, the passion may pass over. It is the duty of the governed to endeavour to
rectify the mistake and appease the passion. They have not at first any other right than to represent their
grievances and to pray for redress. . . .
Study Questions
1. Upon what principle have all statutes and laws been founded until the Stamp Act?
What “dangerous innovation” in Britain’s tax policies is identified by Dickinson?
2. What measures does Dickinson suggest to right the injustices he perceives? What
kinds of actions does he identify as counterproductive to the cause?
5
Rights of Women in an Independent Republic
Abigail Adams to John Adams, Braintree, 31 March 1776 I long to hear that you have
declared an independancy-and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be
necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and
favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such umlimited power into the hands of the
Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is
not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves
bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no
dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the
more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and
the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor
those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by
providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being make use of that
power only for our happiness.
John Adams to Abigail Adams, Philadelphia, 14 April 1776 As to Declarations of
Independency, be patient. Read our Privateering Laws, and our Commercial Laws. What signifies
a Word.
As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle
has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were
disobedient-that schools and Colledges were grown turbulent-that Indians slighted their
Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation
that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.-This is
rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out.
Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full
Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full
Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We
have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us
to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would
fight. I am sure every good Politician would plot, as long as he would against Despotism, Empire,
Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, or Ochlocracy.-A fine Story indeed. I begin to think the
Ministry as deep as they are wicked. After stirring up Tories, Landjobbers, Trimmers, Bigots,
Canadians, Indians, Negrows, Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholicks, Scotch
Renegadoes, at last they have stimulated the [illegible in original] to demand new Priviledges and
threaten to rebell.
John Adams to John Sullivan, Philadelphia, 26 May 1776 It is certain in Theory, that the only
moral Foundation of Government is the Consent of the People. But to what an Extent Shall We
carry this Principle? Shall We Say, that every Individual of the Community, old and young, male
and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly to every Act of Legislation? No,
you will Say. This is impossible. How then does the Right arise in the Majority to govern the
Minority, against their Will? Whence arises the Right of the Men to govern Women, without their
Consent? Whence the Right of the old to bind the Young, without theirs.
6
But let us first Suppose, that the whole Community of every Age, Rank, Sex, and Condition, has
a Right to vote. This Community, is assembled-a Motion is made and carried by a Majority of
one Voice. The Minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the Right of the Majority to govern,
and the Obligation of the Minority to obey? from Necessity, you will Say, because there can be
no other Rule, But why exclude Women? You will Say, because their Delicacy renders them unfit
for Practice and Experience, in the great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprizes of War, as
well as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary
Nurture of their Children, that Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares. And Children
have not Judgment or Will of their own. True. But will not these Reasons apply to others? Is it
not equally true, that Men in general in every Society, who are wholly destitute of Property, and
also too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right Judgment, and too dependent upon
other Men to have a Will of their own? If this is a Fact, if you give to every Man, who has no
Property, a Vote, will you not make a fine encouraging Provision for Corruption by your
fundamental Law? Such is the Frailty of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no
Property, have any Judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man
of Property, who has attached their Minds to his Interest.
Upon my Word, sir, I have long thought an Army, a Piece of Clock Work and to be governed
only by Principles and Maxims, as fixed as any in Mechanicks, and by all that I have read in the
History of Mankind, and in Authors, who have Speculated upon Society and Government, I am
much inclined to think, a Government must manage a Society in the Same manner; and that this is
Machinery too.
Harrington has Shewn that Power always follows property. This I believe to be as infallible a
Maxim, in Politics, as, that Action and Reaction are equal, as in Mechanicks. Nay I believe We
may advance one Step farther and affirm that the Ballance of Power in a Society, accompanies
the Ballance of Property in Land. The only possible Way then of preserving the Ballance of
Power on the side of equal Liberty and public Virtue, is to make the Acquisition of Land easy to
every Member of Society: to make a Division of the Land into Small Quantities, So that the
Multitude may be possessed of landed Estates. If the Multitude is possessed of the Ballance of
real Estate, the Multitude will have the Ballance of Power, and in that Case the Multitude will
take Care of the Liberty, Virtue, and Interest of the Multitude in all Acts of Government.
I believe these Principles have been felt, if not understood in the Massachusetts Bay, from the
Beginning: And therefore I Should think that Wisdom and Policy would dictate in these Times, to
be very cautious of making Alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in Scrutinizing
into the Qualifications of Voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not
advise them to make any alteration in the Laws, at present, respecting the Qualifications of
Voters.
Your Idea, that those Laws, which affect the Lives and personal Liberty of all, or which inflict
corporal Punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just.
But, So they do Women, as well as Men, Children as well as Adults. What Reason Should there
be, for excluding a Man of Twenty years, Eleven Months and twenty-seven days old, from a Vote
when you admit one, who is twenty one? The Reason is, you must fix Some Period in Life, when
the Understanding and Will of Men in general is fit to be trusted by the Public. Will not the Same
Reason justify the State in fixing upon Some certain Quantity of Property, as a Qualification.
The Same Reasoning, which will induce you to admit all Men, who have no Property, to vote,
with those who have, for those Laws, which affect the Person will prove that you ought to admit
7
Women and Children: for generally Speaking, Women and Children, have as good Judgment, and
as independent Minds as those Men who are wholly destitute of Property: these last being to all
Intents and Purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, cloath, and employ
them, as Women are upon their Husbands, or Children on their Parents.
As to your Idea, or proportioning the Votes of Men in Money Matters, to the Property they hold,
it is utterly impracticable. There is no possible Way of Ascertaining, at any one Time, how much
every Man in a Community, is worth; and if there was, So fluctuating is Trade and Property, that
this State of it, would change in half an Hour. The Property of the whole Community, is Shifting
every Hour, and no Record can be kept of the Changes. Society can be governed only by general
Rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular Case, as it happens, nor to the
Circumstances of particular Persons. It must establish general, comprehensive Regulations for
Cases and Persons. The only Question is, which general Rule, will accommodate most Cases and
most Persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open So fruitfull a Source of Controversy and Altercation,
as would be opened by attempting to alter the Qualifications of Voters. There will be no End of it.
New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights
not enough attended to, and every Man, who has not a Farthing, will demand an equal Voice with
any other in all Acts of State. It tends to confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all
Ranks, to one common Levell. I am &c.
Study Questions
1. Examine and summarize the reasons given by John Adams for excluding women
and men without property from voting?
2. Identify and explain John Adams’ reasoning and plan for ensuring that the
multitude of people possess the balance of power.
3. What reasoning does John Adams use to argue against allowing all men,
regardless of personal property, to vote? Overall what are his opinions
regarding any change in voter qualifications?
8
Patrick Henry Speaks Against Ratification of the Constitution (1788)
Patrick Henry, the noted Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, opposed a federal form
of government in the United States. Here, at a debate during the convention, Henry discusses his
objections to the new form of government.
Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of
government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with
the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great
national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over
their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at
being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of
things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal
Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since
that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this
Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to
be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from
this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government—a proposal that goes to the utter
annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states—a proposal of establishing nine states into a
confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we
have formed with foreign nations.
The present circumstances of France—the good offices rendered us by that kingdom—require our most
faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the
Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal
to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?—
and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was
our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened,
or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government
is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government—say it is composed by any thing but
inspiration—you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing
your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If
this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their
liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a
wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this
Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal
Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and
to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal
so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough
discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those
worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed
with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a
consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very
striking I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right
had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public
welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the
states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this
compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. . . . It is not
mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take
those steps, so dangerous in my conception.
Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have
happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great
ocean of human affairs. . . . The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose
9
they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must,
therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under
the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government. . . .
. . . Under the same despised government, we commanded the respect of all Europe: wherefore are we now
reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never
been expected; it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid government—a strong, energetic
government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid
government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to
them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government—for the loss of their liberty? If we
admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we
must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the
American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary
object. We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our glorious
forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great,
mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty
is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we
have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of
consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens
of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government
will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius
of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your
specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?
But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness,
or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of
those objects. . . .
. . . With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted remains with the
people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it
as a thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of the
Congress who shall take up the consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect
of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will
construe it as they please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the consequences. Among ten thousand
implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your
slaves if they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common
interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling of your interests. It has been repeatedly said here,
that the great object of a national government was national defence. That power which is said to be
intended for security and safety may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If they give power to the
general government to provide for the general defence, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the
means in the possession of the people must be given to the government which is intrusted with the public
defence. In this state there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several
other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of
opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say,
that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to
make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should
be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal
effects—we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period,
press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America,
and the necessity of national defence,—let all these things operate on their minds; they will search that
paper, and see if they have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide
for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May
they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? This is no ambiguous
implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal
terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its
abolition. I deny that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the
10
states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their
emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south.
In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and
tranquillity gone. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow-beings
was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven which has numbered us
among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellowmen in bondage. But is
it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous
consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we inherited them from our ancestors, as their
manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible,
the rigor of their unhappy fate. I know that, in a variety of particular instances, the legislature, listening to
complaints, have admitted their emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add that this, as
well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who
have no similarity of situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to
Congress.
Source: Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution 2nd ed., 5 vols. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1907).
Study Questions
1. To what events does Patrick Henry attribute the disruption of peace and
tranquility formerly prevalent in the country?
2. How is a consolidated government a threat to the original spirit of
America according to Henry?
3. Explain how the issue of slavery plays a part in Henry’s reasoning in this
piece? What are Patrick Henry’s beliefs regarding the right of Congress to
emancipate slaves? Identify the conflict between state rights and national
authority as it relates to slavery.
11
Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase (1803)
Thomas Jefferson to John C. Breckinridge
Monticello, Aug. 12, 1803DEAR SIR,-The enclosed letter, tho' directed to you, was intended to me also,
and was left open with a request, that when perused, I would forward it to you. It gives me occasion to
write a word to you on the subject of Louisiana, which being a new one, an interchange of sentiments may
produce correct ideas before we are to act on them.
Our information as to the country is very incompleat; we have taken measures to obtain it in full as to the
settled part, which I hope to receive in time for Congress. The boundaries, which I deem not admitting
question, are the high lands on the western side of the Mississippi enclosing all it's waters, the Missouri of
course, and terminating in the line drawn from the northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods to the
nearest source of the Missipi, as lately settled between Gr Britain and the U S. We have some claims to
extend on the sea coast Westwardly to the Rio Norte or Bravo, and better, to go Eastwardly to the Rio
Perdido, between Mobile & Pensacola, the antient boundary of Louisiana. These claims will be a subject of
negociation with Spain, and if, as soon as she is at war, we push them strongly with one hand, holding out a
price in the other, we shall certainly obtain the Floridas, and all in good time. In the meanwhile, without
waiting for permission, we shall enter into the exercise of the natural right we have always insisted on with
Spain, to wit, that of a nation holding the upper part of streams, having a right of innocent passage thro'
them to the ocean. We shall prepare her to see us practise on this, & she will not oppose it by force.
Objections are raising to the Eastward against the vast extent of our boundaries, and propositions are made
to exchange Louisiana, or a part of it, for the Floridas. But, as I have said, we shall get the Floridas without,
and I would not give one inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any nation, because I see in a light very
important to our peace the exclusive right to it's navigation, & the admission of no nation into it, but as into
the Potomak or Delaware, with our consent & under our police. These federalists see in this acquisition the
formation of a new confederacy, embracing all the waters of the Missipi, on both sides of it, and a
separation of it's Eastern waters from us. These combinations depend on so many circumstances which we
cannot foresee, that I place little reliance on them. We have seldom seen neighborhood produce affection
among nations. The reverse is almost the universal truth. Besides, if it should become the great interest of
those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to
go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their
present inhabitants, take side in such a question? When I view the Atlantic States, procuring for those on
the Eastern waters of the Missipi friendly instead of hostile neighbors of it's Western waters, I do not view
it as an Englishman would the procuring future blessing for the French nation, with whom he has no
relations of blood or affection. The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We
leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we
wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side
with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God
bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. The
inhabited part of Louisiana, from Point CoupŽe to the sea, will of course be immediately a territorial
government, and soon a State. But above that, the best use we can make of the country for some time, will
be to give establishments in it to the Indians on the East side of the Missipi, in exchange for their present
country, and open land offices in the last, & thus make this acquisition the means of filling up the Eastern
side, instead of drawing off it's population. When we shall be full on this side, we may lay off a range of
States on the Western bank from the head to the mouth, & so, range after range, advancing compactly as
we multiply.
This treaty must of course be laid before both Houses, because both have important functions to exercise
respecting it. They, I presume, will see their duty to their country in ratifying & paying for it, so as to
secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. But I suppose they must then
appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving & confirming an act which the
nation had not previously authorized. The constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign
12
territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive in seizing the fugitive
occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution.
The Legislature in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful
servants, must ratify & pay for it, and throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized
what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a
guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; & saying to him
when of age, I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you: you may disavow me, and I must
get out of the scrape as I can: I thought it my duty to risk myself for you. But we shall not be disavowed by
the nation, and their act of indemnity will confirm & not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly
marking out its lines.
We have nothing later from Europe than the public papers give. I hope yourself and all the Western
members will make a sacred point of being at the first day of the meeting of Congress; for vestra res agitur.
Accept my affectionate salutations & assurances of esteem & respect.
Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas
Monticello, Sep. 7, 1803DEAR SIR,-Your favor of the 3d was delivered me at court; but we were much
disappointed at not seeing you here, Mr. Madison & the Gov. being here at the time. I enclose you a letter
from Monroe on the subject of the late treaty. You will observe a hint in it, to do without delay what we are
bound to do. There is reason, in the opinion of our ministers, to believe, that if the thing were to do over
again, it could not be obtained, & that if we give the least opening, they will declare the treaty void. A
warning amounting to that has been given to them, & an unusual kind of letter written by their minister to
our Secretary of State, direct. Whatever Congress shall think it necessary to do, should be done with as
little debate as possible, & particularly so far as respects the constitutional difficulty. I am aware of the
force of the observations you make on the power given by the Constn to Congress, to admit new States into
the Union, without restraining the subject to the territory then constituting the U S. But when I consider that
the limits of the U S are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution expressly declares itself
to be made for the U S, I cannot help believing the intention was to permit Congress to admit into the
Union new States, which should be formed out of the territory for which, & under whose authority alone,
they were then acting. I do not believe it was meant that they might receive England, Ireland, Holland, &c.
into it, which would be the case on your construction. When an instrument admits two constructions, the
one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I
had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a
construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written
Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those
who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it
has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the power which that instrument gives. It specifies
& delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry
these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the
law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty;
whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely than
that their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us go on
then perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time & trial
show are still wanting. But it has been taken too much for granted, that by this rigorous construction the
treaty power would be reduced to nothing. I had occasion once to examine its effect on the French treaty,
made by the old Congress, & found that out of thirty odd articles which that contained, there were one, two,
or three only which could not now be stipulated under our present Constitution. I confess, then, I think it
important, in the present case, to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to
the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction;
confiding, that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill
effects.
13
No apologies for writing or speaking to me freely are necessary. On the contrary, nothing my friends can
do is so dear to me, & proves to me their friendship so clearly, as the information they give me of their
sentiments & those of others on interesting points where I am to act, and where information & warning is
so essential to excite in me that due reflection which ought to precede action. I leave this about the 21st,
and shall hope the District Court will give me an opportunity of seeing you.
Accept my affectionate salutations, & assurances of cordial esteem & respect.
Thomas Paine to John C. Breckinridge
I know little and can learn but little of the extent and present population of Louisiana. After the cession be
completed and the territory annexed to the United States it will, I suppose, be formed into states, one, at
least, to begin with. The people, as I have said, are new to us and we to them and a great deal will depend
on a right beginning. As they have been transferred backward and forward several times from one
European Government to another it is natural to conclude they have no fixed prejudices with respect to
foreign attachments, and this puts them in a fit disposition for their new condition. The established religion
is roman; but in what state it is as to exterior ceremonies (such as processions and celebrations), I know not.
Had the cession to France continued with her, religion I suppose would have been put on the same footing
as it is in that country, and there no ceremonial of religion can appear on the streets or highways; and the
same regulation is particularly necessary now or there will soon be quarrells and tumults between the old
settlers and the new. The Yankees will not move out of the road for a little wooden Jesus stuck on a stick
and carried in procession nor kneel in the dirt to a wooden Virgin Mary. As we do not govern the territory
as provinces but incorporated as states, religion there must be on the same footing it is here, and Catholics
have the same rights as Catholics have with us and no others. As to political condition the Idea proper to be
held out is, that we have neither conquered them, nor bought them, but formed a Union with them and they
become in consequence of that union a part of the national sovereignty.
The present Inhabitants and their descendants will be a majority for some time, but new emigrations from
the old states and from Europe, and intermarriages, will soon change the first face of things, and it is
necessary to have this in mind when the first measures shall be taken. Everything done as an expedient
grows worse every day, for in proportion as the mind grows up to the full standard of sight it disclaims the
expedient. America had nearly been ruined by expedients in the first stages of the revolution, and perhaps
would have been so, had not Common Sense broken the charm and the Declaration of Independence sent it
into banishment.
Study Questions
1. In Jefferson’s opinion, of what importance is the Mississippi River to the safety,
security, and unity of the American states?
2. What concerns are noted by Thomas Paine in terms of religious differences
between the population of the existing Union and the inhabitants of the new
territories?
14
President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification (1832)
Whereas a convention, assembled in the State of South Carolina, have passed an ordinance, by which they
declare that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for
the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual
operation and effect within the United States, and more especially "two acts for the same purposes, passed
on the 29th of May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, 1832, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United
States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void, and no law," nor binding on
the citizens of that State or its officers, and by the said ordinance it is further declared to he unlawful for
any of the constituted authorities of the State, or of the United States, to enforce the payment of the duties
imposed by the said acts within the same State, and that it is the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as
may be necessary to give full effect to the said ordinances:
And whereas, by the said ordinance it is further ordained, that, in no case of law or equity, decided in the
courts of said State, wherein shall be drawn in question the validity of the said ordinance, or of the acts of
the legislature that may be passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United States, no appeal shall
be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or
allowed for that purpose; and that any person attempting to take such appeal, shall be punished as for a
contempt of court:
And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of South Carolina will maintain the said ordinance
at every hazard, and that they will consider the passage of any act by Congress abolishing or closing the
ports of the said State, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and from the said
ports, or any other act of the Federal Government to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass
her commerce, or to enforce the said acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as
inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of the said
State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their
political connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate
government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do.
And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct in direct
violation of their duty as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of their country, subversive of
its Constitution, and having for its object the instruction of the Union—that Union, which, coeval with our
political existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to unite them than those of patriotism and
common cause, through the sanguinary struggle to a glorious independence—that sacred Union, hitherto
inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Constitution, has brought us, by the favor of Heaven, to a state of
prosperity at home, and high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equaled in the history of nations; to
preserve this bond of our political existence from destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of national
honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens have reposed in me, I, Andrew
Jackson, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this my PROCLAMATION, stating
my views of the Constitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the Convention of South
Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to sustain them, declaring the course which duty will
require me to pursue, and, appealing to the understanding and patriotism of the people, warn them of the
consequences that must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates of the Convention.
Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise of those powers with which I am now, or
may hereafter be, invested, for preserving the Union, and for the execution of the laws. But the imposing
aspect which opposition has assumed in this case, by clothing itself with State authority, and the deep
interest which the people of the United States must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger measures,
while there is a hope that anything will be yielded to reasoning and remonstrances, perhaps demand, and
will certainly justify, a full exposition to South Carolina and the nation of the views I entertain of this
important question, as well as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will require me
to pursue.
15
The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional,
and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act
of Congress void, but prohibit its execution—that they may do this consistently with the Constitution—that
the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by
no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that to justify
this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution, but it is evident, that to give the
right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve
that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons
alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check
against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage
of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the
assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals
from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress—one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the
States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the
courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its
favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that
the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land;
and for greater caution adds, "that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And it may be asserted, without fear of
refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look, for a moment, to
the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent
their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection
in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no
answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be
decided by the State itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps
thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.
If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy.
The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax
in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the
laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now
claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the
rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory and honor, if the States,
who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying
the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those
measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and
peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution
was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the
citizens of that State will, unfortunately, fall the evils of reducing it to practice.
If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its
impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been
repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our Government.
In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as
connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the
Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of
America. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not
by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn
league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one nation, for the
purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations. In the instrument forming
that Union, is found an article which declares that "every State shall abide by the determinations of
Congress on all questions which by that Confederation should be submitted to them."
16
Under the Confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit
to its execution, but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but
they were not complied with. The Government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no
means of collecting revenue.
But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation we could scarcely be called a
nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be
endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails.
It was formed for important objects that are announced in the preamble made in the name and by the
authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed, and whose conventions approved it.
The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is
"to form a more perfect Union." Now, is it possible that, even if there were no express provision giving
supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the States, it can be conceived
that an Instrument made for the purpose of "forming; a more perfect Union" than that of the confederation,
could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that confederation a
form of government, dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a
prevailing faction in a State? Every man, of plain, unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question,
will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable
theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it.
I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the
existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit,
inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it
was formed.
After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is
made in the ordinance.
The preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes as a fact, that the obnoxious laws, although
they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of manufactures,
which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the operation of these laws is unequal, that the amount
raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the Government; and, finally, that the proceeds
are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an
open opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt should
be made to enforce them. The first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a
power expressly given by the Constitution, to lay and collect imposts, but its constitutionality is drawn in
question from the motives of those who passed it. However apparent this purpose may be in the present
case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose,
entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power, shall make that law
void; for how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is to make the scrutiny? How often may bad purposes
be falsely imputed ? In how many cases are they concealed by false professions? In how many is no
declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine and you give to the States an uncontrolled right to decide,
and every law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the absurd and dangerous doctrine should
be admitted, that a State may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to
the present case.
The next objection is, that the laws in question operate unequally. This objection may be made with truth to
every law that has been or can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that
would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional and if all
laws of that description may be abrogated by any State for that cause, then, indeed, is the federal
Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the
perpetual bond of our Union. We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation We
have trusted to it as to the sheet-anchor of our safety, in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or
domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the
17
solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness
hereafter, in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the
Constitution of our country? Was our devotion paid to the wretched, inefficient, clumsy contrivance, which
this new doctrine would make it? Did we pledge ourselves to the support of an airy nothing—a bubble that
must be blown away by the first breath of disaffection? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory the work
of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots, to whom the task of constitutional reform was intrusted?
Did the name of Washington sanction, did the States deliberately ratify, such an anomaly in the history of
fundamental legislation? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this
radical fault; its language directly contradicts the imputation, its spirit, its evident intent, contradicts it. No,
we did not err. Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, and another
power to resist them. The sages, whose memory will always be reverenced, have given us a practical, and,
as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The Father of his Country did not affix his revered
name to so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the States, when they severally ratified it, do so under the
impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them, or that they could exercise it
by application. Search the debates in all their conventions—examine the speeches of the most zealous
opposers of federal authority—look at the amendments that were proposed. They are all silent—not a
syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made, to correct the explicit supremacy given to the laws of
the Union over those of the States, or to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it. No, we
have not erred! The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in
danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by
sophistical construction to our posterity; and the sacrifices of local interest, of State prejudices, of personal
animosities, that were made to bring it into existence, will again be patriotically offered for its support.
The two remaining objections made by the ordinance to these laws are, that the sums intended to be raised
by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. The
Constitution has given expressly to Congress the right of raising revenue, and of determining the sum the
public exigencies will require. The States have no control over the exercise of this right other than that
which results from the power of changing the representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress.
Congress may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others with which
they are vested. Yet the discretion must exist somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the
representatives of all the people, checked by the representatives of the States, and by the executive power.
The South Carolina construction gives it to the legislature, or the convention of a single State, where
neither the people of the different States, nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the chief magistrate
elected by the people, have any representation. Which is the most discreet disposition of the power? I do
not ask you, fellow-citizens, which is the constitutional disposition—that instrument speaks a language not
to be misunderstood. But if you were assembled in general convention, which would you think the safest
depository of this discretionary power in the last resort? Would you add a clause giving it to each of the
States, or would you sanction the wise provisions already made by your Constitution? If this should be the
result of your deliberations when providing for the future, are you—can you—be ready to risk all that we
hold dear, to establish, for a temporary and a local purpose, that which you must acknowledge to be
destructive, and even absurd, as a general provision? Carry out the consequences of this right vested in the
different States, and you must perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day would recur
whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the States, and that we should soon cease to be a
nation.
The ordinance with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a former objection, tells you that
the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the
objection would, with more propriety, be reserved for the law so applying the proceeds, but surely cannot
be urged against the laws levying the duty.
These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow-citizens—judge
for yourselves. I appeal to you to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt
of their correctness, and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reckless,
destructive course which you are directed to pursue. Review these objections and the conclusions drawn
from them once more. What are they! Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South Carolina
18
ordinance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed.
Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue, and each State has a right to oppose their
execution—two rights directly opposed to each other; and yet is this absurdity supposed to be contained in
an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding collisions between the States and the general
government, by an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a
similar purpose.
In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises—in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary
and proper to carry those powers into execution, that those laws and that Constitution shall be the "supreme
law of the land; that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding." In vain have the people of the several States solemnly
sanctioned these provisions, made them their paramount law, and individually sworn to support them
whenever they were called on to execute any office.
Vain provisions! Ineffectual restrictions! Vile profanation of oaths! Miserable mockery of legislation! If a
bare majority of the voters in any one State may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which
a law has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation—say here it gives too little, there too
much, and operates unequally—here it suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed, there it taxes those
that ought to be free—in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not
approve, in that the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it is true, are invested by the
Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound discretion. Congress is
composed of the representatives of all the States, and of all the people of all the states; but WE, part of the
people of one State, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject from whom it has
expressly taken it away—we, who have solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law—we, most
of whom have sworn to support it—we now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others to swear, that it
shall not be obeyed—and we do this, not because Congress have no right to pass such laws; this we do not
allege; but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the
motives of those who passed them, which we can never with certainty know, from their unequal operation;
although it is impossible from the nature of things that they should be equal—and from the disposition
which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been declared. This is
the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality. But
it does not stop here. It repeals, in express terms, an important part of the Constitution itself, and of laws
passed to give it effect, which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares
that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and
that such laws, the Constitution and treaties, shall be paramount to the State constitutions and laws. The
judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of the United States, by
appeal, when a State tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares
there shall be no appeal; makes the State law paramount to the Constitution and laws of the United States;
forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions; and even makes it penal in a
suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the
United States, or of that State, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its
limits.
Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a
small majority of the voters of a single State. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly
abrogated by the same authority.
On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the
laws of which it complains, but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union if any attempt is made
to execute them.
This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which they say is a compact between
sovereign States who have preserved their whole sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no superior; that
because they made the compact, they can break it when in their opinion it has been departed from by the
19
other States. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride, and finds advocates in the
honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical
error on which it rests.
The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State legislatures, in making
the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those
provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to be a government in which the people of all the
States collectively are represented. We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President.
Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the vote shall be given. The
candidates having the majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have
given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States,
are represented in the executive branch.
In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of one State do not, as in the case of
President and Vice President, all vote for all the members, each State electing only its own representatives.
But this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not
representatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the
State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in performance of their legislative functions; and
however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular
constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and
highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general good.
The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by
compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which
ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they
retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to
constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede,
because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that
unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense
against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the
United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might
dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense.
Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to
call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error,
or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or
incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.
Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel
themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact
is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it
may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt; if it have
a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations,
generally, has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common
superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied;
and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a
government is an offense, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such
government has the right, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that
right is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in
the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect,
and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of
the laws.
It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that union which connects us; but as
erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must
give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow-citizens, has a higher reverence
20
for the reserved rights of the States than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make
greater personal sacrifices, or official exertions, to defend them from violation; but equal care must be
taken to prevent, on their part, an improper interference with, or resumption of, the rights they have vested
in the nation.
The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of
the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution,
but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the
assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States,
and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from
which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some
of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated.
The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of
a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right
to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all
functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign.
The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States;
they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws
made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be,
denied. How then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to
laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws, when they come in conflict
with those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an
undivided sovereignty, is that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason—not treason against their
separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an offense against sovereignty, and
sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less sacred
because they have for their common interest made the general government the depository of these powers.
The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very
existence. Under the royal government we had no separate character; our opposition to its oppression began
as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the Confederation, and the name was
perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we
consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the
name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defense. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all
changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined powers, created national
governments—how is it that the most perfect of these several modes of union should now be considered as
a mere league that may be dissolved at pleasure? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact is used as
synonymous with league, although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy
of the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, but it is labored to prove it
a compact (which, in one sense, it is), and then to argue that as a league is a compact, every compact
between nations must, of course, be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has
a right to recede. But it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they
were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State
to exonerate itself from the obligation.
So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The
Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can
those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of
the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be
imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a
free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single
State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made.
Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.
These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention: A repeal of all the acts for raising revenue,
leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of our Union
21
by the secession of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known that it could not be
listened to for a moment. It was known if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must
be repelled by force—that Congress could not, without involving itself in disgrace and the country in ruin,
accede to the proposition; and yet if this is not done in a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the
laws, the State is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The majority of a convention
assembled for the purpose have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the
people of South Carolina. It is true that the governor of the State speaks of the submission of their
grievances to a convention of all the States; which, he says, they ''sincerely and anxiously seek and desire."
Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other States on the construction of
the federal compact, and amending it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the
State on to this destructive measure. The State might have proposed a call for a general convention to the
other States, and Congress, if a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the first
magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope that "on a review by Congress and the
functionaries of the general government of the merits of the controversy," such a convention will be
accorded to them, must have known that neither Congress, nor any functionary in the general government,
has authority to call such a convention, unless it be demanded by two-thirds of the States. This suggestion,
then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisions of the Constitution with which this
crisis has been madly hurried on; or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy has
been sought and refused. If the legislature of South Carolina "anxiously desire" a general convention to
consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out?
The assertion that they "earnestly seek" is completely negatived by the omission.
This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one State in the Union have
elected delegates to a State convention; that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United
States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that State has
recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be
empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws
has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended, and it is the intent of this
instrument to PROCLAIM, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution, "to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed," shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law or
of such others as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and Entrust to me for that purpose; but to warn the
citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the danger they will
incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention—to exhort those who have
refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their
country, and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that State have been led,
and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State whose rights they
affect to support.
Fellow-citizens of my native State! let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common
country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children
whom he saw rushing to a certain ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you,
my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves or wish to deceive you.
Mark under what pretenses you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason on which you
stand! First a diminution of the value of our staple commodity, lowered by over-production in other
quarters and the consequent diminution in the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws.
The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded
theory you were taught to believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your exports, not to your
consumption of imported articles. Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws
was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our
fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be
peaceably—might be constitutionally made—that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear
none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your
sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous
features of DISUNION should be taken off. It fell, and you were made to look with complacency on
objects which not long since you would have regarded with horror. Look back to the arts which have
22
brought you to this state—look forward to the consequences to which it must inevitably lead! Look back to
what was first told you as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was
repeated to you that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional
and intolerably oppressive—it was added that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle, but
that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was given to it, made you receive with too much
confidence the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the law and its oppressive effects.
Mark, my fellow-citizens, that by the admission of your leaders the unconstitutionality must be palpable, or
it will not justify either resistance or nullification! What is the meaning of the word palpable in the sense in
which it is here used? that which is apparent to everyone, that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to
perceive. Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who
once approved and advocated the principles of protective duties, answer the question; and let them choose
whether they will be considered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to
every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon your confidence and endeavoring to mislead
you now. In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on
this circumstance, and you will know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you.
They are not champions of liberty emulating the fame of our Revolutionary fathers, nor are you an
oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage. You are free
members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have, indeed,
felt the unequal operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally passed; but that
inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on to the
unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion has commenced. The nearly approaching
payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already caused a
considerable reduction, and that, too, on some articles of general consumption in your State. The
importance of this change was underrated, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of
your burdens was to be expected, at the very time when the condition of the country imperiously demanded
such a modification of the duties as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But as apprehensive of
the effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in which
you now find yourselves.
I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to burly you on to the position you have now
assumed, and forward to the consequences they will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate
the condition of that country of which you still form an important part; consider its government uniting in
one bond of common interest and general protection so many different States—giving to all their
inhabitants the proud title of AMERICAN CITIZEN—protecting their commerce—securing their literature
and arts—facilitating their intercommunication—defending their frontiers—and making their name
respected in the remotest parts of the earth! Consider the extent of its territory its increasing and happy
population, its advance in arts, which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate the mind! See
education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide
extent of our Territories and States! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a
refuge and support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say, WE TOO, ARE CITIZENS OF
AMERICA—Carolina is one of these proud States her arms have defended—her best blood has cemented
this happy Union! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse this happy Union we will
dissolve—this picture of peace and prosperity we will deface—this free intercourse we will interrupt—
these fertile fields we will deluge with blood—the protection of that glorious flag we renounce—the very
name of Americans we discard. And for what, mistaken men! For what do you throw away these
inestimable blessings—for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union?
For the dream of a separate independence—a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors,
and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what
would be your situation? Are you united at home—are you free from the apprehension of civil discord,
with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution
or contending with some new insurrection—do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty
oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I
have no discretionary power on the subject—my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution.
Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you—they could not have
been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the
laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, hut be not deceived by
23
names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the
head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences—on their heads be the dishonor, but on
yours may fall the punishment—on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you
force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you
would be the first victims—its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty—the
consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good
government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not
conceal—it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the
triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the
descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn
the pages of your Revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them
fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their memory—as you love the cause of freedom, to
which they dedicated their lives—as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and
your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of
its convention—hid its members to re-assemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to
remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor—tell them that compared
to disunion, all other evils are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all—declare that you
will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country shall float over you—that you will
not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack
on the Constitution of your country!—its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace—you may
interrupt the course of its prosperity—you may cloud its reputation for stability—but its tranquillity will be
restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred and remain
an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder.
Fellow-citizens of the United States! the threat of unhallowed disunion—the names of those, once
respected, by whom it is uttered—the array of military force to support it—denote the approach of a crisis
in our affairs on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps
that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, and explicit
enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action, and as the claim was asserted of a
right by a State to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of
my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction I give to the
instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of
the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been expressed, I rely with equal confidence on
your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws—to preserve the Union by all
constitutional means—to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to
force; and, if it be the will of Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a
brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the
United States.
Fellow-citizens! the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government
depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the
blessing it secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity with
which that decision will be expressed, will he such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions,
and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage which it will bring to their defense, will transmit them
unimpaired and invigorated to our children.
May the Great Ruler of nations grant that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours may not, by
the madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost, and may His wise providence bring
those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery, of civil strife, and inspire a
returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen, as the
only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire.
In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the
same with my hand.
24
Done at the City of Washington, this 10th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.
ANDREW JACKSON.
By the President
EDW. LIVINGSTON, Secretary of State.
Source: Paul Leicester Ford, The Federalist : A commentary on the Constitution of the United States by
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay edited with notes, illustrative documents and a copious
index by Paul Leicester Ford (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1898).
Study Questions
1. Identify and explain the dangers of a state’s possession of the right to nullify an
act as unconstitutional?
2. Why does Jackson declare that the Constitution is void if the doctrine of
nullification prevails? In what ways is it incompatible with the existence
of the
3. Explain the dangers inherent in questioning the constitutionality of an act
based on the motives of those who passed it.
4. Summarize Jackson’s defense of the Constitution against those who would
claim it has errors.
5. Summarize and explain Jackson’s opinion regarding the right of a state to
secede from the Union. What is Jackson’s tone in arguing this point?
25
South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification (1832)
An Ordinance to Nullify Certain Acts of the Congress of the United States, Purporting To Be Laws,
Laying Duties and Imposts on the Importation of Foreign Commodities.
Whereas, the Congress of the United States, by various acts, purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts
on foreign imports, but in reality intended for the protection of domestic manufactures, and the giving of
bounties to classes and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the expense and to the injury and
oppression of other classes and individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain foreign
commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured in the United States, to afford a pretext for
imposing higher and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to be protected, hath exceeded its
just powers under the Constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such protection, and hath
violated the true meaning and intent of the Constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the
burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of the Confederacy. And whereas, the said
Congress, exceeding its just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose of effecting and
accomplishing the specific objects and purposes which the Constitution of the United States authorizes it to
effect and accomplish, hath raised and collected unnecessary revenue, for objects unauthorized by the
Constitution—
We, therefore, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, do Declare and Ordain,
and it is hereby Declared and Ordained, That the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the
United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and more especially an
act entitled "an act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the nineteenth
day of May, on thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, and also, an act entitled "an act to alter and
amend the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand
eight hundred and thirty-two, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true
meaning and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or
citizens; and all promises, contracts and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered into,
with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter
had in affirmance thereof, are, and shall be held, utterly null and void.
And it is further Ordained, That it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this
State, or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the said acts, within the limits of
this State; but it shall be the duty of the Legislature to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be
necessary to give full effect to this Ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the operation of
the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, within the limits of this State, from and
after the first day of February next; and the duty of all other constituted authorities, and of all persons
residing or being within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required and enjoined, to obey and give
effect to this Ordinance, and such acts and measures of the Legislature as may be passed or adopted in
obedience thereto.
And it is further Ordained, That in no case of law or equity, decided in the Courts of this State, wherein
shall be drawn in question the authority of this Ordinance, or the validity of such act or acts of the
Legislature as may be passed for the purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the aforesaid acts of
Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States;
nor shall any copy of he record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be
attempted to be taken, the Courts of this State shall proceed to execute and enforce their judgements,
according to the laws and usages of the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the person or
persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt with as for a contempt of the Court.
And it is further Ordained, That all person now holding any office of honor, profit or trust, civil or military,
under this State, (members of the Legislature excepted) shall, within such time, and in such manner as the
26
Legislature shall prescribe, take an oath, well and truly to obey, execute and enforce this Ordinance, and
such act or acts of the Legislature as may be passed in pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and
meaning of the same; and on the neglect or omission of any such person or persons so to do, his or their
office or offices shall be forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or persons were dead or
had resigned; and no person hereafter elected to any office of honor, profit or trust, civil or military,
(members of the Legislature excepted) shall, until the Legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter
on the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to discharge the duties thereof, until he shall,
in like manner, have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be impannelled in any of the Courts of this
State, in any cause in which shall be in question this Ordinance, or any act of the Legislature passed in
pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will well
and truly obey, execute, and enforce this Ordinance, and such act or acts of the Legislature as may be
passed to carry the same into operation and effect, according to the true intent and meaning thereof.
And we, the People of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the Government of the
United States, and the People of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this, our Ordinance and
Declaration, at every hazard, Do further Declare, that we will not submit to the application of force, on the
part of the Federal Government, to reduce this State to obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by
Congress, of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval force against the State of South
Carolina, her constituted authorities or citizens, or any act abolishing or closing the ports of this State, or
any of them, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or
any other act, on the part of the Federal Government, to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or
harrass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void, otherwise than through
the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the
Union; and that the People of this State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further
obligation to maintain or preserve their political connexion with the people of the other States, and will
forthwith proceed to organize a separate Government, and to do all other acts and things which sovereign
and independent States may of right do.
Done in Convention, at Columbia, the twenty-fourth day of November, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the Declaration of the Independence
of the United States of America.
JAMES HAMILTON, JR. President of the Convention, and Delegate from St. Peter's
Source: Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 1 (Columbia, SC: A. S. Johnson, 1836), pp. 329–330.
Study Questions
1. Summarize the Ordinance’s charges against Congress.
2. Summarize and Explain the State of South Carolina’s response to the allegedly
illegal acts of Congress.
27
Walt Whitman, Preface to Leaves of Grass (1855)
The Americans of all nations at any time upon the earth have probably the fullest poetical nature. The
United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem. In the history of the earth hitherto the largest
and most stirring appear tame and orderly to their ampler largeness and stir. Here at last is something in the
doings of man that corresponds with the broadcast doings of the day and night. Here is not merely a nation
but a teeming nation of nations. Here is action untied from strings necessarily blind to particulars and
details magnificently moving in vast masses. Here is the hospitality which forever indicates heroes. . . .
Here are the roughs and beards and space and ruggedness and nonchalance that the soul loves. Here the
performance disdaining the trivial unapproached in the tremendous audacity of its crowds and groupings
and the push of its perspective spreads with crampless and flowing breadth and showers its prolific and
splendid extravagance. One sees it must indeed own the riches of the summer and winter, and need never
be bankrupt while corn grows from the ground or the orchards drop apples or the bays contain fish or men
beget children upon women.
Other states indicate themselves in their deputies . . . but the genius of the United States is not best or most
in its executives or legislatures, nor in its ambassadors or authors or colleges or churches or parlors, nor
even in its newspapers or inventors . . . but always most in the common people. Their manners speech dress
friendships-the freshness and candor of their physiognomy-the picturesque looseness of their carriage . . .
their deathless attachment to freedom-their aversion to anything indecorous or soft or mean-the practical
acknowledgment of the citizens of one state by the citizens of all other states-the fierceness of their roused
resentment-their curiosity and welcome of novelty-their self-esteem and wonderful sympathy-their
susceptibility to a slight-the air they have of persons who never knew how it felt to stand in the presence of
superiors-the fluency of their speech-their delight in music, the sure symptom of manly tenderness and
native elegance of soul . . . their good temper and openhandedness-the terrible significance of their
elections-the President's taking off his hat to them not they to him-these too are unrhymed poetry. It awaits
the gigantic and generous treatment worthy of it.
The largeness of nature or the nation were monstrous without a corresponding largeness and generosity of
the spirit of the citizen. Not nature nor swarming states nor streets and steamships nor prosperous business
nor farms nor capital nor learning may suffice for the ideal of man . . . nor suffice the poet. No
reminiscences may suffice either. A live nation can always cut a deep mark and can have the best authority
the cheapest . . . namely from its own soul. This is the sum of the profitable uses of individuals or states and
of present action and grandeur and of the subjects of poets.-As if it were necessary to trot back generation
after generation to the eastern records! As if the beauty and sacredness of the demonstrable must fall behind
that of the mythical! As if men do not make their mark out of any times! As if the opening of the western
continent by discovery and what has transpired since in North and South America were less than the small
theatre of the antique or the aimless sleepwalking of the middle ages! The pride of the United States leaves
the wealth and finesse of the cities and all returns of commerce and agriculture and all the magnitude of
geography or shows the exterior victory to enjoy the breed of fullsized men or one fullsized man
unconquerable and simple.
The American poets are to enclose old and new for America is the race of races. Of them a bard is to be
commensurate with a people. To him the other continents arrive as contributions . . . he gives them
reception for their sake and his own sake. His spirit responds to his country's spirit . . . he incarnates its
geography and natural life and rivers and lakes. . . .
To him enter the essences of the real things and past and present events-of the enormous diversity of
temperature and agriculture and mines-the tribes of red aborigines-the weatherbeaten vessels entering new
ports or making landings on rocky coasts-the first settlements north or south-the rapid stature and musclethe haughty defiance of '76, and the war and peace and formation of the constitution . . . the union always
surrounded by blatherers and always calm and impregnable-the perpetual coming of immigrants-the
warfhem'd cities and superior marine-the unsurveyed interior-the loghouses and clearings and wild animals
28
and hunters and trappers . . . the free commerce-the fisheries and whaling and gold-digging-the endless
gestation of new states-the convening of Congress every December, the members duly coming up from all
climates and the uttermost parts . . . the noble character of the young mechanics and of all free American
workmen and workwomen . . . the general ardor and friendliness and enterprise-the perfect equality of the
female with the male . . . the large amativeness-the fluid movement of the population-the factories and
mercantile life and laborsaving machinery-the Yankee swap-the New-York firemen and the target
excursion-the southern plantation life-the character of the northeast and of the northwest and southwestslavery and the tremulous spreading of hands to protect it, and the stern opposition to it which shall never
cease till it ceases or the speaking of tongues and the moving of lips cease. For such the expression of the
American poet is to be transcendent and new. It is to be indirect and not direct or descriptive or epic. Its
quality goes through these to much more. Let the age and wars of other nations be chanted and their eras
and characters be illustrated and that finish the verse. Not so the great psalm of the republic. Here the theme
is creative and has vista. Here comes one among the wellbeloved stonecutters and plans with decision and
science and sees the solid and beautiful forms of the future where there are now no solid forms.
Study Questions
1. Identify and Summarize Whitman’s characterization of the American Spirit.
2. In what way does this document capture the mood and attitude of American
expansionists?
29
Frederick Douglass, Independence Day Speech (1852)
Fellow citizens above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains,
heave and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If
I do forget, it I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand
forger her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth"! To forget them, to pass lightly
over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking,
and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, them, fellow citizens, is American
Slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slaves point of view. Standing there
identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my
soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July!
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the
nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly
binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this
occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the
name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, All the emphasis I can
command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery the great sin and shame of America!"I will not
equivocate, I will not excuse"; I will use the severest of language I can command; and yet not one word
shall escape that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder,
shall not confess to be right and just.
But I fancy I hear someone of my audience say, "It is just in this circumstance that your and your brother
abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce
less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed."But, I
submit, where all is plain, there is nothing to be argued. What point in the antislavery creed would you have
me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to
prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders
themselves acknowledge it the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they
punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the state of Virginia which, if
committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death, while
only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the
acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is
conceded. It is admitted in the fact that the Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding,
under severe fine sand penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any
such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave.
When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the
sea and the reptiles that crawl shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with
you that the slave is a man!
For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. It is not astonishing that, while
wearer plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools erecting houses, constructing
bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper and silver, and gold; that, while we are
reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers,
doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of
enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding
sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands,
wives, and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully
for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!
Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body?
You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans?
30
Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a
doubtful application of the principle of justice, hart to be understood? How should I look today, in the
presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to
freedom? speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make
myself ridiculous and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of
heaven that does not know that slaver is wrong for him.
What, am I to argue that is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without
wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their
flesh with the last, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder
their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to
their masters? Must I argue that a system them marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong?
No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.
What, then remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our
doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be
divine? Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can may; I cannot. The time for such argument is
past.
At a time like this, scorching iron, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I
reach the nation’s ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering
sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder.
We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened, the
conscience of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes
against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
What, to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other
days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he s the constant victim. To him, your celebration
is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of
rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of
liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings with all
your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy
thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of savages.
There is not a nation on earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the
United States at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old
World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your
facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with that, for revolting barbarity
and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
Study Questions
1. How does Douglass use the celebration of the Fourth of July as a foundation for
his argument against slavery? Describe his tone in this piece.
2. What are the contradictions and injustices of slavery that Douglass brings to light
in this speech?
31
Harriet Beecher Stowe, from Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852)
"And now," said Legree, "come here, you Tom. You see, I telled ye I didn't buy ye jest for the common
work. I mean to promote ye, and make a driver of ye; and tonight ye may jest as well begin to get ye hand
in. Now, ye jest take this yer gal and flog her; ye've seen enough on't [of it] to knowhow." "I beg Mas'r'
pardon," said Tom; "hopes Mas'r won't set me at that. It's what I an't used to-never did-and can't do, no way
possible."
"Ye'll larn a pretty smart chance of things ye never did know, before I've done with ye!" said Legree, taking
up a cowhide and striking Tom a heavy blow across the cheek, and following up the infliction by a shower
of blows.
"There!" he said, as he stopped to rest;"now, will ye tell me ye can't do it?"
"Yes, Mas'r," said Tom, putting up his hand, to wipe the blood that trickled down his face. "I'm willin' to
work, night and day, and work while there's life and breath in me. But this yer thing I can't feel it right to
do; and, Mas'r, I never shall do it-never!"
Tom had a remarkably smooth, soft voice, and a habitually respectful manner that had given Legree an idea
that he would be cowardly and easily subdued. When he spoke these last words, a thrill of amazement went
through everyone. The poor woman clasped her hands and said, "O Lord!" and everyone involuntarily
looked at each other and drew in their breath, as if to prepare for the storm that was about to burst.
Legree looked stupefied and confounded; but at last burst forth: "What! Ye blasted black beast! Tell me ye
don’t think it right to do what I tell ye! What have any of you cussed cattle to do with thinking what's right?
I'll put a stop to it! Why, what do ye think ye are? May be ye think ye're a gentleman, master Tom, to be a
telling your master what's right, and whatan't! So you pretend it's wrong to flog the gal!"
"I think so, Mas'r," said Tom; "the poor crittur's sick and feeble; 'twould be downright cruel, and it’s what I
never will do, nor begin to. Mas'r, if you mean to kill me, kill me; but, as to my raising my hand again any
one here, I never shall-I'll die first!"
Tom spoke in a mild voice, but with a decision that could not be mistaken. Legree shook with anger; his
greenish eyes glared fiercely, and his very whiskers seemed to curl with passion. But, like some ferocious
beast, that plays with its victim before he devours it, he kept back his strong impulse to proceed to
immediate violence, and broke out into bitterly raillery.
"Well, here's a pious dog, at last, let down among us sinners-a saint, a gentleman, and no less, to talk toes
sinners about our sins! Powerful holy crittur, he must be! Here, you rascal, you make believe to be so
pious-didn't you never hear, out of yer Bible, 'Servants, obey yer masters'? An't I yer master? Didn't I pay
down twelve hundred dollars, cash, for all there is inside yer old cussed black shell? An't yer mine, now,
body and soul?" he said, giving Tom a violent kick with his heavy boot; "tell me!"
In the very depth of physical suffering, bowed by brutal oppression, this question shot a gleam of joy an
triumph through Tom's soul. He suddenly stretched himself up, and, looking earnestly to heaven, while the
tears and blood that flowed down his face mingled, he exclaimed, " No! no! no! my soul an't yours, Mas'r!
You haven't bought it-ye can't buy it! It's been bought and paid for by One that is able to keep it. No matter,
no matter, you can't harm me!"
"I can't!" said Legree, with a sneer; "we’ll see-we'll see! Here Sambo, Quimbo, give this dog such a
breakin'in as he won't get over this month!"
32
The two gigantic Negroes that now laid hold of Tom, with fiendish exultation in their faces, might have
formed no unapt personification of powers of darkness. The poor woman screamed with apprehension, and
all rose, as by a general impulse, while they dragged him unresisting from the place.
Study Questions
1. Describe the view of slavery portrayed in this selection from Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
2. What characteristics does Legree possess and what actions does he do that
are symbolic of the practice of slavery?
3. How is Tom a symbol of the moral strength and spirit of slaves?
33
Abraham Lincoln, "A House Divided" (1858)
If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how
to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and
confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation
has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall
have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government
cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved-I do not
expect the house to fall-but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the
other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind
shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction or its advocates will push it forward, till
it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new-North as well as South.
Study Questions
1. What is Lincoln’s view of America’s options as it deals with slavery?
Compare/Contrast his perspective with the secession of the South.
2. How do Lincoln’s attitudes and actions just before and just after his inauguration
compare or contrast with his resolve that America could not exist as “a house
divided” and with his desire to keep the Union together?
34
Clara Barton, Medical Life at the Battlefield (1862)
I was strong and thought I might go to the rescue of the men who fell. . . . What could I do but go with
them, or work for them and my country? The patriot blood of my father was warm in my veins. The
country which he had fought for, I might at least work for. . . .
But I struggled long and hard with my sense of propriety-with the appalling fact that I was only a woman
whispering in one ear, and thundering in the other the groans of suffering men dying like dogs-unfed and
unsheltered, for the life of every institution which had protected and educated me!
I said that I struggled with my sense of propriety and I say it with humiliation and shame. I am ashamed
that I thought of such a thing.
When our armies fought on Cedar Mountain, I broke the shackles and went to the field. . . .
Five days and nights with three hours sleep-a narrow escape from capture-and some days of getting the
wounded into hospitals at Washington, brought Saturday, August 30. And if you chance to feel, that the
positions I occupied were rough and unseemly for a woman-I can only reply that they were rough and
unseemly for men. But under all, lay the life of the nation. I had inherited the rich blessing of health and
strength of constitution-such as are seldom given to woman-and I felt that some return was due from me
and that I ought to be there. . . .
. . . . Our coaches were not elegant or commodious; they had no seats, no platforms, no steps, a slide door
on the side the only entrance, and this higher than my head. For my man attaining my elevated position, I
must beg of you to draw on your imaginations and spare me the labor of reproducing the boxes, boards, and
rails, which in those days, seemed to help me up and down the world. We did not criticize the unsightly
helpers and were thankful that the stiff springs did not quite jostles out. This need not be limited to this
particular trip or train, but will for all that I have known in Army life. This is the kind of conveyance which
your tons of generous gifts have reached the field with the freights. These trains through day and night,
sunshine and heat and cold, have thundered over heights, across plains, the ravines, and over hastily built
army bridges 90 feet across the stream beneath.
At 10 o'clock Sunday (August 31) our train drew up at Fairfax Station. The ground, for acres, was a thinly
wooded slope-and among the trees on the leaves and grass, were laid the wounded who pouring in by
scores of wagon loads, as picked upon the field the flag of truce. All day they came and the whole hillside
was red. Bales of hay were broken open and scattered over the ground littering of cattle, and the sore,
famishing men were laid upon it.
And when the night shut in, in the mist and darkness about us, we knew that standing apart from the world
of anxious hearts, throbbing over the whole country, we were a little band of almost empty handed workers
literally by ourselves in the wildwoods of Virginia, with 3,000 suffering men crowded upon the few acres
within our reach.
After gathering up every available implement or convenience for our work, our domestic inventory stood 2
water buckets, 5tin cups, 1 camp kettle, 1 stew pan, 2 lanterns, 4 bread knives,3 plates, and a 2-quart tin
dish, and 3,000 guest to serve.
You will perceive by this, that I had not yet learned to equip myself, for I was no Pallas, ready armed, but
grew into my work by hard thinking and sad experience. It may serve to relieve your apprehension for the
future of my labors if I assure you that I was never caught so again.
35
But the most fearful scene was reserved for the night. I have said that the ground was littered with dry hay
and that we had only two lanterns, but there were plenty of candles. The wounded were laid so close that it
was impossible to move about in the dark. The slightest misstep brought a torrent of groans from some poor
mangled fellow in your path.
Consequently here were seen persons of all grades from the careful man of God who walked with a prayer
upon his lips to the careless driver hunting for his lost whip,-each wandering about among this hay with an
open flaming candle in his hands.
The slightest accident, the mere dropping of a light could have enveloped in flames this whole mass of
helpless men.
How we watched and pleaded and cautioned as we worked and wept that night! How we put socks and
slippers upon their cold feet, wrapped your blankets and quilts about them, and when we no longer these to
give, how we covered them in the hay and left them to their rest! . . .
The slight, naked chest of a fair-haired lad caught my eye, dropping down beside him, I bent low to draw
the remnant of his blouse about him, when with a quick cry he threw his left arm across my neck and,
burying his face in the folds of my dress, wept like a child at his mother's knee. I took his head in my hands
and held it until great burst of grief passed away. "And do you know me?" he asked at length, "I am
Charley Hamilton, we used to carry your satchel home from school!" My faithful pupil, poor Charley. That
mangled right hand would never carry a satchel again.
About three o'clock in the morning I observed a surgeon with a little flickering candle in hand approaching
me with cautious step up in the wood. "Lady," he said as he drew near, “will you go with me? Out on the
hills is a poor distressed lad, mortally wounded, and dying. His piteous cries for his sister have touched all
our hearts none of us can relieve him but rather seem to distress him by presence."
By this time I was following him back over the bloody track, with great beseeching eyes of anguish on
every side looking up into our faces, saying so plainly, "Don't step on us."
Study Questions
1. What does Barton’s account reveal about the difficulties and obstacles facing
army nurses and medical personnel during the war?
2. Given the description presented by Barton, what conclusions can be made
regarding the conditions of battle for the soldiers. How effective was the care
given to the injured?
36
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863)
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in
liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so
dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a
portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that nation might live. It is
altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate-we cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow-this ground. The brave
men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It
is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have
thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that
from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure
of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under
God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from the earth.
Study Questions
1. How does Lincoln honor the battle of Gettysburg in his address? What did the
soldiers fight for in his opinion?
2. How does Lincoln connect the Battle of Gettysburg, the civil war, and the
independence of America? How does his view of America in this speech differ
from that of the southern leadership?
37