Mr. Bubel – IB History of the Americas Year 1-11 – Homework · Web viewNew Jersey Plan [p.142-143] 6) The Great Compromise [p.143] ... 'Tis a form of government which the word

Mr. Bubel – IB History of the Americas Year 1-11 – Homework

TOPIC 1 – AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1607 – 1844)Website: https://bscsd.schoology.com/home

Grades: https://schooltool3.neric.org/schooltool_BALL/

1

https://schooltool3.neric.org/schooltool_BALL/

https://bscsd.schoology.com/home


P5-IB

Class Day Date Day Topic

HW

1-1 A 9/6 Thursday The American Revolution (1607 – 1783)

HW

1-2 B 9/7 Friday Critical Period & Constitutional Convention (1783 – 1787)

QZ 1-2 B 9/7 Friday IDs #1 – #25: Sub-Topic 1A “The Revolutionary War”

HW

1-3 C 9/10 Monday The U.S. Constitution (1788)

QZ 1-3 C 9/10 Monday IDs #1 – #38: Sub-Topic 1B “The U.S. Constitution”

HW

1-4 A 9/12 Wednesday New Nation: Washington – Monroe (1789 – 1824)

HW

1-5 B 9/13 Thursday New Nation: Jackson – Polk (1824 – 1844)

QZ 1-5 B 9/13 Thursday IDs #1 – #48: Sub-Topic 1C “The New Nation”

EX 1-6 C 9/14 Friday ESSAY: T1-American Revolution

P8-IB

Class Day Date Day Topic

HW

1-1 B 9/7 Friday The American Revolution (1607 – 1783)

HW

1-2 C 9/10 Monday Critical Period & Constitutional Convention (1783 – 1787)

QZ 1-2 C 9/10 Monday IDs #1 – #25: Sub-Topic 1A “The Revolutionary War”

HW

1-3 D 9/11 Tuesday The U.S. Constitution (1788)

QZ 1-3 D 9/11 Tuesday IDs #1 – #38: Sub-Topic 1B “The U.S. Constitution”

HW

1-4 B 9/13 Thursday New Nation: Washington – Monroe (1789 – 1824)

HW

1-5 C 9/14 Friday New Nation: Jackson – Polk (1824 – 1844)

QZ 1-5 C 9/14 Friday IDs #1 – #48: Sub-Topic 1C “The New Nation”

2


EX 1-6 D 9/17 Monday ESSAY: T1-American Revolution

IB PAPER 3 QUESTIONS:1) 2000 – Independence Movements: “Wars of independence in the Americas were primarily caused by

economic grievances.” To what extent is this claim justified with reference to any war of independence in the Americas from 1775 to 1840?

2) 2005 – Independence Movements: “Wars of Independence in the Americas were primarily caused by political grievances.” To what extent do you agree with this view? Support your answer with detailed reference to any one war of independence in the period 1775 to 1824.

3) 2010 – Independence Movements: “American independence from Britain was not a revolution but an evolution.” To what extent do you agree with this view?

4) 2013 – Independence Movements: Compare and contrast the contribution of two of the following leaders to the process of independence in the Americas: John Adams & Thomas Jefferson.

5) 2006 – Nation-Building & Challenges: Why did the Articles of Confederation fail to provide strong government?

6) 2007 – Nation-Building & Challenges: For what reasons, and in what ways, was the U.S. Constitution of 1787 a “bundle of compromises”?

7) 2005 – Nation-Building & Challenges: Analyze the main problems facing the United States under the Articles of Confederation (1781). How far did the United States Constitution (1788) solve them?

8) 2009 – Nation-Building & Challenges: “The debates over the ratification of the constitution contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States in the 1790s.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

9) 2010 – Nation-Building & Challenges: Why did the United States go to war against British North America in 1812?

REGENTS ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1) How did geography influence the development of the colonies politically, economically and socially?”2) What were the factors that shaped and influenced the formation of democratic governments in the 13

colonies?3) What were the causes of the American Revolution?4) What were the achievements and failures of the Articles of Confederation?5) How did the framers of the Constitution address the weaknesses of the Articles while trying to avoid a

tyrannical government? 6) How was the conflict over ratification shaped by political, economic, and social differences?7) How did Washington, Adams, and Jefferson shape the office of the President, which had been vaguely

defined in the Constitution?8) How did presidents from Washington to Monroe attempt to meet foreign policy challenges?9) How did the rulings of the Marshall Court strengthen the power of the Supreme Court?10) What were the major political, social and economic issues dividing the nation during the antebellum

period?

3


Page numbers are provided where the IDs appear in the U.S. History textbook. An “ * ” appears after IDs when you need another source (i.e. Google) to find the information.

IDs: SUB-TOPIC 1A – “THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR (1492 – 1783)”

IDs: SUB-TOPIC 1B – “THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (1781 – 1789)”

4

1) Columbian Exchange (1492) [p.29] 2) Indentured servant [p.45]3) House of Burgesses (1619) [p.48]4) Mayflower Compact (1620) [p.50]5) Mercantilism (17th & 18th c.) [p.66]

14) Boston Massacre (1770) [p.98]15) Boston Tea Party (1773) [p.99]16) Intolerable Acts (1774) [p.99]17) Lexington & Concord (1775) [p.100]18) Second Continental Congress (1775) [p.103]19) Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776) [p.105]

1) Republic [p.133]

2) Articles of Confederation (1781) [p.135] 3) Northwest Ordinance of 1787 [p.135]4) Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787) [p.140]5) Virginia Plan vs. New Jersey Plan [p.142-143]6) The Great Compromise [p.143]7) Three-Fifths Compromise [p.143]8) Federalists vs. Antifederalists

20) Elastic clause [p.158]21) Separation of powers [p.144]22) Legislative branch [p.144]23) Executive branch [p.144]24) Judicial branch [p.144]25) Checks and balances [p.144]26) Congress [p.154]27) House of Representatives [p.154] 28) Impeachment [p.154-155]29) Senate [p.155]30) Veto [p.156]31) Veto override [p.156]32) Electoral college [p.145]


IDs: SUB-TOPIC 1C – “THE NEW NATION (1789 – 1844)”

5

1) George Washington (1789-1787) [p.182]2) Alexander Hamilton [p.183]3) Cabinet (1789) [p.183]4) Thomas Jefferson [p.184]5) Bank of the United States (BUS) (1791) [p.185] 6) Strict interpretation [p.185]7) Loose interpretation [p.185] 8) Compromise of 1790 [p.185]9) Federalists [p.186]10) Political parties [p.186]11) The Whiskey Rebellion (1794) [p.186]12) Protective tariff [p.186]13) Excise tax [p.186]14) Proclamation of Neutrality (1793) [p.191]

24) John Marshall [p.199; 220]25) Marbury v. Madison (1803) [p.199; 206-207]26) Judicial review [p.199]27) Louisiana Purchase (1803) [p.201]28) Lewis & Clark (1804-1806) [p.197; 201]29) Embargo Act (1807) [p.203]

30) James Madison (1809-1817) [p.204]31) War of 1812 (1812-1814) [p.204]32) Monroe Doctrine (1823) [p.221]33) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) [p.220]


HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS: Assignment #1: Due:1-1 –________________________

Reading: NOTES: Pages 2 – 9. Source T1-1: “Boston Tea Party” Source T1-2: “Thomas Paine & Common Sense” Source T1-3: “Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams” Source T1-4: “Declaration of Independence”

Assignment #2: Due:1-2 –________________________ Reading:

NOTES: Pages 10 – 11. Source T1-5: “The Constitutional Convention”


NOTES: Pages 12 – 29. Source T1-6: “History Through Literature: Legacy, By James Michener” Source T1-7: “The Struggle for Ratification” Source T1-8: “Patrick Henry’s Antifederalist Speech” Source T1-9: “Federalist No. 2”


NOTES: Pages 30 – 41. Source T1-10: “Whiskey Rebellion” Source T1-11: “Hamilton & Jefferson” Source T1-12: “President George Washington’s Farewell Address” Source T1-13: “Louisiana Purchase”


NOTES: Pages 42 – 49. Source T1-14: “Northern & Southern Society Comparison” Source T1-15: “The Cherokee Nation's Appeal to the American People” Source T1-16: “Trail of Tears” Source T1-17: “Life in a New England Factory”

6


Source T1-1: Boston Tea PartyEyewitness Account by a Participant (George Hewes)

The tea destroyed was contained in three ships, lying near each other at what was called at that time Griffin's wharf, and were surrounded by armed ships of war, the commanders of which had publicly declared that if the rebels, as they were pleased to style the Bostonians, should not withdraw their opposition to the landing of the tea before a certain day, the 17th day of December, 1773, they should on that day force it on shore, under the cover of their cannon's mouth.

On the day preceding the seventeenth, there was a meeting of the citizens of the county of Suffolk, convened at one of the churches in Boston, for the purpose of consulting on what measures might be considered expedient to prevent the landing of the tea, or secure the people from the collection of the duty. At that meeting a committee was appointed to wait on Governor Hutchinson, and request him to inform them whether he would take any measures to satisfy the people on the object of the meeting.

To the first application of this committee, the Governor told them he would give them a definite answer by five o'clock in the afternoon. At the hour appointed, the committee again repaired to the Governor's house, and on inquiry found he had gone to his country seat at Milton, a distance of about six miles. When the committee returned and informed the meeting of the absence of the Governor, there was a confused murmur among the members, and the meeting was immediately dissolved, many of them crying out, "Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country"; and there was a general huzza for Griffin's wharf.

It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.

When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew.

We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging.

7


We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.

In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded bv British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.

We then quietly retired to our several places of residence, without having any conversation with each other, or taking any measures to discover who were our associates; nor do I recollect of our having had the knowledge of the name of a single individual concerned in that affair, except that of Leonard Pitt, the commander of my division, whom I have mentioned. There appeared to be an understanding that each individual should volunteer his services, keep his own secret, and risk the consequence for himself. No disorder took place during that transaction, and it was observed at that time that the stillest night ensued that Boston had enjoyed for many months.

During the time we were throwing the tea overboard, there were several attempts made by some of the citizens of Boston and its vicinity to carry off small quantities of it for their family use. To effect that object, they would watch their opportunity to snatch up a handful from the deck, where it became plentifully scattered, and put it into their pockets.

One Captain O'Connor, whom I well knew, came on board for that purpose, and when he supposed he was not noticed, filled his pockets, and also the lining of his coat. But I had detected him and gave information to the captain of what he was doing. We were ordered to take him into custody, and just as he was stepping from the vessel, I seized him by the skirt of his coat, and in attempting to pull him back, I tore it off; but, springing forward, by a rapid effort he made his escape. He had, however, to run a gauntlet through the crowd upon the wharf nine each one, as he passed, giving him a kick or a stroke.

Another attempt was made to save a little tea from the ruins of the cargo by a tall, aged man who wore a large cocked hat and white wig, which was fashionable at that time. He had slightly slipped a little into his pocket, but being detected, they seized him and, taking his hat and wig from his head, threw them, together with the tea, of which they had emptied his pockets, into the water. In consideration of his advanced age, he was permitted to escape, with now and then a slight kick.

The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable.

8


Source T1-2 - Thomas Paine & Common Sense

“IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense”:

1. I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished under her former connection with Great-Britain, the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious (false) than this kind of argument.

2. Europe is too thickly planted with Kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of

her connection with Britain....

3. There is something absurd, in supposing a Continent to be perpetually (always/forever) governed by an island....

4. No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally capable of raising a fleet as America. Tar, timber, iron, and cordage (wood/timber) are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing.

5. In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes (WAR). 'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

6. …for I answer roundly that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her.

Source: T1-3 -Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams

March - April 1776

Braintree March 31, 1776

. -- I long to hear that you have declared an independency -- 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 favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the

Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not

9


paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, 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 imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.

Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 April 1776

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government everywhere. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient -- that schools and Colleges 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 won’t blot it out.

Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Although 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 completely subject Us to the Despotism of the Petticoat, 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, Land jobbers, Trimmers, Bigots, Canadians, Indians, Negroes, Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholics, Scotch Renegades, at last they have stimulated to demand new Privileges and threaten to rebel.

Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 7 - 9 May 1776

I cannot say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for whilst you are proclaiming peace and good will to Men, Emancipating all Nations, you insist upon retaining an absolute power over Wives. But you must remember that arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken -- and notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only

10


to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet

"Charm by accepting, by submitting sway

Yet have our Humor most when we obey."

11


Source T1-4:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands

which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…

…In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

12


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Source T1-5: The Constitutional Convention

In 1786, nearly 2,000 debtor farmers in western Massachusetts were threatened with foreclosure of their mortgaged property. The state legislature had voted to pay off the state's Revolutionary War debt in three years; between 1783 and 1786, taxes on land rose more than 60 percent. Desperate farmers demanded a cut in property taxes and adoption of state laws to postpone farm foreclosures. The lower house of the state legislature passed relief measures in 1786, but creditors persuaded the upper house to reject the package.

When lower courts started to seize the property of farmers such as Daniel Shays, a Revolutionary War veteran, western Massachusetts farmers temporarily closed the courts and threatened a federal arsenal. Although the rebels were defeated by the state militia, they were victorious at the polls. A new legislature elected early in 1787 enacted debt relief.

By the spring of 1787, many national leaders believed that the new republic's survival was at risk. The threat of national bankruptcy, commercial conflicts among the states, Britain's refusal to evacuate military posts, Spanish intrigues on the western frontier, and armed rebellion in western Massachusetts underscored the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. The only solution, many prominent figures were convinced, was to create an effective central government led by a strong chief executive.

The Delegates

From Paris, where he held a diplomatic post, Thomas Jefferson described the delegated who convened in Philadelphia to draft the U.S. Constitution an "assembly of demigods." (a person who seems like a god in some way). Yet the Constitution was not handed down from on high. It was the product of the painstaking, halting and often argumentative application of intelligence and experience to problems of governance. The new Constitution was the product of four months of secret negotiations and dozens of compromises.

13


The framers of the Constitution were all white males. Most were wealthy but not all had started out that way. There were the sons of cobblers, clothiers, blacksmiths, and farmers as well as the sons of wealthy planters. One was Roman Catholic. Thirty had participated in the drafting of state constitutions. Thirty-two were lawyers, though few had attended law schools. Two were college presidents, five were planters, eight were merchants or traders, and three were physicians. About twenty-five owned slaves. Six had served or were serving as governors. Of the fifty-five delegates; two became president; one became vice president; four served in the cabinet; fourteen became senators and five became representatives.

The average age of the delegates was 43. The oldest delegate was Franklin, 81; the youngest, Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, 26. James Madison was 36 and Alexander Hamilton just 32. A third had fought in the Revolution. Eight had signed the Declaration of Independence and six had signed the Articles of Confederation. Forty-four of the fifty-five had served in the Continental Congress or in the weak Congress established under the Articles of Confederation.

Most of the delegates were highly educated men, who were fluent in Latin and Greek and knowledgeable about history and philosophy. Washington was embarrassed because he had only five years of formal schooling. But the delegates were also highly practical politicians who knew how to maneuver. Those who opposed the idea of a stronger central government, such as Virginia's Patrick Henry, who said he "smelt a rat," mostly stayed away.

Most of the delegates took a skeptical, realistic view of human nature. They considered self-interest and the lust for power universal human characteristics, which could be controlled but not eliminated. They believed that even good people in government cannot be trusted with unchecked power and that governmental authority must be hedged with structured limitations. They saw society as permanently conflict-driven.

The framers of the Constitution had a profound respect for history. In contrast to Jefferson, they looked to history and experience as a guide, not to reason or nature. They combed history for lessons about the rise and fall of great nations. They were especially interested in the history of the early Greek and Roman republics. Looking at history, they were convinced that a loose confederation would inevitably become weaker and would degenerate into monarchy or tyranny. Weak confederations tended to emphasize the differences among their constituent units and minimize their similarities and common interests.

Philadelphia in 1787The Constitutional Convention took place in the nation's largest and most diverse city. Philadelphia in 1787 had about 40,000 inhabitants. On its streets could be found wealthy Quaker merchants, German-speaking farmers, African-American slaves, and Delaware Indians. Piles of rotten garbage and abandoned animal carcasses also lay in the streets.

Five percent of Philadelphia's citizens owned half its taxable wealth. The city government was a closed corporation whose members chose their own replacements. Meanwhile, more than half of Philadelphia's population existed on the edge of poverty. Prostitution and disease were widespread. Many streets were open sewers. Servants spent their evenings in the taverns of a rough waterfront district called Helltown. Across Walnut Street from Independence Hall (then called the Pennsylvania State House), was a four story prison. Prisoners called out for alms and cursed passers-by who failed

14


Source T1-6: History Through Literature: Legacy, By James Michener

On 9 May 1787, when Simon Starr left his family plantation in northern Virginia and started his five-day horseback ride to the constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he carried with him the letter of instruction his father had sent from his deathbed in western Massachusetts: “…make plans to fill my spot…Fashion a strong new form of government but protect Virginia’s interests.” More than most delegates, Simon appreciated how difficult it would be to fulfill these two commands.

In the first place, his elders in Virginia had made it clear that he and the other delegates were authorized merely “to correct and improve our present Articles of Confederation, and under no circumstances to meddle with any new form of government.” For him to achieve what his father had wanted, a strong central government would require ignoring these instructions.

In the second place, he realized that a new union could not be established unless the three big states – Massachusetts in the North, with its manufacturing; Pennsylvania in the middle, with it commerce; Virginia in the South, with its tobacco and cotton plantations –

found some way to protect their majority interests while ensuring the small states like Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Delaware a respectable voice in whatever form of government emerged. Up to now, it had been one state – one voice, but with the big states constantly accumulating more power and responsibility, such an imbalance could not continue. Rhode Island did not carry the weight of Virginia in population, trade or wealth, and to claim that she did was folly.

He was perplexed as to how this impasse would be resolved, but he was sure of one thing; he would never allow Virginia’s rights to be trampled.

Simon was twenty-eight years old that spring, a graduate of the College of New Jersey at Princeton, red-headed, quick to anger, interested in all aspects of American life. He had served as foot soldier in the latter years of the Revolution, rising to the rank of captain, but he had known none of the commanding figures of that period. In recent years, however, he had corresponded with two of the most brilliant men in Virginia or the nation, George Mason and George Wythe, the dazzling professor of law at William and Mary College. Simon was literate, informed, patriotic, and determined to conduct himself with distinction at the Convention.

As he left that May he assured his wife and young son: “I’ll be back for the fall harvest,” and as he rode down the long lane to the highway, he called out the same message to the slaves who lined the pathway to bid him farewell.

In his compact canvas saddle bags he carried four books he had come to treasure at college: Thucydides’ account of the Greek wars, John Locke’s treatise on government, a book by Adam Smith on the political economy of nations, a saucy novel by Henry Fielding. In his head he carried about as good an education as was then available in either the United States or Great Britain, but in both Princeton and Virginia he had been careful to mask any pretension to superiority. He was an earnest young man of solid ability who would always show deference to his elders. As one of the two youngest members of the Convention he would feel himself at a disadvantage, but he intended to associate himself with older men of talent and make his contribution through supporting them.

He rode into Philadelphia, a burgeoning city of some forth thousand, in the late afternoon of Sunday, 13 May 1787, and without difficulty he found Market Street, the main east-west thoroughfare, which he pursued toward the Delaware River until he came to Fourth Street. Here, in accordance with instructions, he turned south till he saw ahead, swaying in the evening breeze, the

15


reassuring signboard of the Indian Queen Tavern. He tied his horse, took down his saddle bags, and strode inside to announce himself to the innkeeper: “Simon Starr of Virginia, for the room assigned to my father, Jared Starr.”

At the mention of this name, several men who had been idly talking showed great interest and moved forward to meet the newcomer. In the next exciting moments he met members of the Virginia delegation, including four men of distinction: Edmund Randolph, James Madison, and the two older scholars with whom he’d been in correspondence, George Mason and George Wythe. Looking carefully at each as he was introduced, he said: “And General Washington’s a Virginian, too. Add him to you gentlemen, and Virginia’s to be strongly represented,” and Madison said quietly: “We planned it that way.”

One night during the waiting period Starr returned to the Indian Queen, to see a group of delegates speaking with a newcomer, a slender, handsome, self-contained young man of thirty, so compelling in his manner that Simon whispered to a friend: “Who’s that?” and when the man said: “Alexander Hamilton, just in from New York,” Starr gasped so loudly that the newcomer turned, gazed at him with penetrating eyes, and said, almost grandly: “Yes?”

“I’m Jared Starr’s son.”

And now the icy reserve which Hamilton had been showing melted in the sun of remembered friendship. Elbowing his way out of the crowd, he hurried to Simon, embraced him warmly with both arms and cried: “When I learned of your father’s death I felt mortally stricken. A man rarely finds such a trusted friend.”

They spent three hours together that first night, with Hamilton probing in a dozen different directions to determine Starr’s attitudes, and as the evening waned, it became clear that the two men had even more in common than Hamilton had had with old Jared Starr. Both believed in a strong kind of central government, in the right of large states to exercise large powers, and particularly in the sanctity of property. But toward the end of that first exploration Simon heard several of Hamilton’s opinions which could be interpreted as an inclination toward a monarchical form of government: “Simon, the world is divided into those with power and those without. Control of government must rest with the former, because they have most at hazard. Whatever kind of supreme ruler we devise, he should serve for life and so should the members of the stronger house, if we have more than one. That way we avoid the domination of the better class…

16


Source T1-7: The Struggle for Ratification

Document 1

17


18


SOURCE T1-8 from Patrick Henry’s Antifederalist Speech

Patrick Henry served as a delegate at the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788. At the convention, Antifederalists Henry, George Mason, and James Monroe squared off against Federalists James Madison, Edmund Pendleton, and George Wythe. A powerful orator, Henry delivered this speech to the convention. Despite Henry’s opposition to the Constitution, the Federalists won the debate—Virginia became the tenth state to ratify the Constitution.

This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your President may easily become king. Your

Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western Hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely—and I am sure most of this convention are

of the same opinion—have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the

terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to

19


carry everything before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief-Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything and being ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

SOURCE T1-9: from The Federalist No. 2The following excerpt is from one of the Federalist Papers written by John Jay. As you read, consider Jay’s reasons for creating a strong union.

When the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration, therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion, that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. . .

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen

20


everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states. . . .

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet:

“Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness.”

Source T1-10: The Whiskey Rebellion

Document 1At daybreak on July 16, 1794, about fifty men armed with rifles and clubs marched to the house of John Neville, regional supervisor for collection of the federal excise tax in westernPennsylvania. They demanded that Neville resign his position and turn over to them all records associated with collection of the tax on domestically distilled spirits. He refused. Shots were fired. In the ensuing battle five of the attackers fell wounded. One of them later died. Neville and his slaves, who together had defended the premises from secure positions inside the house, suffered no casualties. The mob dispersed. . . .The Whiskey Rebellion, as it is traditionally known and studied, had begun. Before it was over, some 7000 western Pennsylvanians advanced against the town of Pittsburgh, threatened its residents, feigned [pretended] an attack on Fort Pitt and the federal arsenal there, banished seven members of the community, and destroyed the property of several others. Violence spread to western Maryland, where a Hagerstown crowd joined in, raised liberty poles, and began a march on the arsenal at Frederick. At about the same time, sympathetic “friends of liberty” arose in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and back-country regions of Virginia and Kentucky. Reports reached the federal government in Philadelphia that the western country was ablaze and that rebels were negotiating with representatives of Great Britain and Spain, two of the nation’s most formidable European competitors, for aid in a frontier-wide separatist movement. In response, PresidentWashington nationalized 12,950 militiamen from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and

21


Virginia—an army approximating in size the Continental force that followed him during theRevolution—and personally led the “Watermelon Army”* west to shatter the insurgency [rebellion]. . . .

Source: Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution,Oxford University Press, 1986

*Watermelon Army was a nickname by whiskey tax rebels mocking the physical fitness and fighting skills offederal troops, particularly those from New Jersey.

1 According to Thomas P. Slaughter, what was one problem that resulted from the collection of the federal excise tax in western Pennsylvania? [1]

22


Document 2To Major-General LeeSir:—I have it in special instruction from the President [George Washington] of the United States, now at this place, to convey to you the following instructions for the general direction of your conduct in the command of the militia army, with which you are charged.The objects [reasons] for which the militia have been called forth are:

1st. To suppress the combinations [groups] which exist in some of the western counties inPennsylvania, in opposition to the laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States, and upon stills.2nd. To cause the laws to be executed.These objects are to be effected in two ways:1. By military force.2. By judiciary process and other civil proceedings.The objects of the military force are twofold:1. To overcome any armed opposition which may exist.2. To countenance [approve] and support the civil officers in the means of executing the laws….

Your obedient servant,Alexander Hamilton

Source: Alexander Hamilton to Major-General Henry Lee, October 20, 1794,Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Volume VI,G.P. Putnam’s Sons (adapted)

2a According to Alexander Hamilton, what action is President George Washington ordering in response to the Whiskey Rebellion? [1]

b According to Alexander Hamilton, what is one reason President Washington gave this order? [1]

Document 3. . . The [whiskey] rebellion has long been interpreted as a milestone in the creation of federal authority, and in most respects that is its chief significance. Certainly to the Federalists, who had long been striving for a strong national government, it was a major test: the new government successfully crushed organized and violent resistance to the laws. As Hamilton put it, the rebellion “will do us a great deal of good and add to the solidity [stability] of everything in this country.”. . .

Source: Richard H. Kohn, “The Washington Administration’s Decision to Crush the Whiskey Rebellion,”The Journal of American History, December 1972

3 According to Richard H. Kohn, what was the significance of the Whiskey Rebellion? [1]

23


Source T1-11: Hamilton & Jefferson

Despite his murky background as an illegitimate orphan, the self-invented Hamilton was trim and elegant, carried himself with an erect military bearing and had a mind that worked with dazzling speed. At first, Hamilton and Jefferson socialized on easy terms, with little inkling that they were destined to become mortal foes. But their clash inside George Washington's first Cabinet proved so fierce that it would spawn the two-party system in America. It also produced two divergent visions of the country's future that divide Americans to the present day.

Time Magazine, July 5, 2004

24

1

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this

ground: ‘all powers not delegated to the United

4

“Necessary means needful”(referring to the

3

“The bedrock (foundation) of society

2

“The masses are turbulent and changing, they cannot be

5

“The bank is therefore not necessary and consequently not authorized by this phrase.” (referring to the elastic

clause

6

It was the intent of the framers to give a broad interpretation of the

specified powers.” (referring to the elastic clause)


Source T1-12: President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

In early 1796, President George Washington decided not to seek reelection for a third term and began drafting this farewell address to the American people. The address went through numerous drafts, in large part due to suggestions made by Alexander Hamilton.

In the 32-page handwritten address, Washington urged Americans to avoid excessive political party spirit and geographical distinctions. In foreign affairs, he warned against long-term alliances with other nations.

The address was printed in Philadelphia’s American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796. Washington’s final manuscript is at The New York Public Library.

Excerpts from the Transcript of President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

Friends and Fellow Citizens:

1- Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. 2- In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate

antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

3- So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It

25


4- The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

5- It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

6- Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

United States19th September, 1796

Geo. Washington

26


Source T1-13: Louisiana Purchase

1. … There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitualenemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three-eighths of our territory must passto market, and from its fertility it will ere [before] long yield more than half of our whole produceand contain more than half our inhabitants. France, placing herself in that door, assumes to usthe attitude of defiance.…

Source: President Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Robert Livingston, 1802

1. Based on the document, why was New Orleans important to the United States?

2.

To acquire an empire of perhaps half the extent of the one we possessed, from the mostpowerful and warlike nation on earth, without bloodshed, without the oppression of a singleindividual, without in the least embarrassing the ordinary operations of your finances, and all thisthrough the peaceful forms of negotiation, and in despite too of the opposition [despite theopposition] of a considerable portion of the community, is an achievement of which the archivesof the predecessors, at least, of those now in office, cannot furnish a parallel.…

Source: Senator John C. Breckenridge, November 3, 1803

2. According to Senator John C. Breckenridge, what is one reason he supports the purchase of the LouisianaTerritory?

3.… When news of the [Louisiana] purchase reached the United States, President [Thomas]Jefferson was surprised. He had authorized the expenditure of $10 million for a port city, andinstead received treaties committing the government to spend $15 million on a land packagewhich would double the size of the country. Jefferson’s political opponents in the FederalistParty argued that the Louisiana purchase was a worthless desert, and that the Constitution didnot provide for the acquisition of new land or negotiating treaties without the consent of theSenate. What really worried the opposition was the new states which would inevitably be carvedfrom the Louisiana territory, strengthening Western and Southern interests in Congress, andfurther reducing the influence of New England Federalists in national affairs. PresidentJefferson was an enthusiastic supporter of westward expansion, and held firm in his support forthe treaty. Despite Federalist objections, the U.S. Senate ratified the Louisiana treaty in theautumn of 1803.…

3. Based on this document, state two reasons the Federalist Party opposed the purchase of the Louisiana Territory.

27


Source T1-14: Northern & Southern Society Comparison

“It is difficult to imagine a strong union between a nation thatis rich and strong and one that is poor and weak.”

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

Northern and Southern Society ComparedAlexis de Tocqueville came to the United States from France in 1831. He traveled throughout the country studying the American people and their institutions, their economy, and their ways of living. In 1832 de Tocqueville arrived in New Orleans. On this trip he was interested in finding out about some of the differences between the North and South. He was especially interested in observing slavery and gave his views about its effects upon Americans and their nation. He also wrote about the rapid expansion of the United States.

Scarcely a hundred years after the settling of the colonies, the planters were struck by the extraordinary fact that the states that had few slaves increased in population, in wealth, and in prosperity more rapidly than those states that had many slaves. This result seemed difficult to explain, especially since all the settlers, who were Europeans, had the same habits, the same civilization, and the same laws.

The difference was vividly shown when settlements reached the banks of the Ohio River. Rolling lands with rich soil extend along both shores of the Ohio. On either bank of the river the air is equally wholesome

and the climate equally mild. Each bank forms the frontier of a large state. The state upon the left bank is called Kentucky. The one upon the right bank is called Ohio. These two states differ only in one way. Kentucky has admitted slavery, while Ohio has prohibited it. Thus the traveler who floats down the Ohio River may be said to sail between liberty and servitude. A brief inspection will convince anyone which of the two states is more favorable to humanity.

28


Upon the left bank (Kentucky) the population is small. From time to time one sees a group of slaves in the poorly farmed fields. Forest lands are everywhere. Society seems to be asleep, the people seem to be idle. Nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank (Ohio), on the contrary, a busy hum is heard, proclaiming the presence of activity. The fields are full of abundant harvests. The elegance of the houses indicates the taste and activity of the worker. People seem to be enjoying that wealth and satisfaction which is the reward of work.

The influence of slavery extends still further. It affects people’s character. Upon both banks of the Ohio the character of the people is enterprising and energetic. But this vigor is used very differently in the two states. The white inhabitants of Ohio, forced to live by their own efforts, regard prosperity as the chief aim of their existence. Since the land they occupy presents inexhaustible resources for their activity, their greed is extraordinary. They desire wealth, and boldly seize every opportunity that fortune opens to them.

The Kentuckians scorn not only labor but all the undertakings that labor promotes. As they live in idleness, their tastes are those of idle people. Money has lost some of its value in their eyes. They want wealth much less than pleasure and excitement. The energy which their neighbors devote to becoming wealthy is used by them for field sports and military exercises. Thus slavery prevents the whites not only from becoming wealthy, but even from desiring to become so.

In Europe it is generally believed that slavery has made the interests of one part of the Union opposite to those of the other. I have not found this to be the case. Slavery has not created interests in the South opposite to those of the North. But it has changed the character and the habits of the people of the South…

If two people are united in society by the same interests and, to a certain extent, the same opinions but with different characters and a different style of living, these people will probably not agree. The same is true of two societies within a nation.

It is difficult to imagine a strong union between a nation that is rich and strong and one that is poor and weak. Union is even more difficult to maintain when one side is losing strength and the other is gaining it. The rapid increase in population and wealth in certain northern states threatens the independence of the southern states. The weak generally mistrust the justice and the reason of the strong. The states that increase less rapidly than the others look upon those others with envy and suspicion. This is the cause of the deep-seated uneasiness and unrest one sees in the southern states. These states are a striking contrast to the confidence and prosperity common to other parts of the Union.

29


Source T1-15: The Cherokee Nation's Appeal to the American People

The Cherokee Nation fought the Indian Removal Act by first sending a delegation to appear before Congress and President Jackson. Meeting with little success, the Cherokee then published a direct appeal to the American people on July 17, 1830. As you read this excerpt, notice how the Cherokee felt about leaving their homeland.

We wish to remain on the land of our fathers. We have a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation. The treaties with us, and laws of the United States made in pursuance of treaties, guaranty our residence and our privileges, and secure us against intruders. Our only request is, that these treaties may be fulfilled, and these laws executed. But if we are compelled to leave our country, we see nothing but ruin before us. The country west of the Arkansas territory is unknown to us. From what we can learn of it, we have no prepossessions in its favor. All the inviting parts of it, as we believe, are preoccupied by various Indian nations, to which it has been assigned. They would regard us as intruders, and look upon us with an evil eye. The far greater part of that region is, beyond all controversy, badly supplied with wood and water; and no Indian tribe can live as agriculturalists without these articles. All our neighbors, in case of our removal, though crowded into our near vicinity, would speak a language totally different from ours, and practice different customs.The original possessors of that region are now wandering savages lurking for prey in the neighborhood. They have always been at war, and would be easily tempted to turn their arms against peaceful emigrants. Were the country to which we are urged much better than it is represented to be, and were it free from the objections which we have made to it, still it is not the land of our birth, nor of our affections. It contains neither the scenes of our childhood,nor the graves of our fathers. . . . It is under a sense of the most pungent feelings that we make this, perhaps our last appeal to the good people of the United States. It cannot be that the community we are addressing, remarkable for its intelligence and religious sensibilities, and preeminent for its devotion to the rights of man, will lay aside this appeal, without considering that we stand in need of its sympathy and commiseration. We know that to the Christian and to the philanthropist the voice of our multiplied sorrows and fiery trials, will not appear as an idle tale. In our own land, on our own soil, and in our own dwellings, which we reared for our wives and for our little ones, when there was peace on our mountains and in our valleys, we are encountering troubles which cannot but try our very souls. But shall we, on account of these troubles, forsake our beloved country? Shall we be compelled by a civilized and Christian people, with whom we have lived in perfect peace for the last forty years, and for whom we have willingly Wed in war, to bid a final adieu to our homes, our farms, our streams and our beautifulforests? No. We are still firm. We intend still to cling, with our wonted affection, to the land which gave us birth, and which, every day of our lives, brings to us new and stronger ties of attachment. We appeal to the judge of all the earth, who will finally award us justice, and to the good sense of the American people, whether we are intruders upon the land of others. Our consciences bear us witness that we are the invaders of no man's rights—we have robbed no man of his territory—we have usurped no man's authority, nor have we deprived any one of his unalienable privileges. How then shall we indirectly confess the right of another people

30


to our land by leaving it forever? On the soil which contains the ashes of our beloved men wewish to live—on this soil we wish to die. . . . August 21, 1830. "Memorial of the Cherokee Nation,"

Source T1-16: Trail of Tears

1838: The Trail of Tears: forced to resettle in what became Oklahoma, many Cherokee died on the brutal journey west

New York Times Upfront, Jan 24, 2005 by Rex Bowman

With bayonets fixed to their guns, small squads of U.S. soldiers stealthily set out on May 26, 1838, to surround the little cabins in Georgia where the Cherokee lived. The soldiers then rushed inside, seizing entire families and herding them into stockades. From the stockades, the Cherokee would be led on a forced march to Oklahoma. "Families at dinner were startled by the sudden gleam of bayonets in the doorway and rose up to be driven with blows and oaths along the trail that led to the stockade," wrote ethnologist James Mooney in 1900, after interviewing many of those forced from their homes. "Men were

seized in their fields or going along the road, women were taken from their [spinning] wheels and children from their play." Many who looked back saw their homes in flames, their cattle, pigs, and horses scattered or gone.

So began what the Cherokee came to call the Trail of Tears: the deadly, forced trek from their homes in Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and Tennessee to unknown lands west of the Mississippi River. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Indians died during the brutal three-month-long trek west while land-hungry white settlers took possession of their farms.

A 1,000-MILE TREK WEST

According to a magazine correspondent who covered the marches, the soldiers drove the Cherokee through rivers without giving them time to remove their shoes. A deaf Indian who turned right instead of left was shot dead, and a Cherokee was given 100 lashes after striking a soldier who had pushed his wife.

31


In little more than a month after the soldiers' initial raid, 5,000 Cherokee had been sent to Oklahoma, then known as the Indian Territory, because it was where the government planned to resettle eastern tribes. The remaining Cherokee, between 12,000 and 13,000, began the forced march west in October 1838. They traveled a variety of land and water routes through Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas. Many succumbed to colds, dysentery, and diarrhea. The last group straggled into Indian Territory in March 1839. Between 800 and 4,000 died in the stockades and along the way.

INDIAN REMOVAL ACT

The Cherokee's 1,000-mile march was the result of the Indian Removal Act that President Andrew Jackson signed into law in 1830. The law stated that if tribes living east of the Mississippi wished to exchange their lands for lands to the west, the federal government would agree to the swap. The law mentioned nothing about removing the Indians by force. But Jackson's intent was just that. He told Congress in 1833: "That those tribes cannot exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain." Jackson began pressuring tribes to sign treaties and move.

The Cherokee removal followed the removal of the Creek from Alabama (1836); the Choctaw from Mississippi and Alabama (1836); and the Chickasaw from Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi (1837). During this period, federal authorities virtually emptied the Southeast of its native residents and sent them to Oklahoma.

The Indian Removal Act and the trek west were especially bitter for the Cherokee because they had tried to assimilate into the white culture. They had taken up farming, increasingly embraced Christianity, and written a constitution. Many dressed like their white neighbors. Their efforts at assimilation failed. Though treaties acknowledged Indian ownership of tens of millions of acres in Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Florida, the federal government had always hoped to move the tribes west to make room for the nation's burgeoning population.

In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson told Georgia it could have the Cherokee lands if the state would give up ownership of territory that eventually formed the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Georgia agreed, ceded the land, and waited for the Cherokee to leave. By 1821, only several thousand Cherokee had moved, and Georgia clamored for the federal government to make good on Jefferson's promise. Bloody clashes erupted between Cherokee and illegal settlers on their lands. Meanwhile, Georgia enacted laws saying Cherokee land belonged to Georgia. The Cherokee's situation grew desperate in July 1829 when gold was discovered near Dahlonega, Ga. The gold fields largely lay in tribal land. Miners poured in, trampling Cherokee communities, defiling streams, and seizing their land while the state and federal governments looked away. Georgia passed a law prohibiting Indians from digging or mining for gold.

A LANDMARK RULING

The Cherokee challenged the Georgia laws, and in March 1832, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. In the first decision spelling out the limits of states' control of their native Indian populations, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Georgia laws were "repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States." Georgia ignored the Supreme Court, and President Jackson refused to intervene. He reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." State surveyors began dividing Cherokee land into 40-acre and 160-acre plots to sell to white settlers and miners. A few Cherokee chiefs who had long argued that the Cherokee could remain where they were if they adopted white people's ways, now lost hope and urged the tribe to sign a treaty and join the other Southeast tribes that had moved to Oklahoma. In December 1835, several hundred Cherokee approved the Treaty of New Echota (named for the Georgia town where it was signed), agreeing to exchange the tribe's eastern lands for 5 million dollars and 7 million acres in Oklahoma. The vast majority of Cherokee opposed the treaty, but the U.S. Senate ratified it in 1836. When the May 23, 1838, deadline for removal came, most Cherokee remained in their homes. General Winfield Scott then ordered the roundup that began on May 26.

32


LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES

"The Trail of Tears marked a watershed in the nature of treaties," says Sam Cook, director of American Indian studies at Virginia Tech. "Treaties are supposed to be somber agreements between sovereign nations, but the tribes were no longer treated as equitably. The Trail of Tears marked a point where what is legal and what is ethical became separated." The forced removal of American Indians that began in the early 1800s had far-reaching consequences: Today, more than 300 federally recognized American Indian reservations dot the nation's landscape, many the result of a presumption that the government had a right to relocate tribes and establish the boundaries of their land. Of the 2.5 million American Indians now living in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau, 538,000 live on reservations--many of them far from where their ancestors lived

SOURCE T1-17: “Life in a New England Factory”from Voice of Industry, June 26, 1845

The Voice of Industry was one of the most widely read American labor papers of the 1840s. The article from which this excerpt was taken called for a 10-hour workday, part of the reform movement aimed at improving working conditions.

During the last winter a petition was presented to the Legislature of Massachusetts, by eight hundred and fifty “peaceable, industrious and hardworking men and women,” declaring that they are confined from thirteen to fourteen hours per day in unhealthy apartments, and are hastening through pain, disease, privation, down to a premature grave, and praying the State to inquire into their condition and to restrict the number of hours of labor in Factories to ten per day,—This, and other similar petitions, were signed by two thousand one hundred and thirty-nine persons, chiefly females.

The operatives in England are prohibited, by act of Parliament, from being employed more than at a rate of eleven and a half hours per day. . . .

The operatives in Lowell work

In January, 11 hours 24 min.In February, 12 hoursIn March, 11 hours 52 min.In April, 13 hours 31 min.In May, 12 hours 55 min.In June, 12 hours 45 min.In July, 12 hours 45 min.In August, 12 hours 45 min.In September, 12 hours 43 min.In October, 12 hours 16 min.In November, 11 hours 46 min.In December, 11 hours 24 min.

To this must be added in each instance thirty minutes, at least, for going to and from the mill, at morning and evening. They go to and return from breakfast in thirty minutes, to and from dinner in thirty minutes, for about eight months in a year; and the other four months they are allowed forty-five minutes.

33


. . . A woman in a Factory in New England, works one hour and some minutes longer, every day in the year, than a woman in a British Factory—They are allowed four days as holidays; the English are allowed six.

First it must be apparent that the hours allowed for labor are too many.

Second, that the minutes allowed for them to take their food are too few.

Third, that these causes are sufficient to impair health, induce disease, premature old age, and death.

Fourth, that these causes, . . . acting upon so large a number of females assembled in the manufactories of New England, must in time affect the physical condition of the people of New England.

Fifthly, that no reason can be given why these evils should not produce the same terrible effects here, as in England, where their full results are developed.

Sixth, that as the British Parliament, from motives of humanity have been compelled to interfere in behalf of the operatives, prudence and mercy call upon our legislators to do likewise.

Seventh, that the example of this State would be followed at once throughout New England.

34

Documents

Mr. Bubel – IB History of the Americas Year 1-11 – Homework · Web viewNew Jersey Plan [p.142-143] 6) The Great Compromise [p.143] ... 'Tis a form of government which the word