WEEK SEVEN INTRODUCTORY VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhxBn6h81Y

WEEK SEVEN HISTORICAL VIDEOS

There are two of these this week, one on the Louisiana Purchase and one on the most important court case in American history, Marbury v. Madison:

http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/US%20History%20I/course%20files/multimedia/lesson20/lessonp_nroc_nonap.html

http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/US%20History%20I/course%20files/multimedia/lesson20/lessonp_nroc_nonap.html

WEEK SEVEN READING

Start reading Frederick Douglass, keeping in mind the reading question that I offered into he introductory video.

WEEK SEVEN HISTORICAL BLOG ENTRY AND RESPONDING TO CLASSMATES

As you come across lines from the Autobiography of Frederick Douglass that seem noteworthy, write them here and make a short comment on them. (since we are looking for quotes, there is no word length requirement this week)

WEEK SIX INTRODUCTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxa-YLihLPo&feature=youtu.be

WEEK SIX HISTORY VIDEO LESSON

 

http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/US%20History%20I/course%20files/multimedia/lesson16/lessonp_nroc_nonap.html

WEEK SIX READING

WEEK SIX READING

The Constitution of the United States of America

---

PREFACE

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES sets forth the nation's fundamental laws.
It establishes the form of the national government and defines the rights and liberties of the American people. It also lists the aims of the national government and the methods of achieving them. Previously, the nation's leaders had established an alliance among the states under the Articles of Confederation. But the Congress created by the Articles lacked the authority to make the states work together to solve national problems.

After the states won independence in the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), they faced all the problems of peacetime government. The states had to enforce law and order, collect taxes, pay a large public debt, and regulate trade among themselves. They also had to deal with Indian tribes and negotiate with other governments. Leading statesmen, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, began to discuss the need to create a strong national government under a new constitution.

Hamilton helped bring about a constitutional convention that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation. But a majority of the delegates at the convention decided instead to write a new plan of government -- the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution established not merely a league of states, but a government that exercised its authority directly over all citizens. The Constitution defines the powers delegated to the national government. In addition, it protects the powers reserved to the states and the rights of every individual.

THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

The Constitution consists of a preamble, seven articles, and 27 amendments. It sets up a federal system by dividing powers between the national and state governments. It also establishes a balanced national government by separating powers among three independent branches -- the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive branch, the President, enforces national laws; the legislative branch, the Congress, makes national laws; and the judicial branch, the Supreme Court and other federal courts, applies and interprets laws when deciding legal disputes in federal courts.

Federal powers listed in the Constitution include the right to collect taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign trade. In addition to these delegated, or expressed powers (those listed in the Constitution), the national government has implied powers (those reasonably implied by the delegated powers. The implied powers enable the government to respond to the changing needs of the nation. For example, Congress had no specific delegated power to print paper money. But such a power is implied in the delegated powers of borrowing and coining money.

In some cases, the national and state governments have concurred powers -- that is, both levels of government may act. The national government laws are supreme in case of a conflict. Powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government or forbid to the states, reserved powers, belong to the people or to the states. State powers include the right to legislate on divorce, marriage, and public schools. Powers reserved for the people include the right to own property and to be tried by a jury.

The Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. It can set aside any law -- federal, state, or local -- that a majority of the justices believes conflicts with any part of the Constitution.

THE NEED FOR THE CONSTITUTION

Confederation was not strong enough to govern the new nation. For example, it lacked an executive branch and a system of national courts. It could not regulate trade between the states or tax the states or their citizens. It was little more than an assembly of the representatives of 13 independent states.

In 1783, after the Revolutionary War, the nation entered a period of unstable commercial and political conditions. Alexander Hamilton and his supporters would have had little success in their campaign for a new constitution if conditions had been better. Some historians perhaps have painted the troubles of the new republic in much too gloomy colors. But little doubt remains that the situation became steadily worse after 1783. Each state acted almost like an independent country. Each ran its own affairs exactly as it saw fit, with little concern for the needs of the republic. The states circulated a dozen different currencies, most of which had little value. Neighboring states taxed each other's imports. Great Britain refused to reopen the channels of trade that the colonies had depended on for their economic well-being. The state legislatures refused to pay the debts they had assumed during the Revolutionary War. Many states passed laws that enabled debtors to escape paying their obligations.

Worst of all, some people began to think once again of taking up arms in order to solve their problems. In western Massachusetts in 1786, hundreds of farmers under Captain Daniel Shays rebelled against the state government. State troops finally put down Shays's Rebellion. George Washington and other leaders wondered whether the colonies had rebelled against Great Britain in vain. They felt it was time to end these troubles and bring peace and order by forming a new national government. This new government would have to be strong enough to gain obedience at home and respect abroad.

Representatives from five states met in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786. They proposed that the states appoint commissioners to meet in Philadelphia and consider revising the Articles of Confederation. Congress agreed to the proposal and suggested that each state select delegates to a constitutional convention.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The Convention was supposed to open on May 14, 1787. But few of the 55 delegates had arrived in Philadelphia by that date. Finally, on May 25, the Convention formally opened in Independence Hall. Twelve states had responded to the call for the Convention. Rhode Island had refused to send delegates because it did not want the national government to interfere with Rhode Island's affairs.

Of the 55 delegates, 39 signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787. One of the signers was John Dickinson of Delaware, who left the Convention but asked another delegate, George Read, to sign for him. William Jackson, the Convention secretary, witnessed the signatures. The delegates included some of the most experienced and patriotic men in the new republic. George Washington served as president of the Convention. Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81, attended as a Representative of Pennsylvania. The brilliant Alexander Hamilton represented New York. James Madison of Virginia received the title of "Father of the Constitution" with his speeches, negotiations, and attempts at compromise. Madison told the delegates they were considering a plan that would "decide forever the fate of republican government." He kept a record of the delegates' debates and decisions.

Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Edmund Randolph, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was probably the most influential delegate after Madison and Washington. He was given the task of putting all the Convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. An original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives building in Washington, D.C.

Several important figures of the time did not attend the Convention. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were absent abroad on other government duties. Samuel Adams and John Jay failed to be appointed delegates from their states. Patrick Henry refused to serve after his appointment because he opposed granting any more power to the national government. Three leading members of the convention -- Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph -- refused to sign the Constitution because they disagreed with parts of it.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE CONSTITUTION. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention relied greatly on past experience as they worked to create a new government. They recalled many important events in the development of constitutional government. These included the granting of Magna Carta, an English constitutional document, in 1215, and the meeting of the Jamestown Representative Assembly in 1619. Some of the colonies also served as examples of constitutional forms of government. Colonial governments had weaknesses but had progressed beyond other governments of their time in achieving liberty under law.

About the time of the Revolutionary War, several American states established constitutional governments. In 1777, John Jay of New York had helped write a constitution for his state. John Adams of Massachusetts had helped write the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia used many ideas and words from the constitutions of these and other states.

The delegates also drew on their own experiences. For example, Benjamin Franklin had proposed a plan at the Albany Congress of 1754 to unify the colonies under a central government. Washington remembered his own problems during the war when, as Commander-in-Chief, he had to work with the weak Confederation government. Almost every delegate to the Convention had served as a soldier or administrator of the government. The delegates often disagreed on details but were united in wanting the new government to be strong enough to rule the nation, but no so strong as to threaten the liberties of the states and of the people.

THE COMPROMISES. The task of creating a new government was not easily accomplished. Disputes among the delegates nearly ended the Convention on several occasions. For example, delegates from the large and more populous states disagreed with those from the small states about representation in the national legislature. The larger states favored the Virginia Plan, under which population would determine the number of representatives a state could send to the legislature. The smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan, which proposed that all the states would have an equal number of representatives. The Connecticut delegates suggested a compromise that settled the problem. Their plan provided for equal representation in the Senate, along with representation in proportion to population in the House of Representatives. This proposal became known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise.

Compromises also settled conflicts over the issue of slavery. The delegates from the Northern states wanted Congress to have the power to forbid the foreign slave trade and eventually to abolish slavery. Most Southern delegates did not wish Congress to have this power. A compromise decided that Congress would not be allowed to regulate the foreign slave trade until 1808. Another compromise involved the question of how to count slaves in determining the number of congressmen a state could have. Slaves were not considered citizens, and so the Convention agreed that only three-fifths of them could be counted.

The delegates agreed that each state should hold a special convention to discuss and vote on the Constitution. They also decided that as soon as nine states had ratified (approved) the Constitution, the Constitution would take effect and they could begin to organize their new government.

RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION

Less than three months after the Constitution was signed, Delaware became the first state to ratify it, on December 7, 1787. New Hampshire was the ninth state, putting the Constitution into effect on June 21, 1788. But the Founding Fathers could not be sure that the Constitution would be generally accepted until the important states of New York and Virginia had ratified it. Powerful organized opposition to the Constitution had developed in these two states and in others. Such men as Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Mason spoke out against ratification.

Critics objected that a bill of rights had not been included, that the President had too much independence, and that the Senate was too aristocratic. They also thought Congress had too many powers and the national government had too much authority. Friends of the Constitution rallied support for ratification. They became known as Federalists. Their opponents were called Antifederalists. The two groups promoted their causes in newspapers, in pamphlets, and in debates in the ratifying conventions. The groups developed into the first American political parties.

Constitution on June 25, 1788, and New York did so on July 26. Early in January 1789, all the ratifying states except New York (which failed to appoint electors by the deadline) selected presidential electors in their legislatures or by a direct vote of the people. On February 4, the electors named George Washington as the first President of the United States. The first Congress under the Constitution met in New York City on March 4. Washington was inaugurated on April 30. But North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to approve the Constitution and take part in the new government until Congress agreed to add a bill of rights.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Federalists might never have obtained ratification in several important states if they had not promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution. Most state constitutions adopted during the Revolution had included a clear declaration of the rights of all people. Most Americans believed that no constitution could be considered complete without such a declaration. George Mason of Virginia was responsible for the first and most famous American bill of rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776. He and Patrick Henry might have prevented ratification of the Constitution in Virginia if the Federalists had not agreed to their demands for amendments.

James Madison led the new Congress in proposing amendments. He suggested 15 amendments, and the Congress accepted 12 of them to be submitted for ratification by the state legislatures under the amending process outlined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution. By December 15, 1791,the necessary legislatures in three-fourths of the states had approved 10 of the 12 amendments. These 10 amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. One of the two rejected amendments dealt with the size of the House of Representatives. It would have changed representation from no more than one representative for every 30,000 persons to no more than one for every 50,000 persons. The other rejected amendment provided that Congress could not change the salaries of its members until after an election of representatives had been held. It was ratified 202 years later and it became the 27th Amendment.

The Antifederalists accepted defeat when the Constitution was adopted, and then they set about to win power under its rules. Their actions set a style for American politics that has never changed. Americans sometimes feel dissatisfied with the policies and practices of those who govern. But few Americans have condemned the constitutional system or have felt that a second Constitutional Convention might establish a better one.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

James Madison declared, "In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce." The Constitution was designed to serve the interests of the people -- rich and poor, Northerners and Southerners, farmers, workers, and businessmen. Through the years, the Constitution has been interpreted to meet the changing needs of the United States.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed strongly in the rule of the majority, but they wanted to protect minorities against any unjustness by the majority. They achieved this goal by separating and balancing the powers of the national government. Other basic constitutional aims included respect for the rights of individuals and states, rule by the people, separation of church and state, and supremacy of the national government.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times, including the Bill of Rights. Amendments may be proposed by two-thirds of each house of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures in two-thirds of the states. An amendment becomes part of the Constitution after being ratified either by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. Congress decides which form of ratification should be used and how much time the states have to consider each amendment. In many cases, Congress has chosen a seven-year period for such consideration.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew they could not write laws for every possible situation. Therefore, they gave Congress the right to pass all laws that are "necessary and proper" to carry out powers granted by the Constitution to the President, Congress, and federal courts. Congress has passed laws to establish such administrative organizations as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Postal Service. Congress also has passed laws to regulate interstate commerce, thereby controlling many aspects of the U.S. economy.

COURT DECISIONS. Federal and state judges apply the Constitution in many court cases. The Supreme Court has the final authority in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution in any specific case. The court has the power of judicial review -- that is, it can declare a law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has this power largely because of the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Since that time, the court has ruled that more than 100 federal laws and hundreds of state laws were unconstitutional.

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS. Strong Presidents have used their authority to expand the simple words of the Second Article of the Constitution into a source of great presidential power. Such Presidents include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush. Washington, for example, made the President the leading figure in foreign affairs. Lincoln used the powers set forth in the article to free the slaves from the southern states in rebellion during the Civil War (1861-1865).

CUSTOMS have made the Constitution flexible and have added to the powers of the national government. For example, the President's cabinet developed from the words in the Second Article that permit the chief executive to "require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices."

STATE AND PARTY ACTIONS. The Constitution provides for a general method of electing a President. It does not mention political parties. But state laws and political party practices have changed the constitutional system of voting into the exciting campaigns and elections that take place today.

The Constitution has continued to develop in response to the demands of an ever-growing society through all these methods. Yet the spirit and wording of the Constitution have remained constant. People of each generation have applied its provisions to their own problems in ways that seem reasonable to them.

The British statesman William E. Gladstone described the Constitution as "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." In a world of change and struggle, the American people have no more precious possession than this great document.

 

THE CONSTITUTION AND SLAVERY:

The Founding Fathers and the Constitution

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, slavery in the United States was a grim reality. In the census of 1790, there were slaves counted in nearly every state, with only Massachusetts and the "districts" of Vermont and Maine, being the only exceptions. In the entire country 3.8 million people were counted, 700,000 of them, or 18 percent, were slaves. In South Carolina, 43 percent of the population was slave. In Maryland 32 percent, and in North Carolina 26 percent. Virginia, with the largest slave population of almost 300,000, had 39 percent of its population made up of slaves.

In the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, there is not mention of slavery. The states were represented in Congress by state, with each state picking its own representatives, so population, which became critical in the future House of Representatives, was not relevant. Also, because fugitive slaves, and the abolition movement, were almost unheard of as late as the 1780s, there is no mention of this issue in the Articles. The closest thing to be found is the Fugitive Clause in Article 4, but even that is more geared toward convicts.

There was no great movement in America to abolish slavery in the 1780's, when the Constitutional Convention met. To be sure, there were opponents of slavery, on a philosophical level, but the abolition movement did not appear until the 1830's, when the American Anti-Slavery Society was founded with William Lloyd Garrison writing the organization's nascent statement of principles. Prior to the Convention in 1787, many "Founding Fathers" expressed opinions that condemned slavery.

John Jay, great supporter of the Constitution after its creation and an author of The Federalist wrote in 1786, "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."

Patrick Henry, the great Virginian patriot, refused to attend the Convention because he "smelt a rat," was outspoken on the issue, despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Alas, like many Southerners, Jefferson held slaves, as many as 223 at some points in his life. His family sold his slaves after his death, in an effort to relieve the debt he left his estate in.

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it." Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.

The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."

Other examples of anti-slavery messages abound from the late 1700's. They illustrate the feelings of some, but those feelings cannot be seen in the product of their works at creating a government. Despite the freedoms demanded in the Declaration and the freedoms reserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, slavery was not only tolerated in the Constitution, but it was codified.

The Constitution has often been called a living tribute to the art of compromise. In the slavery question, this can be seen most clearly. The Convention had representatives from every corner of the United States, including, of course, the South, where slavery was most pronounced. Slavery, in fact, was the backbone of the primary industry of the South, and it was accepted as a given that agriculture in the South without slave labor was not possible. Though slaves were not cheap by any measure, they were cheaper than hiring someone to do the same work. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and tobacco required slaves to work the fields from dawn to dusk. If the nation did not guarantee the continuation of slavery to the South, it was questioned whether they would form their own nation.

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

It has been said that the seeds of the Civil War, which was fought, despite revisionist theory to the contrary, over the issue of slavery, were sown in the compromises of the Constitution on the issue. This is probably true. Slavery, which was started in violence in the kidnapping, shipment, and commerce of human chattel, needed violence to bring it to an end. After the devastation of the Revolutionary War and the unrest in the U.S. under the Articles, a time of peace and recovery was needed to strengthen the nation to a point where it could survive a civil war. The greatest tragedy is that in the nearly 100 years between the start of the Revolutionary War and the end of the Civil War, millions of slaves served, suffered, and died so that the nation could prosper.

WEEK SIX HISTORICAL BLOG ENTRY AND RESPONDING TO CLASSMATES

Considering what you read, what surprises you about the Constitution?

 

Is the Constitution still relevant? Which parts seem most relevant to our country now? This may not be simply what we hear the most about, but in looking over the whole document, which parts seem most crucial to our current historical circumstance.

WEEK 5...MIDTERM WEEK

Greetings,

As I mentioned in the email last week, I am now sending you the midterm exam. You have until Saturday at midnight to email me your responses. For both of the questions, you may use any source you would like. Be sure to leave quoted material in quotes. Also, I have posted below the information for the second question. If you recall, this is the one where you are a colonist trying to decide whether or not to support the revolution.

 

This midterm should be completed and emailed to me by Saturday, October 19^th. You should write your responses into ONE word documents and email that to me as an attachment.

If you have any questions or problems with this exam, talk to me during the week. I can be available to meet at many times and can help on email at almost any time, so don’t sit with your questions…ask it! And obviously, don’t wait until Saturday to start this exam. Starting early ensures that you are thinking about it and re-thinking, and maybe asking questions, and thinking more, and then writing, and then revising a bit, and then finding more info, and then writing more or changing what you wrote, and finally turning in something that you think is insightful!

 

Have a good week!

 

Dr. S

 

 

HISTORY 231 MIDTERM EXAM

 

Midterm Exam Part One: (50%)

How have the colonies changed from the early colonies, through the middle times, to the end of the Revolution?

This should be written as an essay response.

 

 

Midterm Exam Part Two: (50%)

You are a colonist. Your family is split right down the middle on the question of support for the American Revolution. The Revolution has not started yet. Your family has found a set of documents, some supporting the revolution and others against the patriot cause. Use those documents and describe a conversation between various members of the family over this issue. Be sure that by the end of the conversation, your family is firmly on one side or the other. Will your family support the revolution or remain loyal to England?

The structure of the family is up to you. You are the husband talking to the wife. You are the dutiful and silent child, listening as mom and dad discuss the events. You are the wife, daughter of English aristocrats, but your husband is from a colonial family. As I said, set it up in any way you want.

The most important question is, should your family support the revolution or remain loyal to England?

 

The response should be written as a dialogue. Here is an example of a dialogue:

 

MOTHER: Hi dear, what would you like for dinner?

FATHER: Fishcakes with veggies.

DAUGHTER: No, not fishcakes again.

FATHER: Be silent, daughter. I am going to tell mom about this new document I found. It is written by Thomas Paine(DOCUMENT B) and states that we colonists should be free from England.

MOTHER: Keep your voice down. The Smiths next door will turn us in if they hear you talking like that.

DAUGHTER: The fact that we can go to jail for just speaking about this makes me want to be free.

FATHER: You bring up a good point, dear daughter, one that Benjamin Franklin(DOCUMENT A) wrote about when discussing his brother’s newspaper and how they “gave offence to the assembly.” We should have freedom of the press.

 

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, LETTERED FROM DOCUMENT A TO DOCUMENT J, WERE FOUND BY YOU. YOU MAY ALSO USE COMMON SENSE, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, OR ANY OTHER SOURCE TO HELP YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

You DO NOT have to use all the documents!

 

 

DOCUMENT A

POEM AGAINST THE STAMP ACT, 1765

 

In spite of each parasite, each cringing slave

Each cautious dastard, each oppressive knave

Each gibing ass, that reptile of an hour

The supercilious pimp of abject slaves in power

We are met to celebrate in festive mirth

The day that gave our freedom second birth

That tells us, British Grenville never more

Shall dare usurp unjust, illegal power

Or threaten America’s free sons with chains,

While the least spark of ancient fire remains

 

DOCUMENT B

The most shocking cruelty was exercised a few Nights ago, upon a poor Old Man a Tidesman one Malcolm. . . . Tarrd, & feathered. . . .he was dragd in a Cart with thousands attending, some beating him with clubs. . . . This Spectacle of horror and sportive cruelty was exhibited for about five hours. . . . It is impossible that this poor creature can live. They say his flesh comes off his back in Stakes.
These few instances amongst many serve to shew the abject State of Government & the licentiousness and barbarism of the times. There’s no Majestrate that dare or will act to suppress the Outrages.

Written by a Mrs. Hulton, 1774

DOCUMENT C

Declaration of Rights and Grievances, 1765, in response to Stamp Act

That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament, as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America without their consent.

 

DOCUMENT D

PHILADELPHIA RESOLUTIONS, 1773

“The duty imposed by Parliament upon tea landed in America is a tax on the Americans, or levying contributions on them without their consent, it is the duty of every American to oppose this attempt.”

DOCUMENT E

LETTER THAT CIRCULATED AROUND COLONIES AFTER THE INTOLERABLE ACTS, LAWS THAT PUNISHED THE COLONISTS FOR THE BOSTON TEA PARTY

This attack, though made immediately upon us, is doubtless designed for every other colony who will not surrender their sacred rights and liberties into the hands of an infamous ministry. Now therefore is the time when all should be united in opposition to this violation of all the liberties of all.

 

 

DOCUMENT F

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death 

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

 

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

DOCUMENT G

 

Peter Oliver, The Boston Weekly News-Letter, 23 Feb. 1775

A Number of Ladies at Plymouth attempted to divert [entertain] themselves at the public Assembly Room; but not being connected with the rebel Faction, the Committee Men met and the Mob collected, who flung Stones & broke the Windows & Shutters of the Room, endangering the Lives of the Company, who were obliged to break up & were abused to their Homes. Soon after this, the Ladies diverted themselves by riding out of Town, but were followed & pelted by the Mob, & abused with the most indecent Language.

The Honble. Israel Williams Esqr., who was appointed one of his Majesty’s new Council, but had refused the Office by Reason of bodily Infirmities, was taken from his House by a Mob in the Night& carried several Miles, then carried home again after being forced to sign a Paper which they drafted, & a guard set over him to prevent his going from Home.13

A Parish Clerk of an Episcopal Church at East Haddum in Connecticut, a Man of 70 Years of Age, was taken out of his Bed in a Cold Night & beat against his Hearth by Men who held him by his Arms & Legs. He was then laid across his Horse without his Clothes & drove to a considerable Distance in that naked Condition. His Nephew Dr. Abner Beebe, a Physician, complained of the bad Usage of his Uncle & spoke very freely in Favor of [the royal] Government, for which he was assaulted by a Mob, stripped naked, & hot Pitch was poured upon him, which blistered his Skin. He was then carried to an Hog Sty & rubbed over with Hog’s Dung. They threw the Hog’s Dung in his Face & rammed some of it down his Throat; & in that Condition exposed to a Company of Women. His House was attacked, his Windows broke, when one of his Children was sick, & a Child of his went into Distraction upon this Treatment. His Grist-mill was broke, & Persons prevented from grinding at it & from having any Connections with him.

 

DOCUMENT H

 

Second Continental Congress Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms July 6 1775

We have received certain intelligence, that general Carleton, the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but little reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword, and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtably attainable. -- We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, *declare*, that exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

 

DOCUMENT I

Plain Truth  March, 1776

by James Chalmer, in answer to Paine’s “Common Sense”

IF indignant at the Doctrine contained in the Pamphlet, entitled COMMON SENSE: I have expressed myself, in the following Observations, with some ardor; I entreat the Reader to impute my indignation, to honest zeal against the Author’s Insidious Tenets. Animated and impelled by every inducement of the Human Heart; I love, and (if I dare so express myself,) I adore my Country. Passionately devoted to true Liberty; I glow with the purest flame of Patriotism. Silver’d with age as I am, if I know myself, my humble Sword shall not be wanting to my Country; (if the most Honorable Terms are not tendered by the British Nation) to whose Sacred Cause, I am most fervently devoted. The judicious Reader, will not impute my honest, tho’ bold Remarks, to unfriendly designs against my Children ---- against my Country; but to abhorrence of Independency; which if effected, would inevitably plunge our once pre-eminently envied Country into Ruin, Horror, and Desolation.

PLAIN TRUTH;
I HAVE now before me the Pamphlet, entitled COMMON SENSE; on which I shall remark with freedom and candour.

His [Paine’s] first indecent attack is against the English constitution; which with all its imperfections, is, and ever will be the pride and envy of mankind……. He indeed insidiously attributes this pre-eminent excellency, to the constitution of the people, rather than to our excellent constitution. To such contemptible subterfuge is our Author reduced. I would ask him, why did not the constitution of the people afford them superior safety, in the reign of Richard the Third, Henry the Eighth, and other tyrannic princes? Many pages might indeed be filled with encomiums bestowed on our excellent constitution, by illustrious authors of different nations.

This beautiful system (according to MONTESQUIEU) our constitution is a compound of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Were I asked marks of the best government, and the purpose of political society, I would reply, the increase, preservation, and prosperity of its members, in no quarter of the Globe, are those marks so certainly to be found, as in Great Britain, and her dependencies……… He says, “The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English Monarchy will not bear looking into.”

After impotently attacking our Sovereign; and the constitution: He contradicts the voice of all mankind, by declaring, that America “would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power

I shall humbly endeavour to shew, that our author shamefully misrepresents facts, is ignorant of the true state of Great Britain and her Colonies, utterly unqualified for the arduous task, he has presumptuously assumed; and ardently intent on seducing us to that precipice on which himself stands trembling.

Let us now briefly view the pre-eminently envied state of Great Britain. If we regard the power of Britain, unembarrassed with Continental connections, and the political balance, we may justly pronounce her what our author does, AMERICA; -- “A match for all Europe.” Amazing were the efforts of England, in the war of Queen Ann, when little benefitted by colony commerce, and e’er she had availed herself of the courage, good sense, and numbers of the people of Scotland and Ireland.

That England then prescribed laws to Europe, will be long remembered. Last war, her glory was, if possible, more eminently exalted; in every quarter of the globe did victory hover round her armies and navies, and her fame re-echoed from pole to pole. At present Great Britain is the umpire of Europe.

Can a reasonable being for a moment believe that Great Britain, whose political existence depends on our constitutional obedience, who but yesterday made such prodigious efforts to save us from France, will not exert herself as powerfully to preserve us from our frantic schemes of independency. Can we a moment doubt, that the Sovereign of Great Britain and his ministers, whose glory as well as personal safety depends on our obedience, will not exert every nerve of the British power, to save themselves and us from ruin.

 “Every quiet method of peace has been ineffectual; our prayers have been rejected with disdain.” I do not indeed agree with the people of England in saying, that those, who so successfully laboured to widen the breach -- disired nothing less than peace. That they who shortly were to command the most numerous and best disciplined army under Heaven, and a navy fit to contend with the fleets of England, imagining the time had found us, disdained to be just. I highly venerate a majority of the Delegates. I have not indeed the honour of knowing all the worthy members; however, I wish the Gentlemen of the Congress, e’er they entered on their important charge, had been better acquainted with the strength of our friends in parliament. I sincerely lament, that the King did not receive the last excellent petition from the Congress; and I as sincerely wish, the Gentlemen of the Congress had not addressed themselves at that juncture, to the people of Ireland. “As to government matters,” (continues our Author,) “it is not in the power of Britain to do this Continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power so very distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us.

Until the present unhappy period, Great Britain has afforded to all mankind, the most perfect proof of her wise, lenient, and magnanimous government of the Colonies -- The proofs to which we already have alluded, viz. Our supreme felicity, and amazing increase. Innumerable are the advantages of our connection with Britain; and a just dependence on her, is a sure way to avoid the horrors and calamities of war.

Our author “challenges the warmest advocate for reconciliation to shew a single advantage this Continent can reap, by being connected with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge, not a single advantage is derived: Our corn will fetch its price in any market in Europe:”  The greatest part of our plank, staves, shingles, hoops, corn, beef, pork herrings, and many other articles, could find no vent, but in the English Islands. The demand for our flour would also be considerably lessened. The Spaniards have no demand for these articles; and the French little or none. Britain would be a principal mart for our lumber, part of our grain, naval stores, tobacco, and many other articles, which perhaps are not generally wanted in any kingdom in Europe.

Volumes were insufficient to describe the horror, misery and desolation, awaiting the people at large in the form of American independence. In short, I affirm that it would be most excellent policy in those who wish for TRUE LIBERTY to submit by an advantageous reconciliation to the authority of Great Britain; “to accomplish in the long run, what they cannot do by hypocrisy, fraud and force in the short one.”

INDEPENDENCE AND SLAVERY ARE SYNONYMOUS TERMS.

 

 

DOCUMENT J

 

Resolution introduced in the Continental Congress by Richard Henry Lee (Virginia) proposing a Declaration of Independence, June 7, 1776

June 7, 1776

Resolved, 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.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.