1796: Washington and Parties

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

Analyze the dangers of parties that George Washington foresaw for the young American Republic as he left public life.

CONTEXT:

George Washington (1732-1799) was born in Virginia to a prosperous planter family. He learned the culture of a colonial gentleman, and early on had two special interests: the military and westward expansion. At age 16 he helped survey the Shenandoah Valley; in 1754 he was commissioned a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and he served during the French and Indian War. He later managed his lands around Mount Vernon, Virginia, (his home), served in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and married Martha Custis, a wealthy widow. In 1775 the Second Continental Congress appointed him Commander in Chief of the Continental Army.

After the American Revolution Washington wished to retire to Mount Vernon, but realizing that the new nation needed stronger form of government, he encouraged a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. After the new Constitution was adopted, Washington was unanimously elected by the electoral college to be the first president of the United States. He set many precedents. By the end of his second term political parties had developed and there was much contention even within his cabinet; Washington was pressured to continue as president but he refused, setting another precedent of a maximum of two presidential terms which would last until Franklin Roosevelt began his third term in 1941. Another precedent he established was delivering a farewell address, from which this text is taken. He wrote it with the help of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Washington did not deliver his address in person to the Congress but instead published it in a Philadelphia newspaper, the American Daily Advertiser, on September 19, 1796. After leaving office Washington returned to Mount Vernon to continue farming. He died there in 1799 from quinsy, a serious throat infection.

TEXT:

…I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy….

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.…

INQUIRY:

Did Washington encourage or discourage the development of political parties? Quote from the text to support your response.
List five dangers from the development of parties.
How might parties affect US foreign policy?
Why did Washington discourage parties in governments “purely elective”?
What force should “mitigate and assuage” the dangers of parties?
In Washington’s time many Americans chiefly identified with their state. Rather than saying “I am an American” they might say “I am a Virginian” and then say “I am an American.” Washington warned against this earlier in his speech. What dangers might exist with this frame of mind?
During Washington’s administration the first political parties developed–the Federalists, chiefly from New England, and the Democratic-Republicans, chiefly from the South. People were encouraged to vote based on party loyalty rather than choosing the best qualified candidate. Investigate the toxic relationship between Alexander Hamilton (leader of the Federalists) and Thomas Jefferson (leader of the Democratic-Republicans) that developed while the two men served in Washington’s Cabinet.
In 1796 when this address was delivered the US Constitution was only eight years old. How might that fact have influenced Washington’s words?
To commemorate Washington’s birthday his Farewell Address is still read aloud in the US Senate. How well do you believe we are listening to his advice? Give evidence to support your answer.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://millercenter.org/president/washington/life-in-brief

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. Penguin Press, 2010.

1879: Standing Bear v. Crook

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

Analyze one of the first cases to establish Native American rights in the US.

CONTEXT:

Standing Bear (c.1829-1908) was born on Ponca land in what is now Nebraska near the Niobrara River. By the 1860s he was a tribal leader of the Ponca Tribe, and they faced a desperate situation. In 1858 the Ponca had given up their lands except a small section where they tried to change from buffalo hunters to farmers. By 1868 this property was included in a treaty giving lands to the Sioux; the Sioux began to raid the Ponca lands. The US government then removed the Ponca to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) in 1877.

The Ponca resisted this move, and many Ponca died in the process. Standing Bear and several followers left the Indian Territory to return to their homeland and were arrested. General George Crook arrested them under orders, even though he sympathized with Standing Bear. They were jailed at Fort Omaha, Nebraska.

In 1879 newspaper editor Thomas Henry Tibbles interviewed Standing Bear and published his story. It went viral quickly. Standing Bear petitioned for his right to return to his home; lawyers volunteered their services and moved to help prevent Standing Bear and his people from being returned against their will to Indian Territory. Federal Judge Elmer Dundy ruled in Standing Bear’s favor.

Standing Bear returned to Nebraska. He later traveled to the eastern states and spoke about Indian rights. He won the support of many prominent Americans, and died at his home of cancer in 1908.

This text is from Judge Dundy’s decision.

TEXT: (NOTE: the term, “Indian” is used as in the original document.)

…The reasoning advanced in support of my views, leads me to conclude:

That an Indian is a “person” within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and has, therefore, the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, or before a federal judge, in all cases where he may be confined or in custody under color of authority of the United States, or where he is restrained of liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States.
That General George Crook, the respondent, being commander of the military department of the Platte, has the custody of the relators, under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof.
That no rightful authority exists for removal by force any of the relators to the Indian Territory, as the respondent has been directed to do.
That the Indians possess the inherent right of expatriation, as well as the more fortunate white race, and have the inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” so long as they obey the laws and do not trespass on forbidden ground. And,
Being restrained of liberty under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof, the relators must be discharged from custody, and it is so ordered...

INQUIRY:

What did the Judge mean when he said, “an Indian is a person under the law”?
In Standing Bear v. Crook, for the first time a Native American was recognized as a person with legal standing in a US federal court. The US government could not hold Native Americans without their consent without legal cause. What part of the US Constitution was addressed by this ruling?
Before this case Native Americans were considered “wards of the government.” What did that mean? How did this case change that status?
What is expatriation?
What is habeas corpus? How was Standing Bear being denied this when he was imprisoned? What part of the US Constitution addresses this right?
Where did the Judge reference the Declaration of Independence? What was the significance of the use of the term, “inalienable”?
Investigate the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. How did the Standing Bear case relate to the 1924 case?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.nps.gov/mnrr/learn/historyculture/standingbear.htm

https://plainshistory.org/items/show/49

1848: Seneca Falls Convention

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

Analyze conditions that contributed to the rise of the Women’s Rights Movement in America.

CONTEXT:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) was an author, editor, and major influencer in the American women’s rights movement of the 19th century. Born in New York, she was educated at a local boys school and graduated from Troy Female Seminary. Against her family’s wishes she married abolitionist Henry Stanton, and she omitted the vow “to obey” from her marriage ceremony. They moved to Seneca Falls, New York, and began their family, which included seven children.

The responsibilities and frustrations of the home and a woman’s “proper sphere” led Elizabeth along with several friends to call for a convention in 1848 to advocate for the rights of women. Wives and mothers all, they were also temperance and abolitionist reformers and understood discrimination by men and society in general. This was the first American Women’s Rights Convention; 300 people, men and women, attended, and 100 signed the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. After the Convention Stanton continued as a writer and activist for 19th century reforms. She died of heart failure in 1902.

This text is from the “Declaration of Rights and Sentiments” from the Seneca Falls Convention of July 19-20, 1848.

TEXT:

…We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;…

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners.
Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes, with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master – the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women – the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.
After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.
He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education – all colleges being closed against her.
He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.
He has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.
He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.
He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation, – in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States...

INQUIRY:

This Declaration is modeled on the American Declaration of Independence. Why might Stanton and the other authors have used that as their template?
In the 19th century true womanhood included piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. A woman’s place and her area of influence was considered to be in the home, where she could influence future generations (her children). The Declaration listed a series of grievances of women against men and the society they controlled. Classify the grievances listed into those four areas.
Were some grievances more serious than others? Justify your response.
Choose one of the grievances and research it. When was it resolved, or has it been resolved? For instance, when did women get the vote and under what circumstances? When were women admitted to college and professional degrees? When were women allowed to hold property in their own names? When could a women have a credit card in her own name? Are you surprised by your findings? Why/why not?
The original copy of the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments has never been found, but Frederick Douglass published the first known copy in his newspaper The North Star in July, 1848 (the same month as the Convention). Does the fact that the original has not been located change the significance of the document? Why or why not?
Many women who fought for women’s rights in the early 19th century also fought for the abolition of slavery. How might fighting against slavery prepare a women to fight for women’s rights? What were some common issues?
Compare the Seneca Falls Document with “Second Wave Feminism”, or the Women’s Rights Movement of the 1960s. What are similarities? Differences?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3a49096/

https://www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/declaration-of-sentiments.htm

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/a-great-inheritance-abolitionist-practices-in-the-women-s-rights-movement.htm

https://womenshistory.si.edu/blog/175th-anniversary-seneca-falls-convention

1861: Sullivan Ballou Letter

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How did Major Sullivan Ballou use language to convey his deepest emotions to his wife?

CONTEXT:

Sullivan Ballou (1829-1861) was a lawyer and politician from Rhode Island. Married with two sons, he was an active Republican, supporter of Abraham Lincoln, and served in the Rhode Island legislature. At the outbreak of the American Civil War he received a commission in the 2nd Rhode Island Regiment and was soon sent to Washington, DC. Injured in the 1st Battle of Bull Run (July 21, 1861), he was too wounded to remove from the battlefield and was left in the care of Army surgeons. He died July 28 .

This letter to his wife was written from Camp Clark, outside Washington, DC. as his unit prepared for action. While some historians question that authorship, this lesson assumes the letter was written by Major Sullivan Ballou at that time.

TEXT:

July the 14th, 1861

Washington D.C.

My very dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.

Our movement may be one of a few days duration and full of pleasure—and it may be one of severe conflict and death to me. Not my will, but thine O God, be done. If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in, the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.

But, my dear wife, when I know that with my own joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them in this life with cares and sorrows—when, after having eaten for long years the bitter fruit of orphanage myself, I must offer it as their only sustenance to my dear little children—is it weak or dishonorable, while the banner of my purpose floats calmly and proudly in the breeze, that my unbounded love for you, my darling wife and children, should struggle in fierce, though useless, contest with my love of country.

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when God willing, we might still have lived and loved together and seen our sons grow up to honorable manhood around us. I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me—perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar—that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name.

Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have often been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness, and struggle with all the misfortune of this world, to shield you and my children from harm. But I cannot. I must watch you from the spirit land and hover near you, while you buffet the storms with your precious little freight, and wait with sad patience till we meet to part no more.

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the brightest day and in the darkest night—amidst your happiest scenes and gloomiest hours—always, always; and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath; or the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

Sarah, do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for me, for we shall meet again.

As for my little boys, they will grow as I have done, and never know a father’s love and care. Little Willie is too young to remember me long, and my blue-eyed Edgar will keep my frolics with him among the dimmest memories of his childhood. Sarah, I have unlimited confidence in your maternal care and your development of their characters. Tell my two mothers his and hers I call God’s blessing upon them. O Sarah, I wait for you there! Come to me, and lead thither my children.

Sullivan

INQUIRY:

Soldiers still often write “death letters” when they are in combat. What would be the purpose(s) of these letters?
The Governor of Rhode Island traveled to Virginia in March, 1862, to retrieve Ballou’s remains, which had been left behind when the Union troops retreated from the battlefield. This letter was never mailed to Sarah; it was found in Major Ballou’s effects after his death and was given to her. The original letter has not been found but multiple copies exist. Does the fact that the original has not yet been found change the effects of the letter? Why or why not?
Sarah was 24 years old when her husband died, and she never remarried. She moved to New Jersey and lived with her son William, where she died in 1917 at age 80. She and her husband are buried together in Providence, RI, Swan Point Cemetery, and some say that this letter was buried with her. Why might her family have buried the letter with her? Research “grave goods.” In what cultures and for what purposes have grave goods been prominent?
There is some controversy about this letter, with some literary historians positing that it does not convey Ballou’s style of writing. Is it possible that under intense emotional stress one’s writing style can alter?
Identify at least six appeals in this letter, including ones to emotion (pathos), to ethics (ethos), to logic (logos), and to kairos (timeliness). How did Ballou weave these appeals together? Which appeals do you believe are strongest? Why?
How did Ballou reference the future? What was his purpose in doing so?
Was Ballou a religious man? How do you know?
Identify examples of juxtaposition and contrast in the letter. What purposes do they serve?
What type of officer do you believe Ballou would have been? Justify your response.
What message would this letter have conveyed to Ballou’s wife Sarah? Justify your response.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/honorable-manhood-video/ken-burns-the-civil-war/

https://www.nps.gov/articles/-my-very-dear-wife-the-last-letter-of-major-sullivan-ballou.htm

1814: Key’s “Rockets Red Glare”

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How does The Star Spangled Banner represent America?

CONTEXT:

Francis Scott Key (1780-1843) was an amateur poet and well-known lawyer who argued before the US Supreme Court. From Frederick, Maryland, he wrote a poem entitled “The Defense of Fort M’Henry” which would eventually become “The Star Spangled Banner.”

In 1814 the British Army burned Washington, DC, and a friend of Key’s, William Beanes, was arrested by the British and taken to a prison ship. With the permission of US President Madison, Keys went to Baltimore, Maryland. With the help of an American agent for prisoners of war, Keys located his friend and secured his release. However, they had overheard plans for the upcoming British attack on Baltimore, and thus they could not return to shore until after the battle.

The British began to fire upon Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor on September 13; the attack lasted 25 hours. Key witnessed the bombardment throughout the night, not knowing how the battle was going. But in the morning on September 14 he saw the large (30 X 42 feet) American garrison flag flying over the fort (the flag is now in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History). The flag Key observed had 15 stripes and 15 stars (the current 13 stripes limit was not adopted until 1818). Key began composing his poem on the back of a letter he kept in his pocket. It was published first as a broadside that week and was soon set to song lyrics. By the Civil War it was a popular song for national unity and the US military began using it in the 1890s for flag ceremonies.

Although it is a difficult song to sing and some lyrics are considered controversial, it became increasingly popular and was the unofficial national anthem by the end of the 19th century. In April 1930 the House of Representatives passed a bill introduced by Representative John Linthicum of Maryland to make “The Star-Spangled Banner” the nation’s official anthem. Despite critics who disliked the melody or felt the law unnecessary, the Senate passed the bill the following year, and President Herbert Hoover signed it into law on March 2, 1931.

TEXT:

O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
’Tis the star-spangled banner – O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

INQUIRY:

Key was a slave owner, although as an attorney he represented several slaves in their search for freedom. He was a leader in the American Colonization Society, although he was against the abolition movement. The third verse is often seen as controversial, with its reference to slave and hireling; but many historians see this as a reference to the British Army in the War of 1812, including the Corps of Colonial Marines, British free troops of color who had formerly been slaves. How might this be misunderstood by an audience today?
Examine the last two lines of each stanza of the poem. How does the image of the star spangled banner change? What is the progression?
How does the punctuation of the last line change from stanza to stanza? What does that represent?
What is the effect of repeating the last line at the end of each stanza?
What does the sight of the flag represent in the first stanza? Does that change over the course of the poem? Justify your response.
Remembering that this was originally a poem written during a battle, what was the tone of this work? What was the mood?
Why do you believe the first stanza was adopted as our national anthem? What does it say about the US?
Choose a national anthem from another country (see https://nationalanthems.info/ for information). Research the anthem and the country and compare it to the American national anthem. How does that anthem represent the country from which it originates?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/the-lyrics.aspx

https://guides.loc.gov/star-spangled-banner/beginning-your-research

https://www.loc.gov/collections/patriotic-melodies/articles-and-essays/star-spangled-banner/

1941: Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How did President Franklin Roosevelt explain the purpose of World War II?

CONTEXT:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) was the 32nd president of the United States (1933-1945), the only president to serve more than two terms. During his presidency America saw many years of the Great Depression as well as involvement in World War II. On January 6, 1941, he delivered his Annual Message to Congress, from which this text is drawn.

In his Message he outlined American foreign policy, focusing on three items: a commitment to national defense; supporting those foreign nations who were resisting aggression and therefore keeping war away from the American Hemisphere; and supporting any peace made on the basis of morality and the security of those nations fighting to secure democracy. It is important to note that the United States had not officially entered the War at this point but was providing assistance to Great Britain (and eventually others) through actions including the Neutrality “Cash and Carry” Act (1939), the Destroyer Deal (1940), and the Lend-Lease Act (1940).

TEXT:

…In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world...

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faither in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

INQUIRY:

In 1943, well-known illustrator Norman Rockwell published paintings of each of the freedoms in The Saturday Evening Post in February/March, 1943 for four consecutive weeks, each illustration accompanied by an essay written by a well-known author. In response to popular demand, prints of the Four Freedoms were later sold to raise money for the war effort. Images of Rockwell’s paintings are available in the additional resources below. Investigate the images. What impact might the visual representation of the Four Freedoms have that the written word might not?
Roosevelt used parallel construction and repetition when he listed the freedoms. What was the effect of these rhetorical devices?
Discuss the four freedoms and list them in priority order. Justify your choices.
Even though the US had not entered the war at the time of this speech, Roosevelt clearly identified each freedom for the world, not just the US. Given the world situation in early 1941, what do you believe was his purpose? How might that wording have been influenced by the aid the US was giving Great Britain in early 1941?
Roosevelt closed his remarks explaining the essential democratic values which were the purpose of the War, a war which had already engulfed Great Britain and most of Europe. What was the purpose of ending the speech with these words?
In the additional resources below you will find a video of Roosevelt delivering this section of his speech. View the video. What tone did Roosevelt use in this speech?
Roosevelt made this address to the US Congress. Was that his only audience? What other audiences, within the US and around the world, might he have been addressing? Explain your response.
In this lesson you have access to three versions of this speech–written text, audio delivery, and artistic interpretation. How do these versions support each other? Which version do you believe would have been most effective? Justify your response.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm

https://www.mfah.org/blogs/inside-mfah/norman-rockwells-four-freedoms

https://www.nrm.org/2012/10/collections-four-freedoms/

1776: Washington at Year’s End

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How did George Washington use language to convince his Continentals to remain in arms even after the difficult year of 1776?

CONTEXT:

As the year 1776 drew to a close, the American war effort was in crisis. The British occupied New York. Congress had abandoned Philadelphia in the face of the British advance and moved to Baltimore. General George Washington (1732-1799) worried, as his army was scheduled to dissolve; many one-year enlistments would elapse at year’s end. On December 23, Thomas Paine’s published The Crisis, and Washington had the series of essays read to his troops camped up and down the Delaware River in an attempt to improve morale.

On Christmas Eve his army crossed the Delaware River and defeated the British at the Battle of Trenton the next morning in less than one hour . The Americans then crossed back into Pennsylvania; on December 28 they crossed back to Trenton, planning to launch another attack on the British. But a more immediate problem existed; in three days, the Army’s enlistments would expire.

On December 30, Washington gathered his men and addressed his troops as a comrade in arms, asking them to stay six more weeks and offering a ten-dollar bounty (on December 27 Congress had authorized Washington to offer bounties for enlistment). When volunteers were asked for, no one stepped out. One soldier spoke up and reminded the General of all they had sacrificed; exhausted and lacking proper equipment, they were looking forward to going home. Seated on his horse, Washington rode along the line of men and spoke the words below.

TEXT:

My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than can be reasonably expected; but your country is at stake, your wives, your houses and all that you hold dear. You have worn yourselves out with fatigues and hardships, but we know not how to spare you. If you will consent to stay one month longer, you will render that service to the cause of liberty, and to your country, which you probably can never do under any other circumstances.

INQUIRY:

How did Washington acknowledge the soldiers’ sacrifices? Why was that important?
After Washington’s words, soldiers grouped and discussed. One man said “I’ll go if you will.” What feeling did this comment convey? Would you have agreed to stay?
Another soldier whispered, “We can’t go home under such circumstances.” What feeling did this comment convey? Would you have agreed with this soldier?
The men responded in small groups at first until finally 200 of the regiment had agreed to stay. Washington then spoke to each additional regiment personally, and eventually he had 3000 soldiers remain. What was the effect of Washington addressing each regiment in person?
The men who stayed in the Army were not required to reenlist on paper–Washington said he would trust each man upon his word. What did this say about Washington’s attitude toward his Continental Troops?
What appeals to emotion did Washington use in this speech? Why do you believe they worked?
What was the tone of Washington’s speech? Cite examples.
Do you believe this speech displays leadership on Washington’s part? Why or why not?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life. New York: Penguin Books, 2010.

“George Washington to Robert Morris, 31 December 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-07-02-0389. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 7, 21 October 1776–5 January 1777, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997, p. 497.]

1865: Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How did Abraham Lincoln use language to convey his view of Reconstruction?

CONTEXT:

In 1864, the fourth year of the American Civil War, a presidential election was held in which incumbent Abraham Lincoln ran against General George McClellan, the campaign focusing on Lincoln’s war record. In late 1864 many believed Lincoln would lose this election, fearing that McClellan might negotiate with the Confederacy and end the war without emancipation. But when the electoral college votes were tallied, a series of Northern victories (including the fall of Atlanta) and the voting power of Union soldiers had given Lincoln a clear majority.

On March 4, 1865, 41 days before he would be assassinated, Abraham Lincoln delivered his second inaugural address, only 700 words and 20% the length of his first inaugural speech. He spoke from the North Portico of the Capitol Building, with its newly completed dome, and this inaugural address was the first in which African Americans were allowed to attend. Reflecting upon the four years of war, Lincoln outlined plans to heal the nation, and his words are engraved on the north interior wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.

TEXT:

Fellow countrymen: at this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends is as well known to the public as to myself and it is I trust reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

“On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it ~ all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place devoted altogether to saving the Union without war insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war ~ seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses for it must needs be that offenses come but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’

“With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

INQUIRY:

Why did Lincoln believe this inaugural address could be shorter that the one he delivered in 1861?
When Lincoln said, “Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,” how did he contrast the political aims of the North and South in 1861–to what political aims did he allude?
How did Lincoln characterize the American Civil War? What did he see as its cause?
Identify biblical allusions Lincoln made in this speech. What were the effects of these allusions?
Identify examples of alliteration, repetition, and parallel structure, all of which are important especially in speeches. What purpose did they accomplish in this address?
What was the tone of this address? Compare the tone to Lincoln’s first inaugural address, made in 1861. What might account for the differences?
How did Lincoln view America’s future? Give examples.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second-inaugural.htm

https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsc.02928/

https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-election-1864

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/abrahamlincolnsecondinauguraladdress.htm

1776: Paine’s Common Sense

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How did Thomas Paine use language to convince colonists that independence was the proper course for America?

CONTEXT:

In January of 1776, only months after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, times were tense in the American colonies. The Declaration of Independence would not be signed for another six months. Many believed that reconciliation with Great Britain was unlikely; yet, independence from Great Britain was unthinkable.

Thomas Paine (1737-1809), a magazine editor in Pennsylvania, anonymously published a pamphlet entitled “Common Sense” which quickly became a best seller. 47 pages long, it sold thousands of copies in three months and would often be read aloud in taverns.

Paine used moral and political arguments, written in plain language, to declare that independence was the only logical choice for the Colonies. While not everyone agreed, his work was immediately popular and widely read. It helped clarify and move public opinion towards independence and encouraged recruitment in the continental army.

TEXT:

…Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security…

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated…

In England a King hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to empoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived…

I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that 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, and our imported goods must be paid for buy them where we will… Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the one over the other, was never the design of Heaven.

I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this Continent to be so; that every thing short of that is mere patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,—that it is leaving the sword to our children, and shrinking back at a time when a little more, a little further, would have rendered this Continent the glory of the earth.

As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the Continent, or any ways equal to the expence of blood and treasure we have been already put to.

If there is any true cause of fear respecting independance, it is because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out. Wherefore, as an opening into that business I offer the following hints; at the same time modestly affirming, that I have no other opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for wise and able men to improve into useful matter. [Paine then outlines his ideas for the organization of government in America].

A government of our own is our natural right: and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance…

We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways by which an independancy may hereafter be effected; and that one of those three, will, one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independancy be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few months. The reflection is awful, and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavilings [petty objections] of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world…

INQUIRY:

What did Paine list as the reason governments exist?
What did he see as the purpose of government?
Why did Paine advocate a simple government?
Why did Paine see Britain’s government as no longer right for America?
What criticisms did Paine offer of the King of England? Do you agree?
What economic reasons did Paine offer for independence?
Why did Paine advocate independence now and not later?
How did Paine attempt to convince those who disagreed with independence?
What three ways did Paine offer to achieve independence? Why did he recommend the first of these three ways?
To what did Paine refer when he said, “the birth of a new world”? Do you agree? Why/why not?
Paine used several appeals in his argument. Within the text, identify an appeal to authority (history); an appeal to emotion; an appeal to logic.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/thomas-paine-common-sense-1776

https://www.loc.gov/item/18016803/?loclr=blogser

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/147/147-h/147-h.htm

1778: Washington at Valley Forge

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How did the experience of Valley Forge broaden the meaning of the American Revolution?

CONTEXT:

By the winter of 1777, the American Revolution was two years old. George Washington (1732-1799) was the new commander of the American forces as his army went into winter camp near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and the conditions of the army were grim. Men and officers were leaving the army and food was scarce. For months Washington had lobbied the Continental Congress, the political organization that was responsible for the War, for supplies, often to no avail.

Eventually Congress sent a committee to Valley Forge to inspect the situation, many believing that their observations could be used as an excuse to dismiss Washington as the Army’s commander. When they arrived Washington presented them with a letter from which this text is drawn. The original letter, over 16,000 words, presented Washington’s suggestions for overhauling the Army, offering ideas for officer pensions, reorganizing the chain of command, instituting a draft, offering merit promotions, overhauling the quartermaster (supply) departments, and other issues. By the time the Committee left Valley Forge, they supported Washington. Washington continued to communicate with Congress, helping them to understand the realities of sustaining an army in the field. Congress continued to debate but did pass several of his suggestions.

TEXT: (spelling has been modernized)

…In regard to clothing…the mode of providing hitherto in practice, is by no means adequate to the end; and that, unless our future efforts are more effectual, it will be next to impossible to keep an army in the field…I am in hopes that valuable consequences will accrue from a resolution of Congress…directing that the several states [the individual states]…”exert their utmost endeavors to procure, in addition to the allowances of clothing heretofore made by Congress, supplies of blankets &c. for the comfortable subsistence of the officers and soldiers of their respective battalions..”

For my own part…I have little conception, that our extensive wants can be completely satisfied, in any other way, than by national, or governmental contracts, between Congress and the Court of France… Besides placing our supplies, in so essential an article, on a sure and unfailing foundation, it would cement the connection between the two countries, and if discovered, prove a new and powerful topic of hostility, between France and Britain…

To make soldiers look well and bestow proper attention and care upon their clothes…gives a taste for decency and uniformity and makes the officers regardful of the appearance of the men, as tending to promote health, and foster a becoming pride of dress, which raises soldiers in their own esteem and makes them respectable to their enemy…

INQUIRY:

How did Washington describe the process of distributing clothes to the soldiers?
What might be the consequences if this problem is not resolved?
What did the Continental Congress do to try and alleviate the problem?
Who would receive the clothes provided by each individual state, for instance, North Carolina or Massachusetts?
In addition to Congress and the individual states, what other resource did Washington suggest to help provide supplies?
What two advantages of a French alliance did Washington suggest?
Why did Washington believe it was important for an army to be well-clothed? List at least two reasons.
Do you believe it is important to be well-clothed, clean and well-kept? Why or why not?
Some historians have characterized Valley Forge as a turning point in that it shifted the American Revolution from solely a discussion of the political ideal of liberty to include the realities of sustaining an army in the field. Do you agree? Why/why not?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.nps.gov/vafo/index.htm

https://www.nps.gov/vafo/learn/historyculture/valley-forge-history-and-significance.htm

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-13-02-0335

“George Washington to a Continental Congress Camp Committee, 29 January 1778,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-13-02-0335. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 13, 26 December 1777 – 28 February 1778, ed. Edward G. Lengel. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2003, pp. 376–409.]

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-12-02-0611

“George Washington to Henry Laurens, 22 December 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-12-02-0611. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 12, 26 October 1777 – 25 December 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. and David R. Hoth. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2002, pp. 667–671.]