Tag: politics

1787: A More Perfect Union

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

Analyze the preamble to the US Constitution.

CONTEXT:

As the American Revolution progressed, the Second Continental Congress ran the government; but they needed a plan. In November, 1777, after 16 months of debate, they adopted the Articles of Confederation. It was not ratified until 1781 (all states had to approve it before it became official), but it served as the constitution of the states until 1787. At that time a convention was called to revise the Articles; but there were so many problems with the document that it was decided to discard the Articles and redesign the government. The result was the current US Constitution, signed in September, 1787.

The opening words of the US Constitution are called the Preamble. Attaching a preamble to a document was fairly common in the time of the Founders, but this preamble was not written first; for at least two months in the Constitutional Convention no one mentioned including a preamble. Edmund Randolph of Virginia suggested a preamble, one that would explain why the Articles of Confederation were inadequate for America and why establishing a new government was necessary. The Preamble was mainly written by Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816), a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Constitutional Convention.

TEXT:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

INQUIRY:

  1. The Preamble lists the purposes of the Constitution, but it does not give any part of the government power to enforce these purposes. What is the purpose of the Preamble?
  2. In the discussion of the Constitution, some said that “We the People” should instead read, “We the States.” What would have been the difference if that word had been changed?
  3. An original draft of the Preamble listed each individual state rather than “the United States.” Morris made this change; how did that change alter the meaning of the document?
  4. List the six purposes of the US Constitution.
  5. For each of the six purposes, describe an experience under the Articles of Confederation that necessitated that purpose.
  6. Are the purposes of the Constitution philosophical or pragmatic? Justify your response.
  7. Compare the purposes of the US Constitution to the purposes of the Declaration of Independence.
  8. What is the source of the federal government’s power?
  9. What evidence is in the preamble that the Founders expected this document to be permanent?
  10. In what ways is the Constitution continuing to fulfill its purpose? Give specific examples.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/gouverneur-morris-unforgettable-yet-forgotten

https://youtu.be/0EfnNUt_nwY?t=4

1776: Jefferson’s Declaring Truths

ESSENTIONAL QUESTION:

Analyze the opening of the US Declaration of Independence.

CONTEXT:

After the French and Indian War (1754-1763) in America, relationships between Great Britain and her American Colonies began to sour. Britain saw the relationship in economic terms–the Colonies’ purpose was to support Britain, providing raw materials and a market for goods. The Colonies saw the relationship in increasingly political terms–Britain owed colonists the same rights and privileges of Englishmen in Britain. In April, 1775, British troops and American militia exchanged fire over an ammunitions cache at a local farm near Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. Blood had been spilt. Through political actions and documents such as Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”, more and more people became convinced that America could not remain as British colonies. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a resolution in the Second Continental Congress that the United States should be free and independent.

But not everyone was totally convinced. Some delegates to the Congress wanted to pursue diplomatic negotiations. After all, Britain was one of the most powerful nations in the world at that time; many Americans had economic ties with Britain; and the Colonies had no army or navy to speak of. If independence happened, it was going to require the help of foreign nations, especially France. So Congress decided to draft a statement to explain their actions.

For that purpose Congress established a Committee of Five, including Thomas Jefferson (of Virginia), John Adams (of Massachusetts), Roger Sherman (of Connecticut), Benjamin Franklin (of Pennsylvania), and Robert Livingston (of New York). The Committee asked Jefferson to do most of the writing (he was a talented writer), and Jefferson asked Franklin and Adams to look over his drafts. When the document went back to the Congress, other changes were incorporated. The Declaration was eventually adopted on July 4 and signed over the next several weeks. It was printed (it is unknown how many copies were printed) and distributed. This text is from the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. There are currently 26 copies of the original printing known to exist.

Jefferson would go on to be a governor of Virginia and the third President of the United States. Of the other 56 men who signed the Declaration, some served in Continental Militia, five were captured and tortured by the British, nine died from war wounds or hardships, and twelve saw their homes and farms burned by the British.

TEXT:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ….

INQUIRY:

  1. What was the purpose of this document, as stated in the first paragraph?
  2. What made this document necessary? Quote from the document.
  3. What two states did this document cause to happen? Quote from the document.
  4. What was the effect of using the phrase, “to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”?
  5. Why was it necessary to “declare the causes which impel them to the separation”?
  6. What does it mean to be “self-evident”?
  7. One phrase of this document that has been controversial over the years is “all men are created equal”. When the Declaration was written, society still held women, enslaved people, non-property owners, and others in subservient roles, without political voice. Thus in this case “men” meant all humanity. How has the meaning of “men” changed over the centuries?
  8. What two references to God are found in this document? Why do these strengthen the argument?
  9. What are “unalienable rights”? What three unalienable rights are listed?
  10. At this time the “pursuit of happiness” meant the pursuit of a good character, virtue, and becoming a good citizen. Do we still pursue this kind of happiness? Give examples.
  11. Before editing, the phrase “pursuit of happiness” read “pursuit of property”, meaning owning things, mainly property. How did the changing of this one word change the meaning of the phrase? (Life, liberty and property were natural rights as put forth by philosopher John Locke).
  12. What is the purpose of government?
  13. From where does government get its power?
  14. The Declaration of Independence is not a law. But why is it so important in America?
  15. The purpose of these paragraphs is to declare, not to persuade. What is the document declaring?
  16. The Declaration closes with the statement, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor..” What did this statement suggest?
  17. Investigate John Locke and the other influences on Jefferson’s writing.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/declaration-of-independence/

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/american-revolutionary-war/signers-declaration-independence

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/signers-factsheet

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:

  1. Did Washington encourage or discourage the development of political parties? Quote from the text to support your response.
  2. List five dangers from the development of parties.
  3. How might parties affect US foreign policy?
  4. Why did Washington discourage parties in governments “purely elective”?
  5. What force should “mitigate and assuage” the dangers of parties?
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. In 1796 when this address was delivered the US Constitution was only eight years old. How might that fact have influenced Washington’s words?
  9. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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,
  5. 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:

  1. What did the Judge mean when he said, “an Indian is a person under the law”?
  2. 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?
  3. Before this case Native Americans were considered “wards of the government.” What did that mean? How did this case change that status?
  4. What is expatriation?
  5. What is habeas corpus? How was Standing Bear being denied this when he was imprisoned? What part of the US Constitution addresses this right?
  6. Where did the Judge reference the Declaration of Independence? What was the significance of the use of the term, “inalienable”?
  7. 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:

  1. This Declaration is modeled on the American Declaration of Independence. Why might Stanton and the other authors have used that as their template?
  2. 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.
  3. Were some grievances more serious than others? Justify your response.
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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

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:

  1. 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?
  2. Roosevelt used parallel construction and repetition when he listed the freedoms. What was the effect of these rhetorical devices?
  3. Discuss the four freedoms and list them in priority order. Justify your choices.
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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/

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:

  1. Why did Lincoln believe this inaugural address could be shorter that the one he delivered in 1861?
  2. 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?
  3. How did Lincoln characterize the American Civil War? What did he see as its cause?
  4. Identify biblical allusions Lincoln made in this speech. What were the effects of these allusions?
  5. Identify examples of alliteration, repetition, and parallel structure, all of which are important especially in speeches. What purpose did they accomplish in this address?
  6. 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?
  7. 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:

  1. What did Paine list as the reason governments exist?
  2. What did he see as the purpose of government?
  3. Why did Paine advocate a simple government?
  4. Why did Paine see Britain’s government as no longer right for America?
  5. What criticisms did Paine offer of the King of England? Do you agree?
  6. What economic reasons did Paine offer for independence?
  7. Why did Paine advocate independence now and not later?
  8. How did Paine attempt to convince those who disagreed with independence?
  9. What three ways did Paine offer to achieve independence? Why did he recommend the first of these three ways?
  10. To what did Paine refer when he said, “the birth of a new world”? Do you agree? Why/why not?
  11. 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

1974: Nixon Resigns

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How can the powers of the US President be limited?

CONTEXT:

Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994) was the 37th president of the US, serving from 1969 until 1974. Prior to his presidency he served in several political offices, including as vice president under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Elected President in 1968, he resigned in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, a break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the Nixon administration’s cover-up of that criminal act. Nixon was the only US president to resign from office. This text is from his last public speech as president and was broadcast live on radio and TV on August 8, 1974. Nixon died in New York in 1994.

TEXT:

This is the 37th time I have spoken to you from this office, where so many decisions have been made that shaped the history of this Nation. Each time I have done so to discuss with you some matter that I believe affected the national interest.

In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future. But with the disappearance of that base, I now believe that the constitutional purpose has been served, and there is no longer a need for the process to be prolonged.

I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations. From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.

I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.

Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office….

By taking this action, I hope that I will have hastened the start of that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.

I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of the events that led to this decision. I would say only that if some of my Judgments were wrong, and some were wrong, they were made in what I believed at the time to be the best interest of the Nation.…

So, let us all now join together in affirming that common commitment and in helping our new President succeed for the benefit of all Americans….

INQUIRY:

  1. Nixon’s successor as president, Gerald Ford, had not been elected; he was appointed to the office of vice president after Nixon’s elected vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned in 1973 (from charges of tax evasion). Gerald Ford, as president after Nixon’s resignation, then nominated Nelson Rockefeller as vice president. Thus from 1974 until 1977 neither the president nor the vice president were elected by the people. What part of the US Constitution provides for succession to the presidency? Why would it have been necessary to nominate a vice president if there was not one currently in office? Who had to approve Rockefeller’s appointment as vice president?
  2. What did Nixon give as the reasons that he chose to resign?
  3. Investigate the Watergate Scandal and how and why it destroyed confidence in the Nixon presidency.
  4. What is impeachment? Where and in what ways does the US Constitution discuss impeachment?
  5. Congress had already begun the impeachment process against Nixon, but he resigned before the articles of impeachment could be passed. Would it have been better for the country if he had gone through with the impeachment process? Why or why not?
  6. How important is it for a president to have a “political base” in Congress? Why?
  7. In what ways did Nixon deflect blame from himself for the necessity to resign? In what ways did he accept blame?
  8. How did Nixon change the tone of this speech in the next to last sentence? In the last sentence?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/character/links/nixon_speech.html

https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/president-nixon

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/bios/richard-nixon

1570: Haudenosaunee Constitution

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How did early Native American culture reflect their values?

CONTEXT:

The Haudenosaunee were a group of Native Americans in what would become the New England colonies in America, and they were present well before colonial settlement. They are sometimes called the “Iroquois Confederacy,” but this was a name given to them by French fur trappers; the English called them the “League of Five Nations.” The Haudenosaunee were actually a language and cultural group, and from this grew the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, a political union. The Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk tribes were original members, and the Tuscarora joined the Confederacy in approximately 1722.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy developed a Constitution which was oral, recorded on wampum belts, and may have dated to as early as 1190. Passed down through the generations, it was later written and translated into English in the 19th century. Known as “The Great Law of Peace,” the Constitution emphasized peace and unity among the nations, consensus decision making, established a legal system, and created delegates to form a Grand Council. This text is drawn from a translation.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy still exists today.

TEXT:

…This is wisdom and justice of the part of the Great Spirit to create and raise chiefs, give and establish unchangable laws, rules and customs between the Five Nation Indians, viz the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas and Senecas and the other nations of Indians in North America. The object of these laws is to establish peace between the numerous nations of Indians, hostility will be done away with, for the preservation and protection of life, property and liberty…

And when the Five Nation Indians confederation chiefs assemble to hold a council, the council shall be duly opened and closed by the Onondaga chiefs, the Firekeepers. They will offer thanks to the Great Spirit that dwells in the heave above the source and ruler of our lives, and it is him that sends daily blessings upon us, our daily wants and daily health, and they will then declare the council open for the transaction of business, and give decisions of all that is done in the council…

INQUIRY:

  1. In the first sentence, what does the Great Spirit do?
  2. What is the purpose of these laws, rules and customs?
  3. How do the Nations open their Council? Why is that significant?
  4. For what do the Nations offer thanks? How does that characterize their relationship with the Great Spirit?
  5. How does the Haudenosaunee Constitution blend laws and values?
  6. Haudenosaunee means “people of the longhouse.” They not only lived in longhouses but also saw their culture as a connected people within a metaphorical longhouse, serving as an image of the connection of the tribes of the Confederacy. How does living close to each other encourage the principles of the Haudenosaunee?
  7. Historians debate the influence of the Haudenosaunee Constitution on the US Constitution. Certainly Benjamin Franklin was familiar with the principles of the Haudenosaunee Constitution; he invited representatives of the Iroquois Nations to the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania in 1744 and the Albany Congress in 1754 to help promote peace, equity and justice in the gathering of colonies. The US Senate, in 1987, formally recognized that the framers of the US Constitution admired the principles and practices of the Confederacy (yet the Constitution itself was based more upon Enlightenment principles of the time). What similarities do you see with this excerpt and the US Constitution?
  8. Investigate the Albany Congress and the Albany Plan of Union. What similarities do you see with the Haudenosaunee Constitution?
  9. During the American colonial period the Haudenosaunee developed political alliances with the French and the English, based on their own tribal benefits. Yet during the American Revolution the Confederacy fractured, with some tribes siding with the English and some with the Americans. How did this violate one of their core principles?
  10. Many historians recognize the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as the world oldest democracy. Do you agree? Why or why not?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

haudenosauneeconfederacy.com

https://web.pdx.edu/~caskeym/iroquois_web/html/greatlaw.html