Civilisation nord-américaine - L3 - Hand Out
|
Map #1 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states/us_terr_1860.jpg |
Find
the relevant places for the following dates on map#1 1607
- 1620 - 1776 - 1787 - 1820 - 1850 - 1854 – 1861 Find
today's states on the second map: (locate only those states whose names are
in bold) AL ‑ Alabama;
AK ‑ Alaska; AZ ‑ Arizona; AR ‑ Arkansas;
CA ‑ California;
CO ‑ Colorado; CT ‑ Connecticut; DE ‑ Delaware;
FL ‑ Florida;
GA ‑ Georgia; HI ‑ Hawaii; ID ‑ Idaho; IL ‑ Illinois;
IN ‑ Indiana; IA ‑ Iowa; KS -Kansas;
KY ‑ Kentucky;
LA ‑ Louisiana; ME ‑ Maine;
MD ‑ Maryland; MA- Massachusetts;
MI ‑ Michigan; MN - Minnesota; MS - Mississippi; MO ‑ Missouri;
MT ‑ Montana; NE ‑ Nebraska;
NV ‑ Nevada; NH ‑ New Hampshire; NJ ‑ New
Jersey; NM ‑ New Mexico; NY ‑ New York; NC ‑ North
Carolina; ND ‑ North Dakota;
OH ‑ Ohio; OK ‑ Oklahoma; OR -Oregon; PA -Pennsylvania;
RI ‑ Rhode Island; SC ‑ South Carolina; SD ‑ South
Dakota; TN -Tennessee; TX ‑ Texas;
UT ‑ Utah; VT -Vermont; VA ‑ Virginia;
WA -Washington; WV ‑ West Virginia; WI -Wisconsin; WY -Wyoming;
DC ‑ District of Columbia |
|
Map #2 http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/images/map_10_a.gif |
|
Enlightenment - human rights - Constitution (Separation of powers; a
system of checks of balances; bicameralism; "We the people" -
"a more perfect union" - A nation of states or of citizens? - A
shaky foundation for a perpetual union
- Form a more perfect Union, Establish Justice, Ensure Domestic
Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Secure the Blessings of Liberty
- Ordered liberty - Great Compromise - Minority
rights and majority rule) – Unionism - Constitutional unionism - Mutual affection –
Moderation - Compromise tradition - Constitutionalism - Fear of the dissolution of the Union
- Federalism -Federalist papers - Interests – Slavery - Juxtaposition
of freedom and slavery - Madisonian constitutional heritage
- Manifest Destiny - Antebellum period - Missouri Compromise
- Nature of the Union - Nullification - Federalists vs.
Antifederalists - Party system (emergence of a) - The Federalist Party- The
Democratic Party - The Whig Party - Free-Soil Party
- Republican Party - Pluralism - Patriotism - Preservation
of the Union - Public good - Republican experiment - Republicanism
in the United States - Sectionalism - Slavery - Spirit of accommodation - States' Rights - Statesmanship - Tariffs- Three fifths compromise
- Wilmot Proviso |
Find the underlying concepts in the following texts:
" Who are the greatest of parties …" - Henry Clay (1850)
as quoted in Knupfer 2[1]
On July 22, 1850, Henry Clay rose from his seat in the Senate to make
a final plea for his comprehensive settlement of the rancorous dispute over the
status of slavery in the United States:
Who are the greatest of parties in that greatest of all compromises —the
Constitution of the United States? There were no technical parties to that
instrument; but in deliberating upon what was best for the country, and
perceiving that there were great and conflicting interests pervading all its
parts, they compromised and settled them by ample concession, and in the spirit
of true patriotic amity. They adjusted these conflicting opinions, and the
Constitution, under which we sit at this moment, is the work of their hands-a
great, memorable, magnificent compromise, which indicates to us the course of duty
when differences arise which can only be settled by the spirit of mutual
concession.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/CalhounClayCompromise.html
I have,
senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery
would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion.
Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call
the attention of both the two great parties which divided the country to adopt
some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation
has been permitted to proceed with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has
reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is
in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and gravest question
that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved? To
give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispensable to have
an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause
by which the Union is endangered. Without such knowledge it is impossible to
pronounce with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved; just as it would
be impossible for a physician to pronounce in the case of some dangerous
disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without
similar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause which produce it.
The first question, then, presented for consideration in the investigation I
propose to make in order to obtain such knowledge is: What is it that has
endangered the Union? To this question there can be but one answer,--that the
immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the
States composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely extended
discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the
slavery question and has been increasing ever since. The next question, going
one step further back, is: What has caused this widely diffused and almost
universal discontent?
Hand out n°3 - Washington's Farewell Address (1796)
[This is
an abridged version of the document, Washington's plea for an isolationist
American foreign policy has been removed.]
Text
Source: http://www.kirschnet.com/us/survey/units/unit4/supplements/farewell_address_supp.html. Accessed Oct. 2nd, 2002
After
two terms as president, Washington decided to retire. In his Farewell Address,
delivered to his cabinet in September 1796, Washington warned against the
dangers of sectionalism — the competing allegiances of North and South and East
and West — and the dangers of political parties ….
... Citizens by
birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate
your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national
capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any
appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of
difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political
principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The
independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint
efforts, of common dangers, sufferings and successes....
In contemplating
the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as a matter of serious concern
that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by
geographical discriminations — Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western —
whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real
difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to
acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions
and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourself too much against the
jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they
tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by
fraternal affection....
This government,
the offspring of our own choice... completely free in its principles, in the
distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within
itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence
and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws,
acquiescence in its measures, are duties.... The basis of our political systems
is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of
government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an
explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.
The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government
presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government....
I have already
intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference
to the founding of them of 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.
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 animosity of one part against
another foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to
foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the
government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the
will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another....
A table (concepts, heading sentences, quotations)
|
concepts |
quotations |
line(s) |
|
1 - patriotism |
" The name of American, which belongs to you in
your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism
…." |
|
|
2 - Pluralism (E pluribus unum) |
"With slight shades of difference, you have the
same religion, manners, habits and political principles." |
|
|
3 - Liberty |
"The independence and liberty you possess are
the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings
and successes." |
|
|
4 - Sectionalism |
|
|
|
5 - Political parties |
"One of the expedients of party to acquire
influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and
aims of other districts" |
|
|
6 - Mutual affection |
|
|
|
7 - Locke (the consent of the governed) |
"This government, the offspring of our own
choice..." |
|
|
8 - Liberty |
"completely free in its principles" |
|
|
9 - Separation of powers |
|
|
|
10 - Ordered liberty |
|
|
|
11 – Constitutionalism |
|
|
|
12 - Preservation of the Union |
"I have already intimated to you the danger of
parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them of
geographical discriminations." |
|
|
CT - |
|
|
Hand out n°4 - Suggested
paper (Washington’s Farewell Address 1796)
George Washington, the hero of the
Revolutionary War and the father of the new nation was aware of the dangers
that might later bring about the disruption of the Union. In his Farewell
Address (1796), Washington focused on the dangerous power of factions and
parties and the threats of sectionalism, at a time when the conflicts between
Federalists and Antifederalists had led to the ratification of the Bill of
Rights (1791). He called on his fellow citizens' patriotism and relied on the
Constitution. Beyond patriotism, what new notion did G. Washington try to
define in his address in order to stall centrifugal forces within the new
nation? In order to address this question, we shall first deal with the
principles at work in the Constitution, then we shall discuss sectionalism and
the power of parties as threats to the Union. Finally, we shall try to show
that patriotism and "mutual affection" were the basic ingredients of
unionism. Thanks to unionism, the United States was likely to prove that the
theories of the Enlightenment could work.
I - Based on the ideas of
the Enlightenment, the Constitution created a nation and provided what most
American citizens demanded, i.e. liberty and safety.
A - 9 - Separation of
powers
The separation of powers was one of
the basic doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers. In France, Montesquieu
had made it one of his favorite themes. The idea was to protect the people, the
governed, from the absolutism of despots. We find a clear allusion to this
theory in the document under study when G. Washington alluded to "the
distribution of [the federal government's] powers". The separation of
powers and its corollary, a system of checks and balances that made it
impossible for one power to outgrow its prerogatives was a guarantee against
the return of tyranny. If liberty was thus protected, the Constitution was
nevertheless supposed to make it possible to maintain order.
B - 10 - Ordered liberty
The Constitution managed to
conciliate individual rights, freedoms and public order, an ideal which has
been called "ordered liberty". The United States was of course
founded on the ideal of liberty: "The independence and liberty you possess
are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings
and successes." But domestic harmony did not reign in the young nation.
This was one of the reasons why the Philadelphia Convention had been convened
to put an end to the chaotic economic situation of the Union under the Articles
of Confederation, not to mention the riots (Shays's Rebellion 1786) in New
England or on the frontier (Whiskey Rebellion 1792). The latter took place
under Washington's presidency, so that when he mentioned "uniting security
with energy", he talked from experience: the Constitution made it possible
to impose some kind of order upon the frontier. Constitutionalism was thus
strengthened.
C - 11 -
Constitutionalism
The new constitutionalism created a
nation which expected every citizen's allegiance. But this new form of
government still lacked the authority and legitimacy that only time can obtain.
America's first president was aware that the nation rested on shaky foundations
and called for all its citizens' loyalty: "But the constitution which at
any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole
people is sacredly obligatory upon all." Of particular importance here is
Washington's insistence upon "the whole people" the true source of
legitimacy and the crucible of the nation. In his prudent approach, Washington
avoids alluding to the theory of states' rights, the other source of
legitimacy. Washington's main concern is to build up unionism upon the people's
sovereignty. As a matter of fact, sectional conflicts were to erode unionism
rapidly, and focus attention on states' rights.
II - Centrifugal forces
like sectional conflicst exploited by political parties could threaten the
Union.
A - 4 - Sectionalism
G. Washington was aware that
sectionalism loomed high among the many centrifugal forces that could lead to
the disruption of the Union. If sectionalism usually refers to the conflicts
between the North and the South, Washington here must have alluded to the
whiskey rebellion on the frontier when he listed all the sections in the Union:
"geographical discriminations — Northern and Southern, Atlantic and
Western". Obviously, Washington was aware of potential sectional conflicts
to come that other agents—such as political parties—could exploit to acquire
power, in a process that could endanger the Union.
B - 5 - Political parties
G. Washington was
aware that political parties, party passions, could take advantage of sectional
strife. This could lead to the disruption of the Union. It was essential for
Washington to warn his fellow citizens against such a danger that could obliterate the patriotic
enthusiasm and the mutual affection of the first generation of American
politicians who framed the Constitution and made the great compromise possible:
"One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular
districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts."
Washington knew that politicians to come could easily plan a career upon
sectional antagonisms.
C - 12 - Disruption of
the Union
G. Washington portentously repeated
and underscored the causes that could lead to the disruption of the Union, i.e.
sectionalism and the party system that ultimately led to the Civil War. Not
only did he mention them as separate possible causes for disunion, but he also
clearly associated them in his warning: "I have already intimated to you
the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding
of them of geographical discriminations." Such a warning sounds like a
foreboding to us now. What palliative could Washington put forward for the
danger of disunion?
III - Unionism could
counterbalance those centrifugal forces but it demanded mutual affection to
create unity.
A-1 - Patriotism
G. Washington called on his fellow
Americans' patriotism to keep the Union together. This was all the more natural
as these people, and the members of Washington's Cabinet especially, felt they
belonged to an exceptional generation of Americans that created a new nation.
We can observe however that Washington combined patriotism and "national
capacity", as one of his priorities was to strengthen loyalty to the young
nation. "The name of American, which belongs to you in your national
capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism …." His audience
was made up of "national politicians" who worked at federal level. It
was important for Washington to insist on the federalism of the Founding
Fathers as one of the forces of unionism.
B-6 - Mutual affection
G. Washington also called on one of
the Founding Fathers' catchwords, i.e. "mutual affection" to overcome
the sources of conflicts. This appeal to sentiment was to be one of the
rhetorical rituals of the next generation of American politicians, which tends
to prove its importance in the early founding years of the Republic. Such
"mutual affection" largely contributed to the compromises that gave
birth to the nation. But we should note that when Washington said:
"jealousies … tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be
bound together by fraternal affection," he implicitly once again called
for union, togetherness to strengthen the bonds of the Republic under the
Constitution. Beyond party passion and sectionalism, the mere pluralism of the
young nation could also be a source of disunion.
C-2 – A form of pluralism
G. Washington underplays the
centrifugal effects of what could be termed the new nation's pluralism. He
chose to ignore the obvious discrepancies between the economic and cultural
features of North and South, never mentioning the peculiar institution, merely
alluding to vague differences in habits and manners, ("With slight shades
of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political
principles") in a rhetorical trick that allowed him to insist on common
features (same religion e.g.).
All things considered, the Farewell
Adress (1796) stands out as a remarkable anticipation of the problems to
develop later, problems raised by sectionalism and the party system that
fostered mass politics in the 1840s. G. Washington insisted on the sound bases
and workings of the Constitution and called for the "mutual
affection" of his fellow citizens. In these early days of the Republic,
patriotism was so high that the retiring president did not even have to mention
compromise as a means of governing. He only alluded to the "joint
efforts" to achieve independence and to frame the Constitution. To him,
the Constitution could work and could foster unity. This address can be
considered to be one of the first cornerstones of constitutional unionism.
Constitutional unionism meant to
keep the Union together by the careful construction of the Constitution, true
statesmanship, mutual affection and the tradition of compromise that followed
the Philadelphia constitutional convention. But centrifugal forces were at work
to undermine and expose the contradiction of a system that tolerated the
abomination of slavery, the pure denial of its ideological foundation.
Hand out # 5 - guidelines for writing a commentaire de civilisation
3-
INTRODUCTION
In
your introduction you should state:
3.1.
the nature of the document
3.2.
the author (and what role he played in his or her time if he or she is famous)
3.3.
the date of the document
3.4.
the link between the historical background and the document (2/3 lines).
3.5.
A short rendering of the document (4/5 lines) using the main underlying
concepts of the text should follow.
3.6.
Then state the ensuing problematic (write one question to guide your whole
interpretation of the text until the conclusion). (1/2 lines).
3.7.
Sketch the outline of your commentaire
(give the headings of main parts showing how they are elements of the answer to
the problematic).
4.
COMMENTS
The
comments will be a series of paragraphs.
4.1. WRITING A PARAGRAPH
4.1.1. Begin the paragraph with a heading sentence inserting the concept
of the quotation given later in same paragraph (1 sentence). Do not start a new
paragraph after that.
4.1.2. Explain what you mean in the heading sentence. (2/3 sentences).
Do not start a new paragraph after that.
4.1.3. Introduce and give the quotation. Do not start a new paragraph
after that.
4.1.4. Show how the quotation illustrates the heading sentence, and,
whenever possible, how the paragraph is linked with and points to your
controlling thesis. (1/2sentences). Do not start a new paragraph after that.
4.1.5. Write a transition to proceed to next paragraph. (1 sentence).
5.
CONCLUSION
5.1.
In the first part of the conclusion, summarize your points briefly.
("Thus, we have seen that...").
5.2.
In the second paragraph clearly state your controlling thesis —use (a) (new)
concept(s) that expresses the outcome of your argumentation, especially the
last large section of your comments. Develop your controlling thesis (3 or more
sentences).
6.
DO/DO NOT
6.1.
Always make sure that there is a logical link from one idea to the next, from
one remark to the following quotation, from one paragraph to the next, from the
introduction down to the controlling thesis.
6.2.
Do not paraphrase; do not repeat the text.
6.3.
Do quote the text at least once in each paragraph. When you quote, use
quotation marks and give the quotation entirely, do not drop words!
6.4.
Do not write whole paragraphs about the historical background of the text. It
is only repeating a lesson, not casting light on the text.
6.5.
Do not pass value judgments.
6.6.
Do not use present tense as freely as in French. Mind your tenses (T).
6.7.
Who are "they"? (WAT)
6.8.
Margin on the right. 6.9. Do not end a paragraph with a quotation.
7. HINTS
7.1.
Use concepts and print them in bold type in your headings, and in
heading-sentences (first sentence in each paragraph)
7.2.
Remember that headings are to help you organize your material, but your reader
does not read them. So transitions and heading sentences are essential.
7.3.
Use "According to the author, ..." or similar phrases ("The
writer insists that..., " "the author claims that...", "the
writer suggests that ...," "If we are to believe the author,
..." in order to make it clear that you do not share the writer’s views,
that you are not gullible, that you keep a critical mind.
7.4.
Always check the tenses of the verbs in your commentary. Use past tenses
whenever possible.
7.5.
Define key concepts and notions (Manifest Destiny, agrarianism,...) in the
course of your commentary
7.6.
Briefly introduce prominent characters mentioned in the text (Jefferson, Polk,
O’Sullivan...) in the course of your commentary.
9. GRAMMAIRE
9.1.
The United States est singulier en anglo-américain.
The
United States is a utopia in the making.
9.2.
"A" majuscule à American, qu'il soit nom ou adjectif.
Americans
believe in the American Dream.
9.3.
Cas possessif : le "s" du pluriel régulier sert de "s" au
cas possessif.
The
Americans' main concern is the state of the economy. La principale
préoccupation des Américains est l'état de l'économie.
The
American's main concern is the state of the economy. La principale
préoccupation de cet Américain est l'état de l'économie.
9.4.
Les fautes à la mode :
Utilisation
erronée de "lead" au passé. To lead, I led, led
Passé
What led you to think I was ill? Qu'est-ce qui t'a fait penser que j'étais
malade ?
Présent
What leads you to think I'm wrong? Qu'est-ce qui te conduit à croire que j'ai
tort ?
To
what extent ? (et non to what extend)
Hand out n°6 - James
Madison, Proposed
Amendments to the
Constitution, June 8, 1789
The
following extract does not
focus on Madison's most important proposals, which were to lead to the first
ten amendments, the Bill of Rights (1791). The following extract has been
selected as it illustrates the spirit of accommodation and compromise that the
framers tried to maintain after the Constitution had been framed.
I am sorry to
be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the house. If I had been
indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a committee of the whole, I think
we might have rose, and resumed the consideration of other business before this
time; that is, so far as it depended on what I proposed to bring forward. As
that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select
committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for
Congress to propose to the legislatures of the several States, conformably to
the 5th article of the constitution.
I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments; and
state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed.
If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents,
to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass
upon the indulgence of this house. But I cannot do this; and am therefore
compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do
most sincerely believe that if
congress will devote but one day to this subject, so far as to satisfy the
public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary
influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future
measures.
It appears to
me that this house is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first
session pass over without proposing to the state legislatures some things to be
incorporated into the
constitution, as will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United
States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish,
among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of
this constitution, may have the opportunity of proving to those who were
opposed to it, that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican
government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this
constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to
extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions,
that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the
liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are
amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and
they can be engrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our
fellow citizens; the
friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and
concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.
It cannot be a
secret to the gentlemen in this house, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of
government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases
unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who
are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their
talents, their patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their
liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There
is a great body of the people falling under this description, who as present
feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism, if they were
satisfied in this one point: We ought not to disregard their inclination, but,
on principles of amity and
moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured
under this constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow citizens shew
under the government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But
perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration
of the subject; it is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a
part of the community. I
allude in a particular manner to those two states[2] who have not
thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the confederacy: it is a desirable thing, on our part as well as
theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt,
if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this
juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in
those states that are not come in, that we have seen prevailing [in] those
states which are.
SOURCE: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/speeches/amend.htm accessed Ju:y
28, 2002.
Cong.
Register, I, 423-37 (also reported in Gazette of the US., 10 and 13 June 1789).
|
|
Concepts+ heading
sentences |
quotation |
lines |
|
1 |
|
" to satisfy the public that we do not
disregard their wishes," |
|
|
2 |
|
" prepare the way for a favorable
reception of our future measures" |
|
|
3 |
|
"not to let the first session pass
over without proposing to the state legislatures some things to be incorporated
into the constitution, as will render it as acceptable to the whole people of
the United States," |
|
|
4 |
|
" those who have been friendly to the
adoption of this constitution, may have the opportunity of proving to those
who were opposed to it, that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a
republican government," |
|
|
5 |
|
" the friends of the federal
government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they
have hitherto been distinguished." |
|
|
6 |
|
" There is a great body of the people
falling under this description, who as present feel much inclined to join
their support to the cause of federalism," |
|
|
7 |
|
" We ought not to disregard their
inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their
wishes, " |
|
|
8 |
human rights |
"
“ |
|
|
9 |
|
" The acquiescence which our fellow
citizens shew under the government, calls upon us for a like return of
moderation." |
|
|
10 |
|
" I allude in a particular manner to
those two states who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom
of the confederacy: it is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs,
that a re-union should take place as soon as possible." |
|
Hand out #7 - John C. Calhoun, "Slavery a Positive Good" (6 February 1837)
The
following speech was delivered at a time when abolitionism was rapidly
spreading in the North and became a political issue that had reached Congress.
Southerners violently opposed any debate on the issue of slavery on Capitol
Hill. The so-called gag rule had even been enforced on 26 May 1836:
the House of Representatives resolved (117-68) to
table [ignore] all petitions concerning abolitionism without entering them in
its journal or referring them to any committee. It also resolved that Congress
had no power to interfere with slavery where it was lawful (182-9) and that it
would be inappropriate to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia
(132-45). (The Senate simultaneously adopted this practice, but without a
formal vote.) Despite its infringement of first amendment rights [freedom of
press, speech], the Gag Rule was re-newed at every session until rescinded on 3
December 1844. (Purvis)
In the following speech, try to spot passages about
the gag rule, the rising influence of abolitionism, sectionalism, the
compromise tradition, loyalty to unionism, allusion to Calhoun's Nullification
theory and his conflict with Daniel Webster, the theory of states' rights,
Andrew Jackson's Force Bill (1833), and the politics of conscience.
John C. Calhoun,
"Slavery … a Positive Good" (6 February 1837)
I do not belong, said Mr. C., to
the school which holds that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine is the
opposite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met at the beginning,
and that those who act on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves.
In this case, in particular. I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If we
concede an inch, concession would follow concession — compromise would follow
compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual resistance would
be impossible. We must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a fixed
determination of maintaining our position at every hazard. Consent to receive
these insulting petitions, and the next demand will be that they be referred to
a committee in order that they may be deliberated and acted upon. At the last
session we were modestly asked to receive them, simply to lay them on the
table, without any view to ulterior action. . . . I then said, that the next
step would be to refer the petition to a committee, and I already see
indications that such is now the intention. If we yield, that will be followed
by another, and we will thus proceed, step by step, to the final consummation
of the object of these petitions. We are now told that the most effectual mode
of arresting the progress of abolition is, to reason it down; and with this
view it is urged that the petitions ought to be referred to a committee. That
is the very ground which was taken at the last session in the other House,[3]
but instead of arresting its progress it has since advanced more rapidly than
ever. The most unquestionable right may be rendered doubtful, if once admitted
to be a subject of controversy, and that would be the case in the present
instance. The subject is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress — they have no
right to touch it in any shape or form, or to make it the subject of
deliberation or discussion. . . .
As widely as this incendiary
spirit has spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the great mass of the
intelligent and business portion of the North; but unless it be speedily
stopped, it will spread and work upwards till it brings the two great sections
of the Union into deadly conflict. This is not a new impression with me.
Several years since, in a discussion with one of the Senators from
Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), before this fell spirit had showed itself, I then
predicted that the doctrine of the proclamation and the Force Bill — that this
Government had a right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of its own
powers, and enforce its decision at the point of the bayonet, which was so
warmly maintained by that Senator, would at no distant day arouse the dormant
spirit of abolitionism. I told him that the doctrine was tantamount to the
assumption of unlimited power on the part of the Government, and that such would
be the impression on the public mind in a large portion of the Union. The
consequence would be inevitable. A large portion of the Northern States
believed slavery to be a sin, and would consider it as an obligation of
conscience to abolish it if they should feel themselves in any degree
responsible for its continuance, and that this doctrine would necessarily lead
to the belief of such responsibility. I then predicted that it would commence
as it has with this fanatical portion of society, and that they would begin
their operations on the ignorant, the weak, the young, and the thoughtless, —
and gradually extend upwards till they would become strong enough to obtain
political control, when he and others holding the highest stations in society,
would, however reluctant, be compelled to yield to their doctrines, or be
driven into obscurity. But four years have since elapsed, and all this is
already in a course of regular fulfilment. …
However sound the great body of
the non-slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they
will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and
institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than
one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end.
By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become,
finally, two people. It is impossible under the deadly hatred which must spring
up between the two great nations, if the present causes are permitted to
operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same political system. The
conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, powerful as are the links
which hold it together. Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend
of the Union I openly proclaim it, — and the sooner it is known the better. The
former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power
of man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot,
surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two
races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and
happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country or the
other of the races. . . . But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication,
that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is
an evil: — far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved
itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the
fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of
Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a
condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and
intellectually.[4]
See
the end of this speech ("I hold that in the present state of civilization,
where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other
physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the
relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead
of an evil, a good — a positive good.") on the website.
Hand out # 8 - "The Clay Compromise
Measures"[5] (1850) by John C. Calhoun,
This is
among John C. Calhoun's most famous speeches. He was too ill to deliver it
himself, so it was read by another senator with Calhoun present in the Senate
Chamber. Calhoun, so ill he had to be helped out of the Chamber after the
speech by two of his friends, died on March 31, 1850.
What is the problematic, and the appropriate concept for the controlling
thesis, for a commentaire upon this passage?
Suggested concepts:
territorial acquisitions - tariff of abominations - the Ordinance of 1787 - the
Missouri Compromise - sectional equilibrium - sectionalism - politics of
conscience - slavery as vital for the South - disunion - unionism - majority
rule and minority rights
[…] the North
has acquired a preponderance in every department of the government by its
disproportionate increase of population and States. The former, as has been
shown, has increased, in fifty years, 2,400,000 over that of the South. This
increase of population during so long a period is satisfactorily accounted for
by the number of immigrants, and the increase of their descendants, which have
been attracted to the Northern section from Europe and the South, in
consequence of the advantages derived from the causes assigned. If they had not
existed--if the South had retained all the capital which has been extracted
from her by the fiscal action of the government; and if it had not been
excluded by the Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise, from the region
lying between the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers, and between the Mississippi
and the Rocky Mountains north of 36° 30'--it scarcely admits of a doubt that it
would have divided the immigration with the North, and by retaining her own
people would have at least equaled the North in population under the census of
1840, and probably under that about to be taken. She would also, if she had
retained her equal rights in those territories, have maintained an equality in
the number of States with the North, and have preserved the equilibrium between
the two sections that existed at the commencement of the government. The loss,
then, of the equilibrium is to be attributed to the action of this government.
There is a question of
vital importance to the Southern section, in reference to which the views and
feelings of the two sections are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly
be. I refer to the relation between the two races in the Southern section,
which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. Every portion of
the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to it. Those most
opposed and hostile regard it as a sin, and consider themselves under the most
sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it.
Indeed, to the extent
that they conceive that they have power, they regard themselves as implicated
in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every
means. Those less opposed and hostile regard it as a crime--an offense against
humanity, as they call it and, altho not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to
use all efforts to effect the same object; while those who are least opposed
and hostile regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they call
the "nation," and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no
countenance or support. On the contrary, the Southern section regards the
relation as one which can not be destroyed without subjecting the two races to
the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation, and
wretchedness; and accordingly they feel bound by every consideration of
interest and safety to defend it.
Unless something decisive
is done, I again ask, What is to stop this agitation before the great and final
object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is
consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something is not done to arrest
it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed,
as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede in order to
dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past
history furnishes abundant proof--as I shall next proceed to show.
It is a great mistake to
suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. The cords which bind
these States together in one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for
that. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and
successively, that the cords can be snapped until the whole fabric falls
asunder. Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the
most important, and has greatly weakened all the others.
If the agitation goes on,
the same force, acting with increased intensity, as has been shown, will
finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together
except force. But surely that can with no propriety of language be called a
Union when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the
stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected; but the
connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation on the part
of the weaker to the stronger than the union of free, independent, and
sovereign States in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the
government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of Union.[6]
Useful link: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/1850s/polixx.htm
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government
itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence
the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the
President before "he enters on the execution of this office."
…
I … consider that in view of the Constitution and the
laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care,
as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the
Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a
simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my
rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in
some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be
regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it
will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
…
All profess to be content in the Union if all
constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right
plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the
human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing
this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written
provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of
numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written
constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution;
certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All
the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to
them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the
Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law
can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question
which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor
any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible
questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State
authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit
slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must
Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not
expressly say.
…
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence
of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and
limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular
opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever
rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is
impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly
inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism
in some form is all that is left.
…
One
section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended,
while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the
only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the
law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced,
perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the
people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide
by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This,
I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after
the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now
imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one
section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be
surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not
remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall
between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and
beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not
do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable
or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that
intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than
before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can
treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among
friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much
loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old
questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the
people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or
their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant
of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the
National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I
fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to
be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I
should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair
opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add
that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to
originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take
or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the
purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either
accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which
amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that
the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of
the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction
of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular
amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied
constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
…
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and
not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not
assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.
You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall
have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am
loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though
passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic
chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every
living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the
chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better
angels of our nature.
THE CRITTENDEN
COMPROMISE (1860)
The
Crittenden compromise was an unsuccessful last-minute effort to avert the Civil
War. It was proposed in Congress as a constitutional amendment in Dec., 1860,
by Sen. John J. Crittenden of Kentucky ... At a peace conference called by the Virginia legislature in
1861, the compromise gained support from four border state delegations.
Nevertheless, it failed in the House of Representatives in Jan., 1861, by a
vote of 113 to 80 and in the Senate in March by a vote of 20 to 19. Its defeat
made clear the inevitability of the Civil War.[8]
Whereas, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen
between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights and security of
the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the
common territory of the United States; and whereas it is eminently desirable
and proper that these dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of
this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions,
which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people
that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the
United States: Therefore,
…
ARTICLE I.
In all the territory of the United States now held, or
hereafter acquired, situated north of latitude 36° 30', slavery or involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory
shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said
line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing,
and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as
property by all the departments of the territorial government during its
continuance. And when any Territory, north or south of said line, within such
boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite
for a member of Congress according to the then Federal ratio of representation
of the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of government be
republican, be admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original
States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may
provide.
ARTICLE II.
Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in
places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate[d] within the limits of
States that permit the holding of slaves.
ARTICLE III.
…
ARTICLE IV.
…
ARTICLE V.
That in addition to the provisions of the third
paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of
the United States, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be
its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall
apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave in all cases when the
marshal or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive was
prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest,
said fugitive was rescued by force, the owner thereby prevented and obstructed
in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave under the
said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in
all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall
have the right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence,
intimidation, or rescue was committed, and to recover from it, with interest
and damages, the amount paid by them for said fugitive slave. And the said
county, after it has paid said amount to the United States may, for its
indemnity, sue and recover from the wrongdoers or rescuers by whom the owner
was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the
owner himself might have sued and recovered.
ARTICLE VI.
…
2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts
of Congress, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which, in their
operation, impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of
said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the
United States; yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to
practice, and led to consequences which have obstructed the due administration
and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of
fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion
now prevailing. Congress, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not
deem it improper respectfully and earnestly to recommend the repeal of those
laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative
corrections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or
perverted to such mischievous purposes.
…