Hand out n°1 - Licence civ. US - Find underlying concepts in texts
Bibliography
Knupfer, Peter B. The Union as it is: Constitutional Unionism and Sectional Compromise, 1787-1861. Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1991.Concepts
Make sure you can define or comment upon the following concepts:
Antebellum period -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 -Constitutional unionism - Constitutionalism -Fears of the dissolution of the Union -Federal and state relations (conflicts about) -Federalism -Federalist papers -Great Compromise -Interests -Juxtaposition of freedom and slavery -Madisonian constitutional heritage -Manifest Destiny - Minority rights and majority rule - Missouri compromise - Nature of the Union - Nullification -Ordered liberty -Ostend Manifesto - 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 -Spoils System - States' Rights - Statesmanship - Tariffs- Three fifths compromise - Wilmot ProvisoFind the underlying concepts in the following texts:
" Who are the greatest of parties …" - Henry Clay (1850) quoted in Knupfer 2
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.
" Gentlemen must give way a little" Hezekiah Niles quoted in Knupfer 56. (1820s)
Gentlemen must give way a little. It does not become a republican to say, "I will not submit to this," or "I will have that,"-his great duty is to regard the general good and suffer the majority to govern. Hezekiah Niles
The Clay Compromise Measures by John C. Calhoun (March 4, 1850)
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°2 Analysis of a commentaire de civilisation
George Washington, "Farewell Address" (1796) Source: http://www.kirschnet.com/us/survey/units/unit4/supplements/farewell_address_supp.html
accessed Oct. 2nd, 2002[This is an abridged version of the document, Washington's plea for an isolationist American foreign policy has been removed.]
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 - Constitutional unionism
Now see how the directions you will find with this linkapply to what follows:Introduction
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 focussed on the obnoxious 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 Rebellion1792). 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. Constitutinalism 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 legitimicay 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 insistance 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 state 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 compromised 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 - Pluralism
G. Washington underplays the centrifugal effects of 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.).
Conclusion: Constitutional unionism (e pluribus unum)
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.
The following extract does not focus on Madison's most important proposals in this speech, which will 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.
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).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 depotism. 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 ingrafted 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 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.
Table:
| concepts | quotation | lines |
| 1 popular sovereignty | " to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes," | |
| 2 constitutional unionism | " prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures" | |
| 3 federalism | "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," | |
| " 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," | ||
| 4 mutuality | " 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 spirit of accommodation | " the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished." | |
| 6 federalism | " 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 spirit of accommodation | " We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, " | |
| 8 human rights | " and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution." | |
| 9 moderation | " The acquiescence which our fellow citizens shew under the government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation." | |
| 10 unionism | " 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." |
Introduction
Madison (and his friend T. Jefferson) wanted human rights to be stated in the Constitution which led to the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights of 1791.
How did Madison talk a basic federalist Congress into accepting antifederalist demands?I Instigating a spirit of accommodation
5 spirit of accommodation " the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished."
4 mutuality " 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,"
7 spirit of accommodation " We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, "
9 moderation " The acquiescence which our fellow citizens shew under the government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation."
II A call to make the Constitution even more popular in all the states and enhance federalism3 federalism (reform) " 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,"
6 federalism " 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,"
10 unionism " 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."
III Paving the road for constitutionalism1 popular sovereignty " to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes,"CT
2 constitutional unionism "prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures"
8 human rights " and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution."Madison called to Congressmen's spirit of accommodation, in the wake of the compromise tradition that had made the Constitution possible to pave the road for his American constitutionalism, also called Madisonian constitutionalism.
1) The People are the source of sovereignty
2) The People may delegate, but not alienate their sovereignty
3) The People have the right to reform Government
4) The People are by nature equally free and independent with certain inalienable rights
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.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=71
Accessed August 31, 2003I 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, 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.
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.
The Clay Compromise Measures by John C. Calhoun
Source: http://www.nationalcenter.org/CalhounClayCompromise.html
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.The Compromise of 1850—or more exactly a series of acts collectively called that name—was signed by President Millard Fillmore on
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
accessed August 31, 2003[…] 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.
This is the last document to be studied and commented upon for the course on compromise, 1776-1861. By now, you should have all the necessary tools and practice to write your own commentaire without any help. Should you still feel uncomfortable with writing the paper as a last opportunity before the exam, you are advised to revise the chronology and concepts on the website and explore the links to other texts and other websites. If you use a search engine like Google and type in keywords such as Lincoln, slavery, Union, Constitution and more, you should find plenty of information, clues and help available. That said, most important is for you to find a relevant problematic within the compromise framework and a relevant controlling thesis: in what follows, the Constitution stands out as the ultimate hope of keeping the Union together.Source: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
Accessed August 31st, 2003MONDAY, 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."
…
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
…
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
…
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
…
I therefore 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.
…
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
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.