American History Syllabus
AMERICAN HISTORY 2003-2004
This is a survey course in American History from the colonial period to the present. Aside from knowing the major factual details of American History, you are expected to demonstrate an ability to argue and write about important issues, themes, and debates concerning the history of the United States.
Everyone is expected to have the following reading materials:
America Past and Present by Robert Divine
Hypertext-Linked Resources
Assorted handouts in the course of the year
You are expected to complete each reading assignment by the day for which it is assigned even if you are absent. In the event of an absence, you are responsible for getting notes from a classmate. There will be occasional in-class writing and other writing assignments.
There will be periodic tests and quizzes (some unannounced) given during the term and a final exam at the end of each semester. Absence from these without a valid excuse will result in a failure. With a valid excuse you must make up the quiz or test within one week of your return to school.
Proper note taking is crucial- both for reading and in class. Develop a system which suits you. Do not bring the textbook (unless told to do so) to class-- bring your notes!
Aside from reading and analyzing the text, an important skill to work on will be the analysis of primary documents. Reading these primary sources critically is important to your success in this course and, just as importantly, it is important to the success of the course. There will be two research papers in the course this year. The requirements for the first paper will be given to you shortly.
I am available to meet with all of you during office hours which will be posted. Each of you must see me at least once each quarter to discuss any questions you have or for enrichment.
AMERICAN HISTORY
UNIT ONE
The Spanish were the first Europeans to settle the New World. Over a hundred years later, England sent its first group of settlers to North America, beginning a wave of colonization that would eventually create the thirteen separate entities that comprised what we call colonial America. Colonial development was far from uniform. It was determined not only by the differing physical conditions along the coastline, but by the ideas and interest of those who came. Some sought economic advantage; some (very few in fact) came in pursuit of religious freedom. Some were brought against their will. Some colonies were property of the Crown, others were gifts to friends of the king or were business arrangements made by British trading companies. We will study the early colonial settlements because the organization and beliefs of those who created this short-lived English empire would profoundly affect the development of what became the United States. Colonial development was affected too, by the attitude of the English government toward the settlers. That attitude varied, dependent on the condition of the English economy and the tensions between England and the other inhabitants of the North American continent. The American revolution was the product of many forces-- political, philosophical, economic, and social. But for all its complexity, it created something which purported to be quite new; a model of a society based on the concepts of human equality and the right of the people to govern themselves. Whether or not the United States has lived up to that ideal, indeed, whether or not it is possible to create a democratic and egalitarian society, is part of the story we will examine during the rest of the year.
Once the new national government was established and the Washington administration took office, political parties emerged quickly. The Federalists, led by Hamilton and Adams, believed in strong central government and mistrusted the states and "common" people. They felt the nation would endure only if its affairs were managed by an aristocracy of talent and believed, above all, that the future of the United States rested on its ability to demonstrate financial responsibility and strength. The Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson, were far more suspicious of centralized power. They had far more faith in the ordinary citizen's capacity to govern himself and extending the authority of the Federal government beyond what had been explicitly stated in the Constitution. The parties also disagreed about foreign affairs. As Europe was torn apart by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, Americans argued about their role in the world. Who would be our allies? Could we remain uninvolved when our economic health depended on trade with that war-torn Europe?
The victory of the Republicans in the election of 1800 ushered in a period of rapid change and development. Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana Territory revealed the limits of a strict construction of the Constitution. The United States also fought second war with Great Britain. John Marshall and the Supreme Court issued of series of rulings regarding the boundaries between state and Federal power and changing the balance of power among the three branches of government in a series of rulings that would profoundly affect the course of our history.
MAP: Familiarize yourself with the maps on pages 120, 127, and 178. You may be tested on these maps at any time.
Class Assignments:
- Founding British North America: Hopes and Reality. Please refer to, "Conflict
and consensus in American History,." the Examination
of Anne Hutchinson" and the Colonial
Comparison
- In light of the documents, do you think the conflict or consensus view of American History is more accurate for the early colonies?
- Although New England and the Chesapeake region were both settled largely by people of English origin. by 1700 the regions had evolved into two distinct societies. Why did this difference in development occur?
- Do the documents suggest how a consensus view of American History may have originated?
- Once again, which of the two interpretations of American history is best supported by an examination of these events?
- How would you explain the eruption of the dissension seen in these events?
- How was order (and consensus) restored?
- Who filled the role played by Native Americans in these events? What were the perceived similarities and differences between these groups and the Native Americans?
- Why did English colonial policy change after the French and Indian War?
- What distinctive features of American culture began to differentiate the colonies from the Mother Country
- What factors contributed to the growth of American dissatisfaction with the Mother Country?
- How did British policies push the colonists toward thinking of independence?
- Was revolution inevitable? How might it have been averted?
- What principles and ideas of John Locke did Jefferson adopt in the Declaration?
- How would you explain the types of changes made to Jefferson's Draft of the Declaration of Independence.?
- What advantages and weaknesses did the combatants have in the American Revolution?
- Do you think the colonies could have won the war without the assistance of foreign governments?
- Does the text present a Conflict or Consensus View of the Revolution?
- Was the American War for Independence also an American Revolution?
- "The Articles were too democratic for the planter and merchant elites." Defend or oppose with specific supporting information.
- Consider: "The ratification of the Constitution was an American Counter-Revolution."
- What were the chief sources of conflict that obstructed the drafting of a new Constitution?
- What are the arguments made by Madison and Brutus regarding the size of the United States?
- Why is the issue of size so important for Madison to address?
- What would be the logical conclusion of Madison's argument regarding size?
- What assumptions about human nature underlay Madison's #10?
- STUDY AID FOR QUIZ: Articles of Confederation vs. US Constitution Chart
- In what areas did Hamilton and Jefferson have profound disagreements?
- Which one has history proven to be more farsighted?
- How did the foreign policy of the United States develop during this period? Did it change?
- What do you think Washington is referring to in passages 32-35?
- What connection does Washington draw between foreign and domestic affairs?
- What do you think Washington is referring to in passage 40?
- Which political figure during the Adams Presidency seemed to follow Washington's advice most closely?
- Do you think the foreign policy goals of the George W. Bush administration would have met with Washington's approval?
AMERICAN HISTORY
UNIT TWO
The Era of Good Feelings
During the Era of Good Feeling party conflict was temporarily dampened and our foreign policy took a direction that would continue to reverberate to the present day. The industrial revolution came to America, and with it the country experienced economic development that was eventually to help divide the United States.
MAP ASSIGNMENT: United States in 1804, page 236. United States in 1820, page 273
CLASS ASSIGNMENTS:
- What effect did our geography have on our national development?
- Was the election of 1800 a revolution or did Jefferson betray Republican ideals and goals?
- Jefferson accused the Federalists of retreating behind the ramparts of the Judiciary. What did he mean? Was his accusation justified by the decisions of the Marshall Supreme Court?
- How did Jefferson's foreign policy reflect his republican beliefs?
- Do the goals of the Monroe Doctrine match those of Washington's Farewell Address?
- Do the arguments to justify the Doctrine match those of Washington?
AMERICAN HISTORY
UNIT THREE
The Age of Jackson and Beyond
With the end of the Era of Good feelings, the new democratic politics was dominated by Andrew Jackson and his enemy, Henry Clay. It was a time of economic expansion, growing nationalism, growing sectionalism and frenetic change.
Perhaps in response to the frenetic pace of American life, there emerged a host of new religions, religious revivals, and proposals for social reform to assist the disabled and the insane, prisoners and Alcohol drinkers. The Women's Movement was born in a small town in New York in 1848 and the Abolition movement emerged as a force that would threaten the society, economics and thinking of a large section of the country. It was a time when Utopian, communal societies were established, as people rejected the selfishness and materialism of America. It was the time when the Transcendentalists made their philosophical mark upon the nation.
American westward expansion was often the product of the slave question and it also brought the issue of slavery to the forefront of the national debate. As America added new states the battle was joined in Congress. Compromise was attempted, but the issue, both morally and economically, was increasingly not amenable to peaceable solutions. The battle over the extension of slavery led to yet another change in the American political system and, perhaps inexorably, to the opening shots of the Civil War.
MAP ASSIGNMENT: page 337 (Territorial Expansion in 19th century)
READING ASSIGNMENTS:
- The Emergence of Democracy. Divine: 281-288, A Plea
for the Maryland Jew Bill
- Why was this period called the "age of the common man?" In what ways is this image correct? How is it inaccurate?
- How did the political development of the time reflect the changing nature of American society? What did the Democratic Party stand for? Why were none of the other parties to endure?
- The Emergence of Democracy. Divine: 281-288, A Plea
for the Maryland Jew Bill
- Jacksonian Issues Divine: 288-296 Maysville Road Veto, Worcester v.
Georgia
- What was Jackson's view of the Constitution? How can you reconcile his views in light of his positions on Indian Removal, Nullification and the Bank?
- Democrats still claim both Jefferson and Jackson as the historic leaders of their party. What attitudes did they share? In what ways did they differ?
- How do Calhoun, Clay and Webster, the other political giants of that time, reflect the major issues of the period? Were they national leaders or did they represent sectional interests?
- How did the Mexican War affect American development? What role did Manifest Destiny play in the expansionist policy of the United States?
AMERICAN HISTORY
Unit Four
Westward Expansion and the Civil War
It was in the Jacksonian age that slavery really gripped the South, that it was rationalized and defended against an onslaught of criticism. Confrontation was to be deferred for a quarter of a century, but the seeds of disunity were sowed and would bear fruit over the issue of western expansion. Two political problems dominate the early history of the United States. The first was sovereignty; where did that power lie, and who had the power to interpret the Constitution? Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, as well as Marshall, Calhoun and Jackson all claimed to have answers to those questions, but as the middle of the 19th century came nearer, the issue was unresolved. The second, often interrelated problem was sectionalism. The Constitutional Convention had almost faltered on the issue of slavery and slave importation, and economic interests had heightened sectional rivalries throughout the period, whether in the guise of arguments over internal improvements or over the tariff. Economic and geographical expansion did not serve to lessen these tensions; if anything, they worsened as the United States grew and prospered. One task on this assignment will be to determine at what point both sides became so entrenched that compromise became impossible and war probable. Could the conflict have been avoided? At what point? The second part of this assignment deals with the Civil War itself. The Civil War was a defining moment in our history; its effects have been seen and felt ever since, even into our own time.
MAP: United States in 1853, page 344. Slavery and Freedom in the United State, page 408.
READING ASSIGNMENTS:
- Why was the Wilmot Proviso, which never became law, such a symbol of the sectional crisis that was developing?
- Why did the Compromise of 1850 take so long to get through Congress? What parts of it dealt with issues that touched the moral consciousness of the North? How was it finally made into law?
- What was Douglas's goal in proposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act? Did it serve to strengthen the forces of compromise or to undermine them?
- Why did the Republican Party emerge when it did? Was it a national or sectional party? What was its position on slavery? What group, or groups, of Americans did it best represent?
- What role did the Dred Scott decision play in destroying the chances that we could avoid war? What were its moral and political implications?
- Could the United States have avoided war? At what points might that have been possible? When did war become inevitable? Were politicians to blame? Was slavery?
- Given the circumstances in the Union and Confederacy, was a Northern victory a foregone conclusion? How could the South have won the war?
- How would you assess Abraham Lincoln as 1) a military leader; 2) a political leader; 3) a moral leader? How did he use the issue of slavery to his political advantage? Was his abuse of the Bill of Rights justified?
- How would the condition of both the North and South on April 12, 1865, be likely to shape future events and attitudes in the United States?
AMERICAN HISTORY
UNIT FIVE
RECONSTRUCTION AND THE GILDED AGE
The Civil War, ended in defeat for the principle of states' rights. But the role of the federal government, now a national government, still needed to be defined. The problems of reconstruction, the growth of the national economy, and America's growing world role required Americans to consider how active a role they wished for the federal government. And, as ever, the principles of equality enshrined in the Declaration of Independence challenged Americans confronted with increasing disparities between rich and poor, privileged and unprivileged.
Reconstruction: Gettysburg Address
- The Gettysburg Address is like a story, a novel, a fairy tale. What is the "story" about America that Lincoln is telling? What is the moral of the story? Who is included or not included in the story? What does the story presage for Lincoln's Reconstruction plans?
AMERICAN HISTORY
SECOND SEMESTER
UNIT SIX
THE MODERN ERA
The new industrial processes, urbanization, massive immigration and foreign conquest challenged American institutions and values from a simpler and more innocent era. Though sizeable numbers of American advocated a "realistic" adjustment to the new forces and circumstances facing Americans, large and influential groups of Americans remained convinced that such adjustments would "betray" the American dream. The Progressives would initially gain the upper hand and launch the most concerted reform efforts Americans had ever witnessed. They would also involve America in its first major overseas land conflict. But, by the 1920's, the "other" America would begin to reassert itself and attempt to revive their own image of America: committed to laissez-faire, "virtuous" values, and a withdrawal from foreign entanglements.
MAP: Indicate the names and dates of America's colonial acquisitions between 1865 and 1914. Due date to be announced.
- Describe the differences, if any, between Democrats and Republicans
- What were the reforms proposed by the Populists?
- What were the main reasons for the ultimate failure of Populism?
- What is the "story" that Bryan is telling his audience?
- What elements of the story involve the themes of American Exceptionalism and Conflict and Consensus that we have discussed this year? Who represents the "Other?"
- What is the attitude of the New York Times reporter toward the Bryan and Silver forces at the Convention? Provide examples from the article to support your assertion.
- What were the chief arguments made by the imperialists for the acquisition of Empire?
- Assess McKinley's handling of the crisis with Spain over Cuba.
- Summarize the arguments made for and against the acquisition of colonies.
- Was the Open Door policy a success?
- What did Progressives think was wrong with American society and what reforms did they propose?
- Why was progressive reform more attractive to middle class Americans than to others?
- Would you label Roosevelt as radical, liberal, moderate, or conservative? Justify your choice.
- Was Roosevelt correct in accusing Taft of abandoned Progressive policies?
- Compare and contrast the New Nationalism and New Freedom programs
- Assess the foreign policy goals, methods and achievements of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson up to the eve of World War I.
- Were the Americans as "neutral in thought as well as deed?"
- Summarize the impact of the war on the national economy, civil liberties, and public attitudes.
- Assess the significance of Wilson's moral idealism on his campaign to win approval for the Versailles Treaty.
- The 1920's witnessed the rapid development of a society that emphasized consumption and leisure over work and production. Examine these ads and try to determine what values are expressed in these ads. Are these values "traditional" or "modern" values.
- In what ways do the movies and song reaffirm or undermine traditional American Culture?
- It has been observed that the politics of the 20's promoted less government in business and more business in government. Do you agree?
- What explains the growing radicalism of the New Deal and its ultimate demise? ;
- Did Roosevelt genuinely believe he could keep the USA from entering the war or was he slowly accustoming Americans to ultimate participation in the struggle?
- What divisions among the Allies influenced the overall strategic effort against the Axis?
- Did Truman drop the A-Bomb to end the war or to "send a message" to the Soviet Union?
- Who "started" the Cold War?
- Why was the Mr. X article a moderate policy response to the perceived Soviet threat?;
- Did Truman overreact to the Soviet challenge?;
Document Resources
Resource 1:
Comparing and Contrasting New England and Chesapeake Colonies
Although New England and the Chesapeake region were both settled largely by people of English origin. by 1700 the regions had evolved into two distinct societies. Why did this difference in development occur?
Document A
Source: John Winthrop, A 'Model of Christian Charity (Written on board the Arbella on the Atlantic Ocean, 1630)
God Almighty in his most holy and wise providence hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, [that] in ali times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity, other mean and in subjection.... [Yet] we must be knit together in this work as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection, we must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities. for the supply of others' necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience, and liberality. We must delight in each other, make others' conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.... We must-consider. that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God.... shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us.
Document B
Source: Ship's List of Emigrants Bound for New England
Weymouth, the 20th of March, 1635
1 Joseph Hull, of Somerset, a minister, aged 40 years
2. Agnes Hull, his wife, aged 25 years
3, Joan Hull. his daughter, aged 15 years
4. Joseph Hull, his son, aged 13 years
5. Tristram, his son, aged 11 years
6. Elizabeth Hull, his daughter, aged 7 years ,
7. Temperance, his daughter, aged 9 years
8. Grissel Hull, his daughter, aged 5 years
9. Dorothy Hull, his daughter, aged 3 years
10. Judith French, his servant, aged 20 years ,
11. John Wood, his servant, aged 20 years
12 Robert Dabyn, his servant, aged 28 years
13 Musachiell Bernard, of Batcombe, clothier in the county of Somerset, 24 years
14. Mary Bernard, his wife, aged 28 years
15 John Bernard, his son, aged 3 years
16 Nathaniel, his son, aged 1 year
21 Timothy Tabor, in Somerset of Batcombe, tailor, aged 35 years
22. Jane Tabor, his wife, aged 35 years
23. Jane Tabor, his daughter, aged 10 years
24. Anne Tabor, his daughter, aged 8 years
25 Sarah Tabor, his daughter, aged 5 years
26 William Fever, his servant, aged 20 years
27 John Whitmarke, aged 39 years
28. Alice Whitmarke, his wife, aged 35 years
29 James Whitmarke, his son, aged 5 years
30 Jane, his daughter, aged 7 years
31. Onseph Whitmarke, his son, aged 5 years
32. Rich. Whitmarke, his son, aged 2 years
74. Robert Lovell, husbandman, aged 40 years
75. Elizabeth Lovell, his wife, aged 35 years
76. Zacheus Lovell, his son, aged 15 years
77. Anne Lovell, his daughter, aged 16 years
78. John Lovell, his son, aged 8 years
79. Ellyn, his daughter, aged 1 year
80. James, his son, aged 1 year
81. Joseph Chickin, his servant, 16 years
82. Alice Kinham, aged 22 years
83. Angell Hollard, aged 21 years
84. Katheryn, his wife, 22 years
85. George Land, his servant, 22 years
86. Sarah Land, his kinswoman, 18 years
103. John Hoble, husbandman, 13
104 Robert Huste, husbandman, 40 ...
John Porter, Deputy Clerk to Edward Thoroughgood
Document C
Source: Ship's List of Emmigrants Bound for Virginia
Ultimo July, 1635
These underwritten names are to be transported to Virginia, embarked in the Merchant's Hope. Hugh Weston, Master. per examination by the minister of Gravesend touching their conformity to the Church discipline of England. and have taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy:
-
Men Edward Towers 26 Allin King 19
Henry Woodman 22 Rowland Sadler 19 Richard Seems 26 Jo. Phillips 28 Vyncent Whatter 17 Daniel Endick 16 James Whithedd 14 Jo. Chalk 25 Jonas Watts 21 Jo. Vynall 20 Peter Loe 22 Edward Smith 20 Geo. Brocker 17 Jo. Rowlidge 19 Henry Eeles 26 Wm. Westlie 40 Jo. Dennis 22 Jo. Smith 18 Tho. Swayne 23 Jo. Saunders 22 Charles Rinsden 27 Tho. Bartcherd 16 Jo. Exston 17 Tho. Dodderidge 19 Wm. Luck 14 Richard Williams 18 Jo. Thomas 19 Jo. Ballance 19 Jo. Archer 21 Wm. Baldin 21 Richard Williams 25 Wrn.Pen 26 Francis Hutton 20 Jo. Gerie 24 Savill Gascoyne 29 Henry Baylie 18 Rich. Bulfell 29 Rich. Anderson ' 50 Rich. Jones 26 Robert Kelum 51 Tho. Wynes 30 Richard Fanshaw 22 Humphrey Williams 22 Tho. Bradford 40 Edward Roberts 20 Wm. Spencer 16 Martin Atkinson 32 Marmaduke Ella 22 Edward Atkinson 28 Wm. Edwards 30 Nathan Braddock 31 Jeffrey Gurrish 23 Henry Carrell 16 Tho. Tyle 24 Gamaliel White 24 Richard Marks 19 Tho. Clever 16 Jo. Kitchin 16 Edmond Edwards 20 Lewes Miles 19 Jo. Kennedy 20 Sam Jackson 24 Women Ann Swayne 22 Eliz. Cote 22 Ann Rice 23 Kat. Wilson 23 Maudlin Lloyd 24 Mabell Busher 14 Annis Hopkins 24 Ann Mason 24 Bridget Crompe 18 Mary Hawkes 19 Ellin Hawkes 18 Document D
Source: Articles of Agreement, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1636
We whose names are underwritten, being by God's providence engaged together to make a plantation ... do mutually agree to certain articles and orders to be observed and kept by us and by our successors....
1. We intend by God's grace. as soon as we can. with all convenient speed, to procure some Godly and faithful minister with whom we purpose to join in church covenant to walk in all the ways of Christ.
2. We intend that our town shall be composed of forty families.... rich and poor.
3. That every inhabitant shall have a convenient proportion for a house lot, as we shall see [fit] for everyone's quality and estate....
5. That everyone shall have a share of the meadow or planting ground....
Document E
Source: Captain John Smith, History of Virginia, 1624
When the [large ship] departed.... those of us that had money, spare clothes. credit to give bills of payment, gold rings, fur, or any such commodities, were ever welcome to [purchase supplies. The rest of us patiently obeyed our] vile commanders and [bought] our provisions at fifteen times the value.... yet did not repine but fasted, lest we should incur the censure of [being] factious and seditious persons. . . Our ordinary [food] was but meal and water so that this ... little relieved our wants. whereby with the extremity of the bitter cold frost ... more than half of us died.
The worst [among us were the gold seekers who] with their golden promises made all men their slaves in hope of recompenses. There was no talk ... but dig gold, wash gold, refine gold. load gold. . . . Smith. perceiving [we lived) from hand to mouth, caused the pinnace [small ship] to be provided with things fitting to get provision for the year following.
(Two councillors] Wingfield and Kendall,. . . strengthened themselves with the sailors and other confederates [and planned to go] aboard the pinnace to alter her course and to go for England. Smith had the plot discovered to him. Much trouble he had to prevent it, till with store of saker and musket shot he forced them to stay or sink in the river; which action cost the life of Captain Kendall.
These brawls are so disgustful, as some will say, they were better forgotten.
Resource 2:
A. Social Strife in New EnglandSource: Wage and Price Regulations in Connecticut, 1676
Whereas a great cry of oppression is heard among us, and that principally pointed at workmen and traders which is hard to regulate without a standard for pay, it is therefore ordered that ... [prices and wages] be duly set at each of our General Courts annually, . . . [A]ll breaches of this order to be punished proportionable to the value of the oppression. . . . This court in the interim recommends [that] all trades men and laborers consider the religious end of their calling which is that receiving such moderate profit as may enable Them to serve God and their neighbors with tir arts and trades comfortably, they do-not enrich themselves suddenly and inordinately (by oppressing prices and wages to the impoverishing [of] their neighbors ... live in the practice of that crying sin of oppression, but avoid it.
B. Indentured Servitude in the Chesapeake
(1640)
Virginia General Court
Introduction
Taken from the court records of Virginia, this judgment describes what happened to indentured servants who ran away and suggests something of the social order in seventeenth-century Virginia.What indicated to the court that this escape was, perhaps, more dangerous or serious than other instances of runaway servants?
Why did the court consider the act of running away a "dangerous precedent?"
Why did the escapees receive different punishments? Did the punishments have any correlation with racial or ethnic differences? Did the punishments correspond to whether or not a servant confessed to his misdeed?
What does the document suggest about the social order in Virginia? What does the document indicate about the development of slavery in the nation?
Source: July 22nd, 1640. Whereas complaint has been made to this Board by Capt. William Pierce, Esqr., that six of his servants and a negro of Mr. Reginald's has plotted to run away unto the Dutch plantation from their said masters, and did assay to put the same in Execution upon Saturday night, being the 8th day July, 1640, as appeared to the Board by the Examinations of Andrew Noxe, Richard Hill, Richard Cookeson and John Williams, and likewise by the confession of Christopher Miller, Peter Milcocke and Emanuel, the foresaid Negro, who had, at the foresaid time, taken the skiff of the said Capt. William Pierce, their master, and corn, powder and shot and guns to accomplish their said purposes, which said persons sailed down in the said skiff to Elizabeth river, where they were taken and brought back again, the court taking the same into consideration as a dangerous precedent for the future time (if left unpunished), did order that Christopher Miller, a dutchman (a prime agent in the business), should receive the punishment of whipping, and to have thirty stripes and so be burnt in the cheek with the letter R and to work with a shackle on his leg for one whole year and longer if said master shall see cause, and after his full time of service is expired with his said master to serve the colony for seven whole years, and the said Peter Milcocke to receive thirty stripes and to be Burnt in the cheek with the letter R, and after his term of service is Expired with his said master to serve the colony for three years, and the said Richard Cockson, after his full time Expired with his master, to serve the colony for two years and a half, and the said Richard Hill to remain upon his good behavior until the next offense, and the said Andrew Noxe to receive thirty stripes, and the said John Williams, a dutchman and a chirurgeon [surgeon] after his full time of service is Expired with his master, to serve the colony for seven years, and Emanuel, the Negro, to receive thirty stripes and to be burnt in the cheek with the letter R and to work in shackles one year or more as his master shall see cause.
Source: "Decisions of the General Court," 1640, reprinted in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (Vol 5. 1897-1898), 236-237.B. Bacon's Rebellion I
1675 - 1676
"[We must defend ourselves] against all Indians in generall, for that they were all Enemies." This was the unequivocal view of Nathaniel Bacon, a young, wealthy Englishman who had recently settled in the backcountry of Virginia. The opinion that all Indians were enemies was also shared by a many other Virginians, especially those who lived in the interior. It was not the view, however, of the governor of the colony, William Berkeley.
Berkeley was not opposed to fighting Indians who were considered enemies, but attacking friendly Indians, he thought, could lead to what everyone wanted to avoid: a war with "all the Indians against us." Berkeley also didn't trust Bacon's intentions, believing that the upstart's true aim was to stir up trouble among settlers, who were already discontent with the colony's government.
Bacon attracted a large following who, like him, wanted to kill or drive out every Indian in Virginia. In 1675, when Berkeley denied Bacon a commission (the authority to lead soldiers), Bacon took it upon himself to lead his followers in a crusade against the "enemy." They marched to a fort held by a friendly tribe, the Occaneechees, and convinced them to capture warriors from an unfriendly tribe. The Occaneechees returned with captives. Bacon's men killed the captives They then turned to their "allies" and opened fire.
Berkeley declared Bacon a rebel and charged him with treason. Just to be safe, the next time Bacon returned to Jamestown, he brought along fifty armed men. Bacon was still arrested, but Berkeley pardoned him instead of sentencing him to death, the usual punishment for treason.
Still without the commission he felt he deserved, Bacon returned to Jamestown later the same month, but this time accompanied by five hundred men. Berkeley was forced to give Bacon the commision, only to later declare that it was void. Bacon, in the meantime, had continued his fight against Indians. When he learned of the Govenor's declaration, he headed back to Jamestown. The governor immediately fled, along with a few of his supporters, to Virginia's eastern shore.
Each leader tried to muster support. Each promised freedom to slaves and servants who would join their cause. But Bacon's following was much greater than Berkeley's. In September of 1676, Bacon and his men set Jamestown on fire.
The rebellion ended after British authorities sent a royal force to assist in quelling the uprising and arresting scores of committed rebels, white and black. When Bacon suddenly died in October, probably of dysentery, Bacon's Rebellion fizzled out.
Bacon's Rebellion demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause. This was a great fear of the ruling class -- what would prevent the poor from uniting to fight them? This fear hastened the transition to racial slavery.C. Bacon's Rebellion II
Bacon's Rebellion was probably one of the most confusing yet intriguing chapters in Jamestown's history. For many years, historians considered the Virginia Rebellion of 1676 to be the first stirring of revolutionary sentiment in America, which culminated in the American Revolution almost exactly one hundred years later. However, in the past few decades, based on findings from a more distant viewpoint, historians have come to understand Bacon's Rebellion as a power struggle between two stubborn, selfish leaders rather than a glorious fight against tyranny...Bacon's Rebellion can be attributed to a myriad of causes, all of which led to dissent in the Virginia colony. Economic problems, such as declining tobacco prices, growing commercial competition from Maryland and the Carolinas, an increasingly restricted English market, and the rising prices from English manufactured goods (mercantilism) caused problems for the Virginians. There were heavy English losses in the latest series of naval wars with the Dutch and, closer to home, there were many problems caused by weather. Hailstorms, floods, dry spells, and hurricanes rocked the colony all in the course of a year and had a damaging effect on the colonists. These difficulties encouraged the colonists to find a scapegoat against whom they could vent their frustrations and place the blame for their misfortunes...The colonists found their scapegoat in the form of the local Indians...In the face of a brewing catastrophe, Berkeley, to keep the peace, was willing to forget that Bacon was not authorized to take the law into his own hands. Berkeley agreed to pardon Bacon if he turned himself in, so he could be sent to England and tried before King Charles II. It was the House of Burgesses, however, who refused this alternative, insisting that Bacon must acknowledge his errors and beg the Governor's forgiveness. Ironically, at the same time, Bacon was then elected to the Burgesses by supportive local land owners sympathetic to his Indian campaigns. Bacon, by virtue of this election, attended the landmark Assembly of June 1676. It was during this session that he was mistakenly credited with the political reforms that came from this meeting. The reforms were prompted by the population, cutting through all class lines. Most of the reform laws dealt with reconstructing the colony's voting regulations, enabling freemen to vote, and limiting the number of years a person could hold certain offices in the colony. Most of these laws were already on the books for consideration well before Bacon was elected to the Burgesses. Bacon's only cause was his campaign against the Indians...
Resource 3:
BRUTUS #I
18 October 1787
To the Citizens of the State of New-York.
When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result.
In this situation, I trust the feeble efforts of an individual, to lead the minds of the people to a wise and prudent determination, cannot fail of being acceptable to the candid and dispassionate part of the community. Encouraged by this consideration, I have been induced to offer my thoughts upon the present important crisis of our public affairs.
Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a constitution which will now, probably, be submitted to the people to ratify or reject, who are the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake constitutions, or forms of government, at their pleasure. The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty ---- if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.
Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
With these few introductory remarks, I shall proceed to a consideration of this constitution:
The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated government be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?
This enquiry is important, because, although the government reported by the convention does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it.
This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof." And by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. ---- The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance ---- there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; ---- there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper here to remark, that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted; it connects with it almost all other powers, or at least will in process of time draw all other after it; it is the great mean of protection, security, and defence, in a good government, and the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one. This cannot fail of being the case, if we consider the contracted limits which are set by this constitution, to the late [state?] governments, on this article of raising money. No state can emit paper money ---- lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of the Congress; and then the net produce shall be for the benefit of the United States: the only mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct taxation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please. Every one who has thought on the subject, must be convinced that but small sums of money can be collected in any country, by direct taxe[s], when the foederal government begins to exercise the right of taxation in all its parts, the legislatures of the several states will find it impossible to raise monies to support their governments. Without money they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away, and, as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.
It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty. ---- I shall not, however, dwell upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this government, in addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.
The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state, at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.
How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st article may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite [indefinite?], and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme lay of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding. ---- By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law of this kind; or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the constitution, than that of an individual state, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.
Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?
If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encreasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is the baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. "It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected." Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari.
History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.
Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it.
In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.
In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.
In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.
The laws cannot be executed in a republic, of an extent equal to that of the United States, with promptitude.
The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or by the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance.
In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. In England, where they depend upon the parliament for their annual support, they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws; never except on extraordinary occasions, and then under the direction of a civil magistrate.
A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people." Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet ---- a government of all others the most to be dreaded.
In a republic of such vast extent as the United-States, the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be acquainted with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is impossible it should have sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases of this nature, that would be continually arising.
In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.
These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.
Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it. I beg the candid and dispassionate attention of my countrymen while I state these objections ---- they are such as have obtruded themselves upon my mind upon a careful attention to the matter, and such as I sincerely believe are well founded. There are many objections, of small moment, of which I shall take no notice ---- perfection is not to be expected in any thing that is the production of man ---- and if I did not in my conscience believe that this scheme was defective in the fundamental principles ---- in the foundation upon which a free and equal government must rest ---- I would hold my peace.
Brutus
Resource 4
Gettysburg Address
Nicolay Version
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground -- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.
It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth
Hay Version
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.