Home Page - Newark Board of Education



2047875795020NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Unit Plans: US HISTORY I 2520315-53403500NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS2013-2014Ms. Antoinette Baskerville-Richardson, ChairpersonMr. Marques-Aquil Lewis, Vice ChairpersonMr. Rashon K. HasanMr. Alturrick KenneyMs. Eliana Pintor MarinMs. DeNiqua MatiasDr. Rashied McCrearyMs. Ariagna PerelloMr. Khalil Sabu RashidiMr. Jordan Thomas, Student Representative2421255-30543500NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION2013-2014Cami Anderson, State District SuperintendentChief of Staff & General Counsel: Charlotte HitchcockAssistant Superintendent: Mitchell CenterAssistant Superintendent: Brad HaggertyAssistant Superintendent: Tiffany HardrickAssistant Superintendent: Roger LeonAssistant Superintendent: Aqua StovallAssistant Superintendent: Peter TurnamianSpecial Assistant, Office of Curriculum and Instruction: Caleb PerkinsSchool Business Administrator: Valerie WilsonNEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL ADVISORY BOARDProgram and Instruction CommitteeMs. DeNiqua MatiasDr. Rashied McCrearyMs. Ariagna PerelloMr. Khalil RashidiDr. Caleb Perkins, NPS Special Assistant of CurriculumValerie Merritt, NPS Director of Board RelationsNewark Public SchoolsUnited States I Unit Overview“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Summative AssessmentStudents will write an argument citing evidence from primary and secondary source documents in which they select and defend a position about whether the means used to colonize and develop colonies regionally and economically was justified by the motives used to colonize and develop the thirteen colonies.Essential QuestionsEnduring UnderstandingsWhich factors or factor was the most influential to the development and formation of the thirteen colonies?Gold, religion, natural resources, and more land are powerful driving forces for colonization.Indentured servitude and slavery contributed to regional and economic development of the colonies. Political conflicts and defense of land led to the merging of the thirteen colonies. Focus QuestionsWeek 1:What were the main motivations for groups who colonized America and why?Week 2:What were the differences between the three colonial regions, in the terms of economy, and how, if at all, was it impacted by geography?Week 3:What are the origins of the labor systems, which were used to support regional development and economies and were these labor systems moral?Week 4:What impact did indentured servitude and slavery, during the American colonial experience, have on institutions in Europe and Africa? Week 5:How were Native Americans, primarily, affected by the development of the colonies?Week 6:To what extent did reform movements, which occurred in the eighteenth century, influence the development of the colonies in America?Week 7:What factors led to merging of the thirteen colonies?Week 8:Were the means used to colonize and develop colonies regionally and economically justified by the motives used to colonize and develop the thirteen colonies?Learning Targets-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Academic VocabularyEmulate Infidels DominionsEnsue Chastisemen VictualArpent Dovecote BulwarkDesolation Tormenting HerringsPromontories Arduous TediousOrdained DiscourseConduceth Conscience ConjecturallyDogmatical Herrings Promontories ArduousTedious Ordained IndigitatingDiscourse Conduceth Conscience Conjecturally ExhortionEmerged Markedly EnmityDerided Surfeited HindranceCandour Trajectory VexingHeinous Idle Judicious Doctrinal Converts EpisodicallyTheologian Churned PietisticIntrospective Ostentatiously SchismDeists Archetype EpitomizedItinerancy Eschewed AscribedConnotations Intriguingly TumultuousIncensed Asunder DiscourseInterregnum Ideological scalpEncroachments Contiguous ProroguedQuorumContent-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSir Walter Raleigh Hakluyt Plymouth Company Virginia Company of London Jamestown Plymouth The Massachusetts Bay CompanyChesapeake The French and Indian War (1756–1763) PuritanWinthrop Middle colonies New England Colonies Southern colonies Slaves Indentured servantsSmallpox Measles MumpsChicken Pox Bubonic plague Transatlantic slave tradeIberia RevivalSeven Years’ War Treaty of Paris of 1763Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.b, 6.1.12.B.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.b, 6.1.12.D.1.aColonization and Settlement (1585-1763) Unit OverviewUnit Rationale: In this unit, students gain an understanding of the factors that led to the colonization, settlement, development, and unification of the thirteen colonies. Students will investigate how the development of the colonies impacted other economies, how the colonies were influenced by Europeans beliefs, and the lasting impact of colonization on different ethnic groups. First-person accounts, maps, speeches, and other primary and secondary source materials may be used to answer historical questions. Historical Thinking: The study of history rests on knowledge of facts, dates, names, places, events, and ideas. However, true historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and to marshal solid evidence in support of their answers; to go beyond the facts presented in their textbooks and examine the historical record for themselves; to consult documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites, works of art, quantitative data, and other evidence from the past, and to do so imaginatively--taking into account the historical context in which these records were created and comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time.“Facts are crucial to historical understanding, but there is only way for them to take root in memory: Facts are mastered by engaging students in historical questions that spark their curiosity and make them passionate about seeking answers.” (“Reading Like A Historian”, Wineburg, Martin, and Monte-Sano, Teachers College Press, New York, 2011.) Four main skills help to facilitate historical understanding: sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating. Sourcing-Historians begin reading a document at the end by sourcing it. They glance at the first couple of words but then go immediately to the document’s attribution. Who wrote this source and when? Is it a diary entry? A memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act? A leaked e-mail? Is the author in a position to know first-hand or this account based on hearsay? Sourcing transforms the act of reading from passive reception to engaged and active interrogation.Contextualizing-Contextualizing is the notion that events MUST be located in place and time to be properly understood. Close Reading-Primary and secondary sources provide students with an opportunity for close reading. They are the place to teach students to slow down and read closely, to think deeply about word choice and subtext. Corroborating-Corroborating is a strategy in which a reader asks questions about important details to determine points of agreement and disagreement. By comparing and contrasting multiple account, students can start to build a real understanding of what happened in the past and why.Discipline Specific Literacy: Research has shown that a key to literacy is exposing students to a rich diet of texts that mix genre and style “at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics.” Primary sources confront readers with varied styles and textures of language that push the boundaries of literacy.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 1Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionWhat were the main motivations for groups to colonized America and why?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Sir Walter RaleighHakluytEmulatePlymouth CompanyVirginia Company of London JamestownPlymouthThe Massachusetts Bay CompanyChesapeakeThe French and Indian War (1756–1763)InfidelsDominionsEnsueChastisemenVictualBulwarkDesolationPuritanzWinthropJames Horn “Early Settlement” (2013)Richard Hakluyt “Reasons for Colonization” (1585) John Winthrop “Religious Reasons to Colonize the New World” (1629)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.a, 6.1.12.C.bColonization and Settlement (1585-1763)Week 1 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore the different reasons for colonization in the New World, by different groups of people. The New World was predominately colonized in the 1500’s by Spain, but religious, economic, and political reasons soon pushed the English to colonize the New World under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, as she was concerned with the growth of her empire. Although, Newfoundland failed, Hakluyt, like others tried to press for the colonization of the New World by the English. The settlement of Roanoke in 1587 failed, but in 1607 Jamestown was founded and Plymouth was settled by Pilgrims in 1620. The English were soon a force to reckon in the New World. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the various motivations and reasons for the English colonization of the New World. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how economics, politics, and religion influenced the English colonization of the New World. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-15 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 16-26 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. The teacher will assign half the class to read Halyt’s text and the other half will be assigned Winthrop. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads selected passages out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: Please compare the motivations for colonization, described in all three texts, using supporting evidence. How are the motivations for colonization similar and how are they different? Early Settlements by James Horn1“I marvel not a little,” Richard Hakluyt the younger wrote in 1582, “that since the first discovery of America (which is now full fourscore and ten years) after so great conquest and plantings of the Spaniards and Portuguese there, that we of England could never have the grace to set fast footing in such fertile and temperate places, as are left as yet unpossessed by them.”[1] Hakluyt was among the foremost experts of colonization of his age and a glance at a map of the Americas in the early 1580s would have confirmed his gloomy assessment: the entire Western Hemisphere was claimed by Spain. Despite repeated explorations throughout the sixteenth century and sporadic efforts to establish colonies, not a single non-Hispanic nation had established a settlement in the New World. At the time Hakluyt wrote, the Spanish Catholic monarch Philip II was the undisputed master of the New World.2 Hakluyt hoped that the English would soon stake a claim to New World lands, but even at his most optimistic he could not have foreseen the dramatic changes that were about to take place. Within fifty years, England had established successful colonies in Virginia, Bermuda, New England, and the Caribbean. Within a century, English settlements stretched some 1,200 miles along the North American coast from Maine to the Carolinas, and in the West Indies in a great arc from Jamaica to Barbados. By 1763, following a series of imperial wars fought among Great Britain, France, and Spain for global preeminence, the British emerged with a vast North American empireThe Pearl and the Gold3 The first phase of English settlement from 1585 to 1603 was dominated by one man—Sir Walter Raleigh—and by one ambition—to emulate Spanish success in the New World. Tens of thousands of Spanish settlers crossed the Atlantic in the ninety years following the European discovery of America by Christopher Columbus. By 1580, the Spanish Indies boasted 225 towns and cities with a total white population of approximately 150,000 scattered throughout the Caribbean, Mexico, and South American mainland. Each year, treasure fleets from Panama and Mexico sailed to Spain carrying gold and silver bullion, pearls, cochineal, hides, cacao, and other valuable commodities. The massive flow of wealth from the New World filling Philip’s royal coffers made possible his ambition to expand Spain’s dominions throughout Europe and enlarge his overseas empire.[2]4 The English were well aware of the threat posed by Philip’s aim to reunite Christendom under a universal Catholic monarch. Raleigh borrowed freely from plans developed earlier by his half brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, which called for the English to attack Spain in the New World in order to weaken its power in the Old. A colony located somewhere along the eastern seaboard of North America would be an ideal site, Raleigh believed, for a privateering base from to prey on Spanish galleons. But a broader ambition stemmed from the exploits of famed conquistadors such as Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro, who had plundered the wealth of the Aztecs and Incas and had carved out empires for themselves and their king. If the Spanish had done so, then why couldn’t the English?5Raleigh chose Roanoke Island, off the coast of modern-day North Carolina, as the site of his colony. Three principal objectives guided his thinking: to claim the region for the English crown and establish a beachhead for further territorial expansion; to establish a convenient American harbor for privateers; and to search for precious minerals as well as a river passage through the landmass of North America to the Pacific Ocean. After a successful reconnaissance expedition to the coast of North Carolina in 1584, he launched a large fleet carrying about 600 men the following spring. A garrison of approximately 108 soldiers on Roanoke Island lasted for a year before the English were forced to abandon their fort when supplies ran out and hostilities with local Indian peoples made it impossible to remain any longer. The island had also proved to be unsuitable as a privateering base owing to its shallow waters.6 Despite the setback, Raleigh pressed on with plans to dispatch another expedition in 1587. He had been encouraged by reports of great quantities of a soft pale metal, perhaps gold, in a wealthy province deep in the interior called “Chaunis Temoatan,” and by the possibility of a passage through the mountains to the South Sea (Pacific). The new settlement, made up of civilians under the command of John White, was to be established on the Chesapeake Bay to the north, where the English had discovered fertile lands and deep rivers capable of accommodating ocean-going ships.7 In April 1587, White led a group of 118 men, women, and children to the Chesapeake Bay to establish a colony to be called the City of Raleigh. They never reached the Chesapeake, however. The mariners instead put them off at Roanoke Island and refused to take them any farther. After remaining on the island for six weeks, White returned to England at the end of August to raise funds and pick up more supplies but was unable to get back to Roanoke Island for three years, by which time the colonists had disappeared. Although he found clues that indicated they had moved to Croatoan Island fifty miles to the south, he was unable to reach them and returned to England a broken man. Raleigh’s plans had come to nothing, and the first sustained English attempt to establish an American colony had failed.[3]English America8 The turn of the century witnessed a new direction in English colonizing activities. Peace with Spain in 1604 brought an end to privateering, plunder, and the need for a North American base from which to attack Spanish shipping. What remained was the certainty that the New World offered England potentially vast profits from valuable American commodities. The new era heralded the age of commercial trading companies.9 Two companies were established by royal charter in April 1606. The Plymouth Company, made up of merchants and financiers from Plymouth, Bristol, Exeter, and lesser West Country ports, was granted the right to settle lands between the Chesapeake Bay and Maine. The Virginia Company, supported by important statesmen, merchants, and gentry from London and surrounding counties, was permitted to establish settlements in a region stretching from North Carolina to the Hudson River.10 The Plymouth Company’s venture did not prosper. A small settlement established at Sagadahoc near the mouth of the Kennebec River, Maine, in the summer of 1607 was abandoned the following spring after a series of disastrous setbacks. Its failure gave the region an unenviable reputation for harsh winters and unfriendly Indians. England did not attempt to plant another colony in the northern region for more than a decade, although plenty of English mariners plied the rich fishing waters off the coast and dabbled in the fur trade with local peoples.11 To the south, picking up where Sir Walter Raleigh had left off twenty years earlier, the Virginia Company of London focused their efforts on the Chesapeake Bay. The Company’s aims were to assert England’s claim to North America, search for gold or silver and a passage to the South Sea (Pacific Ocean) in the interior, harvest the natural resources of the region, and trade with the American Indians.12 Jamestown, founded on May 14, 1607, barely survived its first five years. A combination of disease, Indian attacks, faction, and the failure to make any significant discoveries or profit brought the colony to the edge of collapse on several occasions and discouraged continuing investment. The discovery of a lucrative cash crop, tobacco, which could be cultivated extensively in Virginia and brought a handsome return in England, saved the colony but not the Virginia Company, whose exclusive charter was revoked in 1624.13 By the mid-1620s the new royal colony was thriving; some 1,200 to 1,300 men, women, and children lived along the James River valley, and new immigrants arrived regularly to work on the growing number of tobacco plantations lining the rivers. Tobacco, the first major American staple to emerge, formed the basis of the Chesapeake’s transatlantic economy for the next century and a half. As a consequence, Virginia rapidly took on the characteristics of a plantation society in which large numbers of poor white laborers (indentured servants) toiled in the fields alongside initially small numbers of enslaved Africans. The first Africans on English soil on the North American mainland came to Virginia in a Dutch ship in 1619.[4]14In New England colonial development took a different course, influenced by the immigrants’ religious convictions and the natural resources of the region. The first significant group to arrive was made up of religious separatists who established themselves at Plymouth in 1620. The Pilgrims wished to erect a pure church free of the corruptions of the Old World where they could worship and govern themselves without interference from state authorities. Plymouth did not develop into an important colony; its population and economy remained marginal throughout the century, dwarfed by its much larger neighbor, Massachusetts. 15The Massachusetts Bay Company, founded in 1629, conceived colonization of New England on a much grander scale. Attracting London merchants and investors to finance their venture as well as Puritan settlers who wished to live under a reformed church rather than a separate one, the colony welcomed thousands of emigrants from England during the 1630s and early 1640s. Based on fishing, farming, and maritime trade, settlement quickly spread throughout the region along the coast and fertile river valleys spawning new colonies in Connecticut, New Haven, and Rhode Island (of differing theological temperatures), as well as offshoots farther north in New Hampshire and Maine. By 1640, New England’s population approached 14,000 and the region was the most populous in English North America.[5]16 Puritan migration to New England, however, was only a small component of a much broader flow of settlers to English America in this period. More than 200,000 settlers arrived in the colonies between 1630 and 1670. Most ended up in the West Indies and the Chesapeake working on sugar and tobacco plantations. In the tobacco colonies of Virginia and Maryland, white indentured servants were the main source of labor throughout the century; enslaved Africans did not become numerically significant until the 1680s and 1690s. In contrast, the numbers of enslaved African laborers in the English West Indies (St. Christopher, Barbados, Nevis, Montserrat, Antigua, and Jamaica) equaled the white population as early as the 1660s.17 The great influx of white settlers, together with large numbers of enslaved Africans transported to the islands, transformed English North America and the Caribbean during the mid-seventeenth century. In 1660 there were three major clusters of settlement: New England with a population of approximately 33,000; the Chesapeake with 25,000; and the English West Indies with 66,000, half of whom were enslaved Africans.[6]18 With the rapid spread of white settlement many American Indian populations experienced demographic collapse. In the Caribbean, Spanish Florida, and English mainland colonies, Old World diseases such as smallpox, measles, typhus, and influenza ravaged Native peoples. In some regions, virulent epidemics carried off up to 90 percent of the population, destroying entire communities and leaving once densely populated lands deserted. Periodic wars and the steady encroachment of white settlers into Indian territories further hastened population decline. Of the approximately 15,000 Algonquians who lived along the coastal plain of Virginia when the English first arrived, only about 1,000 remained by 1700. In New England the decline was equally dramatic, from about 70,000 in 1620 to 12,000 half a century later.[7]19Another pulse of expansion began after 1660 with the capture of New Netherland (New York) from the Dutch in 1664 and the establishment of New Jersey in the same year and Pennsylvania in 1681. All three colonies grew quickly, rising from a combined population of 15,000 in 1680 to more than 53,000 twenty years later, forming a fourth population center in the Middle Colonies.20 At the same time, settlers from overcrowded Barbados established Charles Town, Carolina, in 1670, initially supplying livestock and naval products (tar) to the West Indies but then turning to rice cultivation in the 1690s. Rice became the third great staple of Britain’s transatlantic commerce, alongside West Indian sugar and Chesapeake tobacco, and with the expansion of rice-growing areas in the low country of the coastal plain, the numbers of enslaved African laborers increased steadily. By 1710, nearly 40 percent of the colony’s 11,000 inhabitants were of African descent, and South Carolina soon emerged as the first mainland colony with an African majority.[8]21 The establishment of half a dozen new colonies in the second half of the seventeenth century brought about important changes to the character of English America. The Middle Colonies introduced greater ethnic and religious diversity with the absorption of Dutch, German, French, and Scandinavian peoples. In addition, the arrival of West Indian planters in Carolina and growing numbers of enslaved laborers forcibly transported from West Africa and Angola created a new cultural mosaic as English colonies of the seventeenth century gave way to the expansive, polyglot British American world of the eighteenthEighteenth-Century British America22 Three major trends characterize the expansion of British America through 1763: rapid white and black population growth, increasing diversity among immigrant populations, and the surge of movement into the backcountry. These far-reaching social, economic, and cultural developments took place in the context of intense imperial rivalry between the major European powers in America—Britain, France, and Spain—expressed in a series of major colonial wars between 1689 and 1763 that redrew national boundaries several times during the period.23 In 1700, the white population of British mainland colonies was approximately a quarter of a million. Sixty years later in the midst of the French and Indian War (1756–1763), the population had risen fivefold to 1,284,000, representing a doubling of the population every twenty-five years. The areas of fastest growth were the Middle Colonies and Lower South, which grew more than six times over the period. Black populations grew even more rapidly from about 20,000 in 1700 to 326,000 by 1760, reflecting the massive importation of enslaved Africans into the Chesapeake and Lower South after 1720. Sectional divisions were much in evidence by 1760. Whereas in New England and the Middle Colonies Africans and African Americans made up 3 percent and 7 percent respectively of the population, in the Chesapeake and Lower South the corresponding figures were 38 percent and 44 percent. Together, Virginia, Maryland, and the Lower South accounted for fully 87 percent of all Africans and African Americans living in the mainland colonies in 1760.[9]24Continuing large-scale immigration and high rates of natural increase fueled European population growth and expansion. Commercial disruption caused by Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713), initially slowed the pace of immigration during the first two decades of the eighteenth century. But from the 1720s huge numbers of white settlers moved to America: well over 100,000 up to 1750 and another 200,000 by 1776. English indentured servants, Ulster Irish, Catholic Irish, Scots, French Huguenots, and tens of thousands of Germans from the Rhineland and Swiss cantons moved into the coastal plain; flocked to the burgeoning port cities of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia; trekked along fertile river valleys into the interior; and pressed on toward the Appalachian Mountains. Tens of thousands of settlers headed westward into the rich lands of the Virginia piedmont and across the mountains to the enormous expanse of the Ohio River basin. Others went south along the Great Wagon Road to the Shenandoah Valley, the Carolinas, and Georgia. All along the expanding backcountry frontier, Irish, Scots, English, Welsh, German, and French colonists, together with enslaved Africans and American Indians, evolved locally distinctive societies where ethnic diversity and the continual arrival of new settlers were taken for granted.[10]25Territorial adjustments in the wake of major imperial wars encourage ethnic diversity and the expansion of settlement. As a result of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), which ended Queen Anne’s War, Britain acquired Hudson Bay, Acadia (Nova Scotia), and Newfoundland from France, greatly strengthening British presence in the north. Far to the south, Georgia was created by royal charter in 1732 to provide a buffer between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. King George’s War (1743–1748) heightened British interest in the vast lands claimed by the French in Ohio territory. The French and Indian War (1756–1763) was the culmination of British, French, and Spanish rivalry in North America and resulted in complete British dominance. Britain took control of Canada and lands east of the Mississippi River from France as well as Florida from the Spanish. The Spanish still claimed lands west from the Mississippi to California (Spanish Louisiana), but by the Treaty of Paris in 1763 Britain emerged as the acknowledged master of North America.[11]26In little more than a century and a half, British America had grown from a fragile outpost on a distant Atlantic shore to an empire that stretched from the great forests and lakes of Canada to the lush tropical lands of East Florida. Population continued to surge and reached approximately two and half million by the Revolutionary War, embracing a remarkable diversity of peoples, regions, and settlements. The political convulsion ignited by the American Revolution split Britain’s American empire in two and accelerated the expansion of settler populations. Taking advantage of the end of British restrictions on westward movement, migrants flooded into the American interior, foreshadowing the greater movements to come in the nineteenth century.[1] E. G. R. Taylor, ed., The Original Writings and Correspondence of the Two Richard Hakluyts (London: Hakluyt Society, 1935), 1:175; 2:242. [2] J. H. Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830 (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2006), 41, 52.[3] James Horn, A Kingdom Strange: The Brief and Tragic History of the Lost Colony of Roanoke (New York: Basic Books, 2010). [4] Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975); James Horn, A Land As God Made It: Jamestown and the Birth of America (New York: Basic Books, 2005). Tobacco was initially an important cash crop on the Atlantic island of Bermuda, governed from 1615 by the Somers Islands Company, and in the early English Caribbean, notably Barbados, down to the sugar revolution of the 1640s. [5] Virginia DeJohn Anderson, “New England in the Seventeenth Century,” in Nicholas Canny, ed., The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 193–216; Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Penguin, 2001), 164–185. [6] Russell R. Menard, “British Migration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century,” in Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds., Colonial Chesapeake Society (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 105; John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607–1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 154; Hilary McD. Beckles, “The ‘Hub of Empire’: The Caribbean and Britain in the Seventeenth Century,” in Canny, ed., Origins of Empire, 224; Jack P. Greene, Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 178. [7] Helen C. Rountree, Pocahontas’s People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,1990), 104–105; Steven Sarson, British America, 1500–1800: Creating Colonies, Imagining an Empire (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005), 136. [8] Greene, Pursuits of Happiness, 178; Ned C. Landsman, “The Middle Colonies: New Opportunities for Settlement, 1660–1700,” in Canny, ed., Origins of Empire, 351–373; Taylor, American Colonies, 223–226, 236–239. [9] Greene, Pursuits of Happiness, 179. [10] James Horn and Philip D. Morgan, “Settlers and Slaves: European and African Migrations to Early Modern British America,” in Elizabeth Mancke and Carole Shammas, eds., The Creation of the British Atlantic World (Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 24, 33–34; Richard R. Johnson, “Growth and Mastery: British North America, 1690–1748,” in P. J. Marshall, ed., The Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 276–298; Sarson, British America, 166, 182. [11] Taylor, American Colonies, 421–433; Anthony McFarlane, The British in the Americas, 1480–1815 (London: Longman, 1992), 220–225.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------James Horn is Colonial Williamsburg’s vice president of research and historical interpretation and the author of numerous books and articles on colonial America, including A Land As God Made It: Jamestown and the Birth of America (2005) and A Kingdom Strange: The Brief and Tragic History of the Lost Colony of Roanoke (2010).Resource:Horne, J. (2013). Early settlements. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from settlements/essays/early-settlementsDay 1According to the text, what were Hakluyt’s fears and what did Hakluyt encourage?In what way, according to the author, did control of Western hemisphere transform within fifty years?What were the motivations of Sir Walter Raleigh to colonize the New World, according to the author?Why, according to the author, did Raleigh choose to attempt to colonize Roanoke for England? Why did the English have difficulty, at first, in colonizing the New World and what was the price paid for colonization, referring to paragraphs five through seven?Day 2According to the text, what were the motivations for Virginia Company of London to colonize the New World and were they successful?Why were the motivations to colonize Roanoke different from the motivations to settle the England colonies, according to paragraphs fived and fourteen?What systems, policies, and actions were instituted to ensure the prosperity of the growing colonies, according to paragraphs twenty two through twenty six?In the article, what evidence can be found for the growing tension in North America?What was the author’s purpose for writing this text? Richard Hakluyt (1585) Reasons for Colonization of the New WorldReasons for Colonization1. The glory of God by planting of religion among those infidels.2. The increase of the force of the Christians.3. The possibility of the enlarging of the domninions of the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, and consequently of her honour, revenues, and of her power by this enterprise.4. An ample vent in time to come of the woollen cloths of England, especially those of the coarsest sorts, to the maintenance of our poor, that else starve or become burdensome to the realm; and vent also of sundry our commodities upon the tract of that firm land, and possibly in other regions from the northern side of that main.5. A great possibility of further discoveries of other regions from the north part of the same land by sea, and of unspeakable honour and benefit that may rise upon the same by the trades to ensue in Japan, China, and Cathay, etc.6. By return thence, this realm shall receive (by reason of the situation of the climate, and by reason of the excellent soil) woad, oil, wines, hops, salt, and most or all the commodities that we receive from the best parts of Europe, and we shall receive the same better cheap than now we receive them, as we may use the matter.7. Receiving the same thence, the navy, the human strength of the realm, our merchants and their good, shall not be subject to arrest of ancient enemies and doubtful friends as of late years they have been.8. If our nation do not make any conquest there but only use traffic and change of commodities, yet, by means the country is not very nighty but divided into petty kingdoms, they shall not dare to offer us any great annoy but such as we may easily revenge with sufficient chastisement to the unarmed people there.9. Whatever commodities we receive by the Steelyard Merchants, or by our own merchants from Eastland, be it flax, hemp, pitch, tar, masts, clapboard, wainscot, or such-like; the like good[s] may we receive from the north and north-east part of that country near unto Cape Breton, in return for our coarse woollen cloths, flannels, and rugs fit for those colder regions.10. The passage to and fro is through the main ocean sea, so as we are not in danger of any enemy’s coast.Trade Opportunities11. In the voyage we are not to cross the burnt zone, nor to pass through frozen seas encumbered with ice and fogs, but in temperate climate at all times of the year; and it requireth not, as the East Indies voyage doth, the taking in of water in divers places, by reason that it is to be sailed in five or six weeks; and by the shortness the merchant may yearly make two returns (a factory [trade center] once being erected there), a matter in trade of great moment.12. In this trade by the way in, our pass to and fro, we have in tempests and other haps all the ports of Ireland to our aid and no near coast of any enemy.13. By this ordinary trade we may annoy the enemies to Ireland and succour the Queen’s Majesty's friends there, and in time we may from Virginia yield them whatsoever commodity, they now receive from the Spaniard; and so the Spaniards shall want the ordinary victual that heretofore they received yearly from thence, and so they shall not continue trade, nor fall so aptly in practice against this government as now by their trade thither they may.14. We shall, as it is thought, enjoy in this voyage either some small islands to settle on or some one place or other on the firm land to fortify for the safety, of our ships, our men, and our goods, the like whereof we have not in any foreign place of our traffic, in which respect we may be in degree of more safety and more quiet.15. The great plenty of' buff hides and of many other sundry kinds of hides their now presently to be had, the tirade of whale and seal fishing and of divers other fishing in the great rivers, great hays, and seas there, shall presently defray the charge in good part or in all of the first enterprise, and so we shall be in better case than our men were in Russia, where many years were spent and great sums of it sums of money consumed before gain was found.16. The great broad rivers of that main that we are to enter into, so many leagues navigable or portable into the mainland, lying so long a tract with so excellent and so fertile a soil on both sides, do seem to promise all things that the life of man doth require and whatsoever men may wish may wish that are to plant upon the same or to traffic in the same.17. And whatsoever notable commodity the soil within or without doth yield in so long a tract, that is to be carried out from thence to England, the same rivers so great and deep do yield no small benefit for the sure, safe, easy, ad cheap carriage of the same to shipboard, be it of great bulk or of great weight.18. And in like sort whatsoever commodity of England the inland people there shall need, the same rivers do work the like effect in benefit for the in carriage of the same aptly, easily, and cheaply.19. If we find the country populous and desirous to expel us and injuriously to offend us, that seek but just and lawful traffic, then, by reason that we are lords of navigation and they are not so, we are the better able to defend ourselves by reason of those rivers and to annoy them in many places.20. Where there be many petty kings or lords planted on the rivers’ sides, and [who] by all likelihood maintain the frontiers of' their several territories by wars, we may by the aid of this river join with this king here, or with that king there, at our pleasure, and may so with a few men be revenged of any wrong offered by any of them; or may, if we will proceed with extremity, conquer, fortify, and plant in soils most sweet, most fertile, in and in the end bring them all in subjection and to civility.21. The known abundance of fresh fish in the rivers, and the known plenty of fish on the sea-coast there, may assure us of sufficient victual in spite of the people, if we will use salt and industry.22. The known plenty and variety of flesh of divers kinds of beasts at land there may seem to say to us that we may cheaply victual our navies to England for our returns, which benefit everywhere is not found of merchants.23. The practice of the people of the East Indies, when the Portugals came thither first, was to cut from the Portugals their lading of spice; and hereby they thought to overthrow their proposed trade. If these people shall practise the like, by not suffering us to have any commodity of theirs without conquest (which requireth some time), yet may we maintain our first voyage thither till our purpose come to effect by the sea-fishing on the coasts there and by dragging for pearls, which are said to be on those parts; and by return of those commodities the charges in part shall be defrayed: which is a matter of consideration in enterprises of charge.Employing England’s Poor24. If this realm shall abound too too much with youth, in the mines there of gold (as that of Chisca and Saguenay), of silver, copper, iron, etc., may be an employment to the benefit of this realm; in tilling of the rich soil there for grain and in planting of vines there for wine or dressing of those vines which grow there naturally in great abundance; olives for oil; orange trees, lemons, figs and almonds for fruit; woad, saffron., and madder for dyers; hops for brewers; hemp, flax; and in many ways such other things, by employment of the soil, our people void of sufficient trades may be honestly employed, that else may become hurtful at home.25. The navigating of the seas in the voyage, and of the great rivers there, will breed many mariners for service and maintain much navigation.26. The number of raw hides there of divers kinds of beasts, if we shall possess some island there or settle on the firm, may presently employ many of our idle people in divers several dressings of the same, and so we may return them to the people that cannot dress them so well, or into this realm, where the same are good merchandise, or to Flanders, etc., which present gain at the first raiseth great encouragement presently to the enterprise.27. Since great waste woods be there of oak, cedar, pine, walnuts, and sundry other sorts, many of our waste people may be employed in making of ships, hoys, busses [types of ships], and boats, and in making of rosin, pitch, and tar, the trees natural for the same being certainly known to be near Cape Breton and the Bay of Menan, and in many other palaces thereabout.28. If mines of white or grey marble, jet, or other rich stone be found there, our idle people may be employed in the mines of the same and in preparing the same to shape, and, so shaped, they may be carried into this realm as good ballast for our ships and after serve for noble buildings.29. Sugar-canes may be planted as well as they are now in the South of Spain, and besides the employment of our idle people, we may receive the commodity cheaper and not enrich the infidels or our doubtful friends, of whom now we receive that commodity.30. The daily great increase of the wools in Spain, and the like in the West Indies, and the great employment of the same cloth in both places, may move us to endeavor, for vent of our cloth, new discoveries of peopled regions where hope of sale may arise; otherwise in short time many inconveniences may possibly ensue.Incredible Things May Follow31. This land that we propose to direct our course to, lying in part in the 4oth degree of latitude, being in like heat as Lisbon in Portugal doth, and in the more southerly part, as the most southerly coast of Spain doth, may by our diligence yield unto us, besides wines and oils and sugars, oranges, lemons, figs, raisins, almonds, pomegranates, rice, raw silks such as come from Granada, and divers commodities for dyers, as anil and cochineal, and sundry other colours and materials. Moreover, we shall not only receive many precious commodities besides from thence, but also shall in time find ample vent of the labour of our poor people at home, by sale of hats, bonnets, knives, fish-hooks, copper kettles, beads, looking-glasses, bugles, and a thousand kinds of other wrought wares that in short time may be brought in use among the people of that country, to the great relief of the multitude of our poor people and to the wonderful enriching of this realm. And in time, such league and intercourse may arise between our stapling seats there, and other ports of our North America, and of the islands of the same, that incredible things, and by few as yet undreamed of, may speedily follow, tending to the impeachment of our mighty enemies and to the common good of this noble government.The ends of this voyage are these:1. To plant Christian religion2. To traffic.3. To conquer.Or, to do all three.Resource:Hakluyt, R. (1585) Reasons for colonization. Texas Wesleyan University Retrieved from .edu /csmeller/human-experience/ExpData09/EurExpansion/RD_Hakluyt.htmlDay 1Hakluyt states, “The glory of God by planting of religion among those infidels.” In your own words, describe what Hakluyt meant by that statement.Why, according to the author, will England’s economy prosper from conquering the New World?What was Halkuyt referring to when he stated, “If our nation do not make any conquest there but only use traffic and change of commodities, yet, by means the country is not very nighty but divided into petty kingdoms, they shall not dare to offer us any great annoy but such as we may easily revenge with sufficient chastisement to the unarmed people there”?According to the text, what were the main motives Richard Hakluyt used to urge colonization?Hakluyt states religious, political, social and economic arguments for colonization of the New World. Which factor was most significant to people in the 1600s and how is that supported by this text?Religious Reasons to Colonize the New World (1629) John Winthrop (1588-1649)Reasons to be considered for justifying the undertakers of the intended Plantation in New England, and for encouraging such whose hearts God shall move to join with them in it. It will be a service to the Church of great consequence to carry the Gospel into those parts of the world, to help on the fullness of the coming of the Gentiles, and to raise a bulwark against the kingdom of AnteChrist, which the Jesuits labor to rear up in those parts. All other Churches of Europe are brought to desolation, and our sins, for which the Lord begins already to frown upon us and to cut us short, do threaten evil times to be coming upon us, and who knows, but that God hath provided this place to be a refuge for many whom he means to save out of the general calamity, and seeing the Church hath no place left to fly into but the wilderness, what better work can there be, than to go and provide tabernacles and food for her when she be restored. This England grows weary of her inhabitants, so as Man, who is the most precious of all creatures, is here more vile and base than the earth we tread upon, and of less price among us than a horse or a sheep. Masters are forced by authority to entertain servants, parents to maintain their own children, all towns complain of their burden to maintain their poor, though we have taken up many unnecessary, yea unlawful, trades to maintain them. We use the authority of the Law to hinder the increase of our people, as by urging the statute against cottages and inmates — and thus it is come to pass, that children, servants and neighbors, especially if they be poor, are counted the greatest burdens, which if things were right would be the chiefest earthly blessings. The whole earth is the Lord's garden, and He hath given it to mankind with a general commission (Gen. 1:28) to increase and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it, which was again renewed to Noah. The end is double and natural, that Mankind might enjoy the fruits of the earth, and God might have His due Glory from His creatures. Why then should one strive here for places of habitation, at such a cost as would obtain better land in another country, and at the same time suffer a whole continent as fruitful and convenient for the use of man to lie waste without any improvement? We are grown to that height of intemperance in all excess of riot that as no man's estate, almost, will suffice to keep sail with his equals. He who fails herein must live in scorn and contempt. Hence it comes that all arts and trades are carried on in that deceitful and unrighteous course, so that it is almost impossible for a good and upright man to maintain his charge and live comfortably in any of them. The fountains of learning and religion are so corrupted that most children (besides the unsupportable charge of their education) are perverted, corrupted, and utterly overthrown by the multitude of evil examples and the licentious government of those seminaries, where men strain at gnats and swallow camels, and use all severity for maintenance of caps and like accomplishments, but suffer all ruffianlike fashions and disorder in manners to pass uncontrolled. What can be a better work, and more honorable and worthy of a Christian than to help rise and support a particular church while it is in its infancy, and to join his forces with such a company of faithful people, as by a timely assistance may grow strong and prosper, when for want of such help may be put to great hazard, if not wholly ruined. If any such as are known to be Godly and live in all wealth and prosperity here, and shall forsake all this to join themselves with this Church and to run a hazard with them of a hard and mean condition, it will be an example of great use both for removing the scandal of worldly and sinister respects which is cast upon the Adventurer, to give more life to the faith of God's people in their prayers for the Plantation, and to encourage others to join the more willingly in it. It appears to be a work of God for the good of His Church, in that He hath disposed the hearts of so many of His wise and faithful servants, both ministers and others, not only to approve of the enterprise but to interest themselves in it, some in their persons and estates, and others by their serious advice and help otherwise, and all by their prayers for the welfare of it. (Amos 3:) The Lord revealed his secret to His servants, the prophets, and it is likely He hath some great work in hand which He hath revealed to His prophets among us, whom He hath stirred up to encourage His servants to this Plantation, for He doth not use to seduce His people by His own prophets, but committeth that office to the ministry of false prophets and lying spirits… Diverse objections which have been made against this Plantation, with their answers and resolutions: Objection I — We have no warrant to enter upon that land, which has been so long possessed by others. Answer 1:That which lies common, and has never been replenished or subdued, is free to any that possess and improve it; for God hath given to the sons of men a double right to the earth — there is a natural right and a civil right. The first right was natural when men held the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where he pleased. Then as men and their cattle increased, they appropriated certain parcels of ground by enclosing and peculiar cultivation, and this in time got them a civil right — such is the right which Ephron the Hittite had in the field of Mackpelah, wherein Abraham could not bury a dead corpse without leave, though for the out parts of the country he dwelt upon them and took the fruit of them at his pleasure. The like did Jacob, who fed his cattle as boldly in Hamor's land (for he is said to be Lord of the country) and in other places where he came, as the native inhabitants themselves. And in those times and places, that men accounted nothing their own but that which they had appropriated by their own industry, appears plainly by this — that Abimileck's servants in their own country, when they oft contended with Isaac's servants about wells which they had dug, yet never strove for the land wherein they were. So like between Jacob and Laban, he would not take a goat of Laban's without special contract, but he makes no bargain with them for the land where they fed, and it is very probable that, had the land not been as free for Jacob as for Laban, that covetous wretch would have made his advantage of it, and would have upbraided Jacob with it as he did with his cattle. As for the natives in New England, they enclose no land, neither have they any settled habitation, nor any tame cattle to improve the land by, and so have no other but a natural right to those countries. So if we leave them sufficient for their own use, we may lawfully take the rest, there being more than enough for them and for us. Answer 2: We shall come in with the good leave of the natives, who find benefit already of our neighborhood and learn from us to improve a part to more use than before they could do the whole. And by this means we come in by valuable purchase, for they have of us that which will yield them more benefit than all that land which we have from them. Answer 3: God hath consumed the natives with a great plague in those parts, so as there be few inhabitants left. Objection II — It will be a great wrong to our Church and Country to take away the good people, and we shall lay it the more open to the judgment feared. Answer 1: The departing of good people from a country does not cause a judgment, but warns of it, which may occasion such as remain to turn from their evil ways, that they may prevent it, or take some other course that they may escape it. Answer 2: Such as go away are of no observation in respect of those who remain, and are likely to do more good there than here. And since Christ's time, the Church is to be considered universal and without distinction of countries, so that he that does good in one place serves the Church in all places in regard of the unity. Answer 3: It is the revealed will of God that the Gospel shall be preached in all nations, and though we know not whether those barbarians will receive it at first or not, yet it is a good work to serve God's providence in offering it to them (and this is the fittest to be done by God's own servants) for God shall have glory of it though they refuse it, and there is good hope that the posterity shall by this means be gathered into Christ's sheepfold. Objection III — We have feared a judgment a great while, but yet we are safe. It were better therefore to stay till it comes, and either we may flee then, or if we be overtaken in it we may well content ourselves to suffer with such a Church as ours is. Answer: It is likely that such a consideration made the Churches beyond the seas as the Palatinate, Rochelle, etc. to sit still at home and not look out for the shelter while they might have found it. But the woeful spectacle of their ruin may teach us more wisdom to avoid the plague when it is foreseen, and not to tarry as they did till it overtake us. If they were now at their former liberty we may be surer they would take other courses for their safety. And though half of them had miscarried their escape, yet had it not been so miserable to themselves and to religion as this desperate backsliding and abjuring the truth, which many of the ancient professors among them, and the whole posterity which remain are now plunged into. Objection IV — The ill success of the other Plantations may tell us what will become of this. Answer 1: None of the former sustained any great damage but Virginia, which happened there through their own sloth and poor security. Answer 2: The argument is not good, for thus it stands: Some Plantations have miscarried, therefore we should not make any. It consists of particulars, and so concludes nothing. We might as well reason thus: many houses have been burnt by kilns, therefore we should use none; many ships have been castaway, therefore we should content ourselves with our home commodities, and not adventure mens lives at sea for those things which we might live without; some men have been undone by being advanced to high places, therefore we should refuse all preferment, etc. Answer 3: The fruit of any public design is not to be discerned by the immediate success. It may appear in time that the former Plantations were all to good use. Answer 4: There are great and fundamental errors in the former which are likely to be avoided in this, for: their main end was carnal and not religious; they used unfit instruments — a multitude of rude and misgoverned persons, the very scum of the land; they did not establish a right form of government. Objection V — It is attended with many and great difficulties. Answer: So is every good action. The heathen could say Ardua virtutis via, and the way of God's kingdom, which is the best way in the world, is accompanied with most difficulties. Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth to life. Again, the difficulties are no other than such as many daily meet with, and such as God hath brought others well through them. Objection VI - It is a work above the power of the undertakers. Answer 1: The welfare of any body consists not so much in quantity as in a due proportion and disposition of parts. And we see other Plantations have subsisted diverse years and prospered from weaker means. Answer 2: It is no wonder for great things to arise from small and contemptible beginnings — it hath often been seen in kingdoms and states, and may as well hold in towns and plantations. The Waldenses were scattered into the Alps and mountains of Piedmont by small companies, but they became famous Churches whereof some remain to this day, and it is certain that the Turks and Venetians and other states were weak in their beginnings. Objection VII — The country affords no natural fortifications. Answer: No more did Holland and many other places which had greater enemies and nearer at hand, and God doth use to place His people within the midst of perils, that they may trust in Him, and not the outward means of safety. So when He would choose a place to plant His only beloved people in, He seated them not in an island or another place fortified by nature, but in a plain country, beset with potent and bitter enemies round about, yet so long as they served Him and trusted in His help they were safe. So the Apostle Paul said of himself and his fellow laborers, that they were compassed with dangers on every side, and were daily under the sentence of death, that they might learn to trust in the living God. Objection VIII — The place affords no comfortable means to the first inhabitants, and our breeding here at home has made us unfit for the hardship we are likely to endure there. Answer 1: No place of itself has afforded sufficient to the first inhabitants. Such things as we stand in need of are usually supplied by God's blessing upon the wisdom and industry of Man, and whatsoever we stand in need of is treasured up in the earth by the Creator to be fetched thence by the sweat of our brows. Answer 2: We must learn with Paul to want as well as to abound. If we have food and raiment (which are there to be had) we ought to be contented. The difference in the quality may a little displease us, but it cannot hurt us. Answer 3: It may be that God will bring us by this means to repent of our former intemperance, and so cure us of that disease which sends many amongst us untimely to our graves and others to hell. So He carried the Isrealites into the wilderness and made them forget the fleshpots of Egypt, which was some pinch to them at first, but He disposed it to their good in the end (Deu. 8: 3: 16). Objection IX — We must look to be preserved by miracle if we subsist, and so we shall tempt God. Answer 1: Those who walk under ordinary means of safety and supply do not tempt God, and such will our condition be in this Plantation, that the proposition cannot be denied. The assumption we prove thus: that place is as much secured from ordinary dangers as many in the civilized parts of the world, and we shall have as much provision beforehand as towns use to provide against siege or dearth, and sufficient means for raising a sufficient store to succeed that which is spent. If it be denied that we shall be as secure as other places, we answer that many of our sea towns and such as are upon the confines of enemies' countries in the continent, lie more open and nearer to danger than we shall. Though such towns have sometimes been burnt or despoiled, yet men tempt not God to dwell still in them; and though many houses in the country lie open to robbers and thieves (as many have found by sad experience), yet no man will say that those that dwell in those places must be preserved by miracle. Answer 2: Though miracles be now ceased, yet men more expect a more than ordinary blessing from God upon all lawful means where the work is the Lord's, and He is sought in it according to His will. For it is usually with Him to increase or weaken the strength of the means as He is pleased or displeased with the instruments and the actions; else we must conclude that God hath left the government of the world and committed all power to His Creatures, and that the success of all things should wholly depend upon second causes. Answer 3: We appeal to the judgment of soldiers if 500 men may not within one month raise a fortification which, with sufficient munition and victuals, may not make good against 3000 for many months, and yet without miracle. Answer 4: We demand an instance of any Prince or state that has raised 3000 soldiers, and has victualed them for 6 or 8 months with shipping and munition answerable to invade a place so far distant as this is from any foreign enemy, and where they must run on hazard of repulse, and no booty or just title of sovereignty to allure them. Objection X — If it succeed ill, it will raise a scandal upon our profession (of our religion). Answer: It is no rule in philosophy, but much less in divinity, to judge the action by the success. The enterprise of the Israelites against Benjamin succeeded ill twice, yet the action was good and prospered in the end. The Counts of Beziers and Toulouse in France miscarried in the defense of a just cause of religion and hereditary right against the unjust violence of the Count of Montfort and the Pope's Legate; the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave had ill success in their defense of the Gospel against Charles the Vth, wherein the Duke and his children lost their whole inheritance to this day; the King of Denmark and other princes of this union had ill success in the defense of the Palatinate and the liberty of Germany, yet their profession suffered not with their persons, except it were with the adversaries of religion, and so it was no scandal.Resource:Winthrop. (1628). Reasons for the plantation in New England. The Winthrop Society.Retrieved from 1In what ways do Winthrop’s and Hakluyt’s reasons for colonizing the New World differ?In your own words, what did Winthrop mean when he stated, “Why then should one strive here for places of habitation, at such a cost as would obtain better land in another country, and at the same time suffer a whole continent as fruitful and convenient for the use of man to lie waste without any improvement?” Winthrop states, “He who fails herein must live in scorn and contempt. Hence it comes that all arts and trades are carried on in that deceitful and unrighteous course, so that it is almost impossible for a good and upright man to maintain his charge and live comfortably in any of them”. According to this statement, what are his thoughts about England’s business conduct, in relation to the Puritan religion?In your own words, what was Winthrop referring to when he noted, “The fountains of learning and religion are so corrupted that most children (besides the unsupportable charge of their education) are perverted, corrupted, and utterly overthrown by the multitude of evil examples and the licentious government of those seminaries, where men strain at gnats and swallow camels, and use all severity for maintenance of caps and like accomplishments, but suffer all ruffianlike fashions and disorder in manners to pass uncontrolled”? According to the text, how does Winthrop believe they will be received in the New World by Native Americans and what is his goal?In your own words, what is Winthrop’s response to the ungodly actions of conquistadors and colonizers?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 2Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionWhat were the differences between the three colonial regions, in the terms of economy, and how, if at all, was it impacted by geography?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole.-Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain.-Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Middle coloniesNew England ColoniesSouthern coloniesArpentDovecotetormentingLouis Thibou “Letter from Louis Thibou to friends and family in France” (1683)William Penn “Report on Pennsylvania” (1685)American Husbandry “Argriculture in the Middle Colonies” (1775)Francis Higginson “ Vol. I. The Transplanting of Culture: 1607–1650” (1630)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.B.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.bColonization and Settlement (1585-1763)Week 2 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore how the geography and climate of the three regions of the thirteen colonies were affected the economy of each region. The thirteen colonies were diversely populated by different ethnicities and groups and three diverse regions developed distinct economies. The New England colonies, composed of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Connecticut Colony, Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and Province of New Hampshire, relied mostly on small subsistence farming, lumber, shipbuilding, trade, and fishing to sustain livelihood. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware, the middle colonies, relied on trade and wheat, rye, and barley crops for income. The Southern colonies, consisting of South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia and Georgia, sustained their economy through large plantations and slave labor and cash crops. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how geography and climate affected regional economies. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of the intertwinement between economies, geography, and the development of colonies. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-3 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Half the class will be assigned the William Penn “Report on Pennsylvania” (1685) and half the class will be assigned American Husbandry “Argriculture in the Middle Colonies” (1775).Within groups, a skillful reader then reads the text out loud to the group, as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-22 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: Compare the diverse economies of the three regions and the role geography and climate played on the development of the thirteen colonies.Letter from Louis Thibou to friends and family in France, 1683Carolina, the 20th September 1683Gentlemen and dear Friends,This is the second letter I am writing to you although you have not yet honored me by one of yours. In this one I shall give you details about this country and its mode of life, and first of all I shall describe to you that it is a wooded country with lovely savannas or plains crossed by fine rivers very full of fish in which anyone who likes can fish and with enough oysters to feed a kingdom. The land is not too difficult to clear; a man who has a mind to work can easily clear an arpent [1 ? acres] or more in a month. If a man has five or six arpents of land under cultivation and if he works only two months in the year and sows corn and Pease after having cleared the land he should be able to reap more that 100 bushels of wheat and 50 or 60 bushels of Pease. I myself have not more than that under cultivation and have reaped this year as much as I have just mentioned. This climate is temperate, as you would describe that of Languedoc or Italy, a little warmer than Paris – the winters are almost as long but the frosts are not so severe. In short I assure you it is a fine climate, very temperate and very healthy, where one feels very fit. Everything you can imagine growing in France or in England grows here. Carolina has good earth, nothing barren about it and it only needs to be cultivated. It is a country where there is an abundance of fish in the right season; in fact one makes the pigs drunk by feeding it to them. I have tried growing vines which do wonderfully well – not those of the country, but those of France, Madeira and the Canaries which have been introduced here. They produce excellent grapes which are sweet, winey and full of juice. There can never be a lack of them since they are nourished by warmth and soft rain; that is why I am sure of producing here better wine than could be produce in Europe. The native vines also produce very good grapes but the pity of it is that they produce too much wood and too heavy a growth of leaf which hinders the fruit from ripening; all the same I have planted several which have done well. If only I had good vine-stock from Champagne, Suresne and Argenteuil I would very quickly do well in this country for wine in very dear and sells at 20 sous a bottle, as it does everywhere else in America. We only need labor and good plants to do a lot in a short time. We have good garden-melons and excellent watermelons of which I am sending you some seeds. We have potatoes in abundance which a good root out of which we make a drink with molasses or dregs of sugar; it is a liqueur which is as good as beer. These potatoes are mighty good to eat cooked in the oven. A bushel of these roots planted in a little square of earth produces 15 or 20. You much realize that a man here who has 2000 crowns can live better than a gentleman which an income of 2000 “livres” can live in France. In fact any man who has a couple of negroes, a readymade plantation, a servant to look after his household, to milk his cows, to look after his pigs, his poultry and his dovecote can live very happily and that is something a man can have in this country at small outlay. If he wishes to hunt or to have an Indian hunt for him there is no lack of venison or game. An Indian will provide a family of 30 with enough game and venison, as much as they can eat, all the year round for 4 crowns. As for fish there is abundance of all kinds and fishing is such good sport that in this country there is no lack of it, just as in London. Victuals are very cheap, beef only 3 sous a pound at the butcher’s, fat port 3 sous and lean only 2. Wheat is worth 24 sous a bushel and Pease 36; one gets 100 pounds of potatoes for only 24 sous. The cattle only feed in the woods, on the plains or on the savanna, the bulls, the cows and the rest of the cattle feed themselves perfectly well at no cost whatever; one had only to keep the calves in the house to bring all the cows back every evening – the only trouble they are is to milk them and they give you a calf every year, which is a good profit costing no more to feed a lot than a few; you feed them by their thousands in the woods. As for the pigs, they only need to be given a little corn in the evening to make them come back home, the poultry is easy to rear because of the hear – as you see we have no lack of butter nor milk, as well as fat capons, hens and fresh eggs. I admit that a man who starts with nothing has a little difficulty for the first two three years, but a man who has something to back him and can afford a couple of farm-hands, a maidservant and some cattle can establish himself very well right away and live very happily in this country. Carolina is a good country for anyone who is not lazy; however poor he may be, he can live well provided he is willing to take a little trouble. Carpenters, cobblers, tailors and other craftsmen necessary for building or clothing easily make a living. I have no doubt that one of our French friends has put this country in a bad light in his letters but if he had really wished to work he could have done as well as I have and would have had a good word to say for Carolina with as much reason as I, for I assure you that when I arrive with my wife and 3 children I was not worth a farthing and my furniture did not consist of very much, whereas now I am beginning to live well. If I had a couple of farmhands and a serving maid I would live like a gentleman, but I must be patient. I hope that with God’s help the vines will in time bring me all I want. We have 15 or 16 nations of Indians round us who are very friendly and the English get on well with them; the largest number is not more than 500 strong. They bring them a great quantity of deerskins and furs. There are some tigers and wolves here but no more of the latter than there are in France and the moment a tiger or wolf catches sight of a man it runs away faster than a deer. Although it is said that there are a great number in the woods I have never seen a live one since I came to the country and only one little dead one that an Indian had killed. As for the crocodile which the English call alligator you cannot get within gunshot of them, for the moment they catch sight of you they dive into the water. Anyhow there are only a few little ones at the sources of the rivers and they have never done harm to any one. There are no more snakes than there are in France and they run away when they hear you so that it is difficult to catch and kill them. As for the rattlesnake, of which there has been so much talk in England, you can easily kill it for it does not move more than a tuft of grass; a child could kill one with a switch. It is true that a few people have been bitten by accident, but there is a good remedy for that here and no one has ever died of their bite; all that has been said about this kind of animals is just a lot of fairy-tales. My wife and all my family are well, thank God. My poor little Loton [?] died out here but God has given us a son who is called Jacob after the one we lost in England; the captain of a warship was his godfather. Gabriel is well and kisses the hands of his godfather and godmother. I beg you to communicate this letter to friend Le Nain and to M. Poupé and to M. de Baze and to my friend Ardain and to M. Valon and to all my acquaintances; give them my regards; I beg to you let me have some news and to convey the enclosed to M. Marriette of Place Maubert, Paris. I believe that there are lots of French in England who have taken refuge there on account of the persecutions. If they want to live in peace they need merely come to this country. They can settle in town or in the countryside, on the plantations where they will be able to live in peace. They will not have to pay any taxes here or money for the high roads nor chimney taxes, for nothing of that sort is charged in this country. All you have to pay is one sou per year to the owner of the land for each arpent; wood and resin candles cost nothing at all and tallow candles are very cheap. Those who are willing to come to Carolina will discover the truth of what I say; I would advise all the young men who have a trade to come and settle here rather than stay in England. They could bring us some brandy, white and blue linen and bits of cloth for the Indians; all that serves as good currency and is worth half as much again. I beg you to tell the mother of the little boy I brought along that he is well and that I have received the letter she wrote. Adieu, my dear Friend; please tell M. Valon to write to me and M. de Baze and friend Le Nain, to whom I feel as close as to you, and M. Poupé and my friend his wife; and tell her that her brother and sister are well; he has made quite 30 pounds of silk this year; he has let some of it got to ruin by not drawing it, through his negligence; please kiss the hands of all our friends, male and female, to whom I feel as towards you. You very affectionate servantLouis ThibouP.S. There is good timber here for building houses which are roofed with planks and boards. Others do it with a sort of lime, made out of oyster every one builds as he wishes, maybe with planks sawn from cedars or some with it. The children do very well here; they are bigger and fatter than come and join us here. My plantation is on the river Ashley which is beautiful and full of fish. There is good land to be obtained behind my plantation and it would suffice for a number of families. I beg you to kiss the hands of M. Prieux who would have done better to come out here than to remain in England. M. Varain is making lots of money at his trade. Good apples grow here and sweet cherries, which become as red as wine inside, some pears, such as winter and summer William pears and butter pears, as well as some horseradish seed. Once again I beg you to write to me and to give us news of our relatives, how they are getting on in France under the persecution. Those who want to come to Carolina could not fail to have opportunities because so many ships arrive from England, the Barbados, New England etc., bringing us horses and cattle. The port here is never without ships and the country is becoming a great traffic center. Some deputies from Scotland came here to look at the country which please them very much; they bought two counties, or provinces, and are preparing to bring over 10,000 people to settle them; I have no doubt that a number of others will follow shortly, people arrive every day from all parts to inhabit this country. That will make Carolina powerful and flourishing in a very short time. Adieu, my dear friend; I wish you a thousand blessings and am your servant,Louis Thibou Resource:Teaching American History in South Carolina. (1683). Letter from Louis Thibou to friends and family in France, 1683. Teaching US History. Retrieved from 11.According to the text, why does the author describe the climate and geography of Carolina?2.Why does the climate aid the economy of Carolina, according to the author?3.In what ways is Carolina’s economy affected by neighboring economies, using evidence from the text? 4.Describe the purpose of the text, while citing evidence from the text to support your conclusion.Report on Pennsylvania 1 William Penn acquired Pennsylvania as a haven for his fellow Quakers. But the colony was not exclusively reserved for Quakers. As Penn intended, people of various nations and faiths settled there. In 1685 Penn published a book about his colony, called A Further Account of the Province of Pennsylvania. Here is a part of his Account.2 The people are a collection of different nations in Europe, such as French, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Scots, Irish, and English. But as they are of one kind and in one place and under one allegiance, so they live like people of one country....3 Philadelphia is two miles long and a mile broad and at each end it lies a mile upon a navigable river. Besides the High Street that runs in the middle, it has eight streets more that run the same course. And besides Broad Street, which crosses the town in the middle, there are twenty streets more that run the same course....4 During the first ten months since our arrival we had got up 80 houses at our town, and some villages were settled about it. During the next year the town advanced to 357 houses. Many of them were large and well-built, with good cellars and three stories. Some had balconies.5 There is also a fair wharf of about three hundred square feet. ...6 There lived most sorts of useful tradespeople such as carpenters, bricklayers, masons, plasterers, plumbers, smiths, glaziers, tailors, shoemakers, butchers, bakers, tanners, shipwrights....7 The hours for work and meals to laborers are fixed and known by ring of bell....8 Some vessels have been built here and many boats, which are useful for passage of people and goods...9 With the natives we live in great friendship. I have made seven purchases. And in pay and presents they have received at least twelve hundred pounds [English units of money] of me.10 They generally leave their guns at home when they come to our settlement. They offer us no insult, not so much as to one of our dogs. If any of them break our laws, they submit to be punished by them.11 We leave not the least wrong done to them unsatisfied. Justice gains and awes them. They have some great people among them, I mean for wisdom, truth, and justice. Resource:Sites Alive. (1685). A further account of the province of Pennsylvania. Sites Alive. Retrieved from .com/hl/tg/private/hlrwk1a.htmDay 1Text AAccording to the author, what is the geography of Pennsylvania like?What role does the geography of Pennsylvania aid in Pennsylvania economy?What is the basis of Pennsylvania’s economy, based on the text?Based on the text, why is Pennsylvania’s economy affected by neighboring economies? Agriculture in the Middle Colonies1 Wheat in many parts of the province [New York] yields a larger produce than is common in England: upon good lands about Albany, where the climate is the coldest in the country, they sow two bushels and better upon one acre, and reap from 20 to 40: the latter quantity, however, is not often had; but from 20 to 30 bushels are common, and this with such bad husbandry as would not yield the like in England, and much less in Scotland. This is owing to the richness and freshness of the soil. In other parts of the province, particularly adjoining to New Jersey and Pensylvania, the culture is better and the country more generally settled. Though there are large tracts of waste land within twenty miles of the city of New York.2 Rye is a common crop upon the inferior lands, and the sort they produce is pretty good, though not equal to the rye of England. The crops of it are not so great in produce as those of wheat on the better lands.3 Maize is sown generally throughout the province, and they get vast crops of it. . . . It is also of great advantage in affording a vast produce of food for cattle in the winter, which in this country is a matter of great consequence, where they are obliged to keep all their cattle housed from November till the end of March, with exception indeed of unprovident farmers, who trust some out the chief of the winter, to their great hazard.4 Barley is much sown in all the southern parts of the province; and the crops they sometimes get of it are very great, but the grain is not of a quality equal to that of Europe. They make much malt and brew large quantities of beer from it at New York, which serves the home consumption, and affords some also for exportation. Pease are a common article of culture here, and thougb uncertain in their produce, yet are they reckoned very profitable; and the straw is valued as winter food. Thirty bushels per acre they consider as a large crop, but some times they get scarcely a third of that. Oats they sow in common, and the products are generally large; sixty bushels an acre have been known on land of but moderate fertility. Buckwheat is everywhere sown, and a few crops are supposed to pay the farmer better, at the same time that they find it does very little prejudice to the ground, in which it resembles pease.5 Potatoes are not common in New England, but in New York many are planted; and upon the black, loose, fresh woodland they get very great crops, nor does any pay them better if so well, for at the city of New York there is a constant and ready market for them; I have been assured that from five to eight hundred bushels have been often gained on an acre.6 There are many very rich meadows and pastures in all parts of the province; and upon the brooks and rivers, the watered ones (for they are well acquainted with that branch of husbandry) are mown twice and yield large crops of hay. In their marshes they get large crops also, but it is a coarse bad sort; not however to a degree, as to make cattle refuse it, on the contrary, the farmers find it of great use in the winter support of their lean cattle, young stock, and cows. . . . The fruits in this province are much superior to thosein New England; and they have some, as peaches and nectarines, which will not thrive there. Immense quantities of melons, and water melons are cultivated in the fields near New York, where they come to as great perfection as in Spain and Italy; nor can it well be conceived how much of these fruits and peaches, &c. all ranks of people eat here, and without receiving any ill consequence from the practice. This is an agreeableness far superior to any thing we have in England; and indeed, the same superiority runs through all their fruits, and several articles of the kitchen garden, which are here raised without trouble, and in profusion. Every planter and even the smallest farmers have all an orchard near their house of some acres, by means of which they command a great quantity of cyder, and export apples by ship loads to the West Indies. Nor is this an improper place to observe that the rivers in this province and the sea upon the coast are richly furnished with excellent fish; oysters and lobsters are no where in greater plenty than in New York. I am of opinion they are more plentiful than at any other place on the globe; for very many poor families have no other subsistence than oysters and bread. Nor is this the only instance of the natural plenty that distinguishes this country: the woods are full of game, and wild turkies are very plentiful; in these particulars New York much exceeds New England.Resource:American Husbandry (2002).American Husbandry.San Jose States University. Retrieved from 1Text BWhy is Pennsylvania’s economy aided by climate and geography, using evidence from the text?What is Pennsylvania’s economy based on, according to the author?Based on the text, in what ways is Pennsylvania’s economy affected and supplemented by neighboring economies? Vol. I. The Transplanting of Culture: 1607–1650Francis HigginsonFRANCIS HIGGINSON, the founder of that distinguished New England family, was born in England in 1588, and died in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1630. Like most of the New England divines of his generation he was a graduate of Cambridge University, and had been an Anglican clergyman before his emigration. Becoming a Puritan, he gave up his benefice, and supported himself by preparing men for college, till in 1628 he accepted an invitation from the Massachusetts Bay Company, to join their colony. He reached Salem in the next year, and was almost immediately chosen teacher of the congregation there. The next year he sickened and died, an ironical commentary on the somewhat extravagant praise of the New England climate, that appears in his New England’s Plantation, or a short and true description of the Commodities of that Country, published in 1630, and reprinted in the first volume of the Massachusetts Historical Society’s Collection. Our extracts are from this work. Higginson wrote also an account of his voyage, afterwards printed in Hutchinson’s Original Papers (1769). A Life of Francis Higginson has been written by his eminent descendant, Thomas Wentworth Higginson (1891).1“First Therefore of the Earth of New England, and All the Appurtenances Thereof.”[From “New England’s Plantation,” 1630.]… I WILL endeavor to show you what New England is … and truly endeavor, by God’s help, to report nothing but the naked truth, and that both to tell you of the discommodities as well as of the commodities. Though, as the idle proverb is, “Travelers may lie by authority,” and so may take too much sinful liberty that way, yet I may say of myself, as once Nehemiah did in another case, “Shall such a man as I lie?” No. verily. It becometh not a preacher of truth to be a writer of falsehood in any degree; and therefore I have been careful to report nothing of New-England but what I have partly seen with mine own eyes, and partly heard and inquired from the mouths of very honest and religious persons, who by living in the country a good space of time have had experience and knowledge of the state thereof, and whose testimonies I do believe as myself.2The fertility of the soil is to be admired at, as appeareth in the abundance of grass that groweth every where, both very thick, very long, and very high in divers places. But it groweth very wildly, with a great stalk, and a broad and ranker blade, because it never had been eaten with cattle, nor mowed with a scythe, and seldom trampled on by foot. It is scarce to be believed how our kine and goats, horses and hogs do thrive and prosper here, and like well of this country.3In our Plantation we have already a quart of milk for a penny. But the abundant increase of corn proves this country to be a wonderment. Thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, are ordinary here. Yea, Joseph’s increase in Egypt is outstripped here with us. Our planters hope to have more than a hundred-fold this year. And all this while I am within compass; what will you say of two hundred-fold, and upwards? It is almost incredible what great gain some of our English planters have had by our Indian corn. Credible persons have assured me, and the party himself avouched the truth of it to me, that of the setting of thirteen gallons of corn he hath had increase of it fifty-two hogsheads, every hogshead holding seven bushels of London measure, and every bushel was by him sold and trusted to the Indians for so much beaver as was worth eighteen shillings; and so of this thirteen gallons of corn, which was worth six shillings eight pence, he made about ?327 of it the year following, as by reckoning will appear; where you may see how God blesseth husbandry in this land. There is not such great and plentiful ears of corn I suppose anywhere else to be found but in this country, being also of variety of colors, as red, blue, and yellow, &c.; and of one corn there springeth four or five hundred. I have sent you many ears of divers colors, that you might see the truth of it.4 Little children here, by setting of corn, may earn much more than their own maintenance.5They have tried our English corn at New Plymouth Plantation, so that all our several grains will grow here very well, and have a fitting soil for their nature.6Our Governor hath store of green pease growing in his garden as good as ever I eat in England.7This country aboundeth naturally with store of roots of great variety and good to eat. Our turnips, parsnips and carrots are here both bigger and sweeter than is ordinarily to be found in England. Here are also store of pumpions, cowcumbers, and other things of that nature which I know not. Also, divers excellent pot-herbs grow abundantly among the grass, as strawberry leaves in all places of the country, and plenty of strawberries in their time, and penny-royal, winter-savory, sorrel, brooklime, liverwort, carvel, and watercresses; also leeks and onions are ordinary, and divers physical herbs. Here are also abundance of other sweet herbs, delightful to the smell, whose names we know not, and plenty of single damask roses, very sweet; and two kinds of herbs that bear two kinds of flowers very sweet, which they say are as good to make cordage or cloth as any hemp or flax we have.8 Excellent vines are here up and down in the woods. Our Governor hath already planted a vineyard, with great hope of increase.9Also, mulberries, plums, raspberries, currants, chestnuts, filberts, walnuts, small-nuts, hurtleberries, and haws of white-thorn, near as good as our cherries in England, they grow in plenty here.10For wood, there is no better in the world, I think, here being four sorts of oak, differing both in the leaf, timber, and color, all excellent good. There is also good ash, elm, willow, birch, beech, sassafras, juniper, cypress, cedar, spruce, pines and fir, that will yield abundance of turpentine, pitch, tar, masts, and other material for building both of ships and houses. Also here are store of sumach trees, that are good for dyeing and tanning of leather; likewise such trees yield a precious gum, called white benjamin, that they say is excellent for perfumes. Also here be divers roots and berries, wherewith the Indians dye excellent holding colors, that no rain nor washing can alter. Also we have materials to make soap ashes and saltpetre in abundance.11For beasts there are some bears, and they say some lions also; for they have been seen at Cape Anne. Also here are several sorts of deer, some whereof bring three or four young ones at once, which is not ordinary in England; also wolves, foxes, beavers, otters, martens, great wild cats, and a great beast called a molke, as big as an ox. I have seen the skins of all these beasts since I came to this Plantation, excepting lions. Also here are great store of squirrels, some greater, and some smaller and lesser; there are some of the lesser sort, they tell me, that by a certain skin will fly from tree to tree, though they stand far distant.12“Of the Waters of New England, with the Things belonging to the Same.”* * * * * * * *The abundance of sea-fish are almost beyond believing; and sure I should scarce have believed it except I had seen it with mine own eyes. I saw great store of whales, and grampuses, and such abundance of mackerels that it would astonish one to behold; likewise codfish, abundance on the coast, and in their season are plentifully taken. There is a fish called a bass, a most sweet and wholesome fish as ever I did eat; it is altogether as good as our fresh salmon; and the season of their coming was begun when we came first to New-England in June, and so continued about three months’ space. Of this fish our fishers take many hundreds together, which I have seen lying on the shore, to my admiration. Yea, their nets ordinarily take more than they are able to haul to land, and for want of boats and men they are constrained to let a many go after they have taken them; and yet sometimes they fill two boats at a time with them. And besides bass, we take plenty of scate and thornback, and abundance of lobsters, and the least boy in the Plantation may both catch and eat what he will of them. For my own part, I was soon cloyed with them, they were so great, and fat, and luscious. I have seen some myself that have weighed sixteen pound; but others have had divers times so great lobsters as have weighed twenty-five pound, as they assured me….13“Of the Air of New England, with the Temper and Creatures in It.”The temper of the air of New-England is one special thing that commends this place. Experience doth manifest that there is hardly a more healthful place to be found in the world that agreeth better with our English bodies. Many that have been weak and sickly in Old England, by coming hither have been thoroughly healed, and grown healthful and strong. For here is an extraordinary clear and dry air, that is of a most healing nature to all such as are of a cold, melancholy, phlegmatic, rheumatic temper of body. None can more truly speak hereof by their own experience than myself. My friends that knew me can well tell how very sickly I have been, and continually in physic, being much troubled with a tormenting pain through an extraordinary weakness of my stomach, and abundance of melancholic humors. But since I came hither on this voyage, I thank God I have had perfect health, and freed from pain and vomiting, having a stomach to digest the hardest and coarsest fare, who before could not eat finest meat; and whereas my stomach could only digest and did require such drink as was both strong and stale, now I can and do oftentimes drink New-England water very well. And I that have not gone without a cap for many years together, neither durst leave off the same, have now cast away my cap, and do wear none at all in the day time; and whereas beforetime I clothed myself with double clothes and thick waistcoats to keep me warm, even in the summer time, I do now go as thin clad as any, only wearing a light stuff cassock upon my shirt, and stuff breeches of one thickness without linings. Besides, I have one of my children, that was formerly most lamentably handled with sore breaking out of both his hands and feet of the king’s evil; but since he came hither he is very well ever he was, and there is hope of perfect recovery shortly, even by the very wholesomeness of the air, altering, digesting, and drying up the cold and crude humors of the body; and therefore I think it is a wise course for all cold complexions to come to take physic in New-England; for a sup of New-England’s air is better than a whole draught of Old England’s ale.14Discommodities.Thus of New England’s Commodities.15Now I will tell you of some discommodities, that are here to be found.16First, in the summer season, for these three months, June, July, and August, we are troubled much with little flies called mosquitoes, being the same they are troubled with in Lincolnshire and the fens; and they are nothing but gnats, which, except they be smoked out of their houses, are troublesome in the night season.17Secondly, in the winter season, for two months’ space, the earth is commonly covered with snow, which is accompanied with sharp biting frosts, something more sharp than is in Old England, and therefore are forced to make great fires.18Thirdly, this country being very full of woods and wildernesses, doth also much abound with snakes and serpents, of strange colors and huge greatness. Yea, there are some serpents, called rattlesnakes, that have rattles in their tails, that will not fly from a man as others will, but will fly upon him and sting him so mortally that he will die within a quarter of an hour after, except the party stinged have about him some of the root of an herb called snake-weed to bite on, and then he shall receive no harm. But yet seldom falls it out that any hurt is done by these. About three years since an Indian was stung to death by one of them; but we heard of none since that time.19Fourthly and lastly, here wants as yet the good company of honest Christians, to bring with them horses, kine and sheep, to make use of this fruitful land. Great pity it is to see so much good ground for corn and for grass as any is under the heavens, to lie altogether unoccupied, when so many honest men and their families in Old England, through the populousness thereof, do make very hard shift to live one by the other.20“Of the Present Condition of the Plantation and what it is.”* * * * * * * *There are in all of us, both old and new planters, about three hundred, whereof two hundred of them are settled at Nehumkek, now called Salem, and the rest have planted themselves at Masathulet’s Bay, beginning to build a town there, which we do call Cherton, or Charles town.21We that are settled at Salem make what haste we can to build houses, so that within a short time we shall have a fair town.22We have great ordnance wherewith we doubt not but we shall fortify ourselves in a short time to keep out a potent adversary. But that which is our greatest comfort and means of defense above all others, is that we have here the true religion and holy ordinances of Almighty God taught amongst us. Thanks be to God, we have here plenty of preaching, and diligent catechising, with strict and careful exercise, and good and commendable orders to bring our people into a Christian conversation with whom we have to do withal. And thus we doubt not but God will be with us; and if God be with us, who can be against us?Resource:Bartle By. (1630). The transplanting of culture: 1607–1650. Bartleby. Retrieved from . /163/105.htmlDay 11.According to the author, what is the geography of New England like?2.Why does the geography of New England aid in New England’s economy, using evidence from the text?3.What is the basis of New England’s economy, based on the text?4.Based on the text, why is New England’s economy affected by neighboring economies?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 3Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionWhat are the origins of the labor systems, which were used to support regional development and economies and were these labor systems moral?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)HerringsPromontoriesArduousTediousOrdainedIndigitatingDiscourseConducethConscienceConjecturallyDogmaticalExhortionCandourSlavesIndentured servantsGottlied Mittlberge “ Poor Europeans Should Not Come to America as Indentured Servants” (1754)John Saffin “Slavery is Moral” (1701) Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.a, 6.1.12.A.1.b, 6.1.12.C.1.bColonization and Settlement (1585-1763)Week 3 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore the systems of labor that were instituted to promote the economic growth of the thirteen colonies and their origins. They will also explore the morality of these systems and the complexity of the slave system. Students will also explore how colonists justified these slave systems and the ideologies verses the reality of indentured servitude. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how these labor systems stimulated regional development. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how indentured servitude and slavery aided was essential to the development of the thirteen colonies. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decode. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Day One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-14 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-7 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 8-13 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire reading such as: What conditions did indentured servants and slaves face and what reasons did some colonists use to substantiate this labor system?Poor Europeans Should Not Come to America as Indentured Servants (1754) Gottlied Mittlberge 1 Both in Rotterdam and in Amsterdam the people are packed densely, like herrings so to say, in the large sea-vessels. One person receives a place of scarcely 2 feet width and 6 feet length in the bedstead, while many a ship carries four to six hundred souls; not to mention the innumerable implements, tools, provisions, water-barrels and other things which likewise occupy such space. 2 On account of contrary winds it takes the ships sometimes 2, 3, and 4 weeks to make the trip from Holland to . . . England. But when the wind is good, they get there in 8 days or even sooner. Everything is examined there and the custom-duties paid, whence it comes that the ships ride there 8, 10 or 14 days and even longer at anchor, till they have taken in their full cargoes. During that time every one is compelled to spend his last remaining money and to consume his little stock of provisions which had been reserved for the sea; so that most passengers, finding themselves on the ocean where they would be in greater need of them, must greatly suffer from hunger and want. Many suffer want already on the water between Holland and Old England. 3 When the ships have for the last time weighed their anchors near the city of Kaupp [Cowes] in Old England, the real misery begins with the long voyage. For from there the ships, unless they have good wind, must often sail 8, 9, 10 to 12 weeks before they reach Philadelphia. But even with the best wind the voyage lasts 7 weeks. 4 But during the voyage there is on board these ships terrible misery, stench, fumes, horror, vomiting, many kinds of sea-sickness, fever, dysentery, headache, heat, constipation, boils, scurvy, cancer, mouth rot, and the like, all of which come from old and sharply salted food and meat, also from very bad and foul water, so that many die miserably. 5 Add to this want of provisions, hunger, thirst, frost, heat, dampness, anxiety, want, afflictions and lamentations, together with other trouble, as . . . the lice abound so frightfully, especially on sick people, that they can be scraped off the body. The misery reaches the climax when a gale rages for 2 or 3 nights and days, so that every one believes that the ship will go to the bottom with all human beings on board. In such a visitation the people cry and pray most piteously. 6 Many sigh and cry: "Oh, that I were at home again, and if I had to lie in my pig-sty!" Or they say: "O God, if I only had a piece of good bread, or a good fresh drop of water." Many people whimper, sigh and cry piteously for their homes; most of them get home-sick. Many hundred people necessarily die and perish in such misery, and must be cast into the sea, which drives their relatives, or those who persuaded them to undertake the journey, to such despair that it is almost impossible to pacify and console them7 Children from 1 to 7 years rarely survive the voyage. I witnessed . . . misery in no less than 32 children in our ship, all of whom were thrown into the sea. The parents grieve all the more since their children find no resting-place in the earth, but are devoured by the monsters of the sea. 8 That most of the people get sick is not surprising, because, in addition to all other trials and hardships, warm food is served only three times a week, the rations being very poor and very little. Such meals can hardly be eaten, on account of being so unclean. The water which is served out of the ships is often very black, thick and full of worms, so that one cannot drink it without loathing, even with the greatest thirst. Toward the end we were compelled to eat the ship’s biscuit which had been spoiled long ago; though in a whole biscuit there was scarcely a piece the size of a dollar that had not been full of red worms and spiders' nests. . . . 9 At length, when, after a long and tedious voyage, the ships come in sight of land, so that the promontories can be seen, which the people were so eager and anxious to see, all creep from below on deck to see the land from afar, and they weep for joy, and pray and sing, thanking and praising God. The sight of the land makes the people on board the ship, especially the sick and the half dead, alive again, so that their hearts leap within them; they shout and rejoice, and are content to bear their misery in patience, in the hope that they may soon reach the land in safety. But alas! 10 When the ships have landed at Philadelphia after their long voyage, no one is permitted to leave them except those who pay for their passage or can give good security; the others, who cannot pay, must remain on board the ships till they are purchased, and are released from the ships by their purchasers. The sick always fare the worst, for the healthy are naturally preferred and purchased first; and so the sick and wretched must often remain on board in front of the city for 2 or 3 weeks, and frequently die, whereas many a one, if he could pay his debt and were permitted to leave the ship immediately, might recover and remain alive…11 The sale of human beings in the market on board the ship is carried on thus: Every day Englishmen, Dutchmen and High-German people come from the city of Philadelphia and other places, in part from a great distance, say 20, 30, or 40 hours away, and go on board the newly arrived ship that has brought and offers for sale passengers from Europe, and select among the healthy persons such as they deem suitable for their business, and bargain with them how long they will serve for their passage money, which most of them are still in debt for. When they have come to an agreement, it happens that adult persons bind themselves in writing to serve 3, 4, 5 or 6 years for the amount due by them, according to their age and strength. But very young people, from 10 to 15 years, must serve till they are 21 years old.12 Many parents must sell and trade away their children like so many head of cattle; for if their children take the debt upon themselves, the parents can leave the ship free and unrestrained; but as the parents often do not know where and to what people their children are going, it often happens that such parents and children, after leaving the ship, do not see each other again for many years, perhaps no more in all their lives.13 Work and labor in this new and wild land are very hard and manifold, and many a one who came there in his old age must work very hard to his end for his bread. I will not speak of young people. Work mostly consists in cutting wood, felling oak-trees, rooting out, or as they say there, clearing large tracts of forest. Such forests, being cleared, are then laid out for fields and meadows. From the best hewn wood, fences are made around the new fields; for there all meadows, orchards and fruit-fields, are surrounded and fenced in with planks made of thickly-split wood, laid one above the other, as in zigzag lines, and within such enclosures, horses, cattle, and sheep, are permitted to graze. Our Europeans, who are purchased, must always work hard, for new fields are constantly laid out; and so they learn that stumps of oak-trees are in America certainly as hard as in Germany. In this hot land they fully experience in their own persons what God has imposed on man for his sin and disobedience; for in Genesis we read the words: In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread. Who therefore wishes to earn his bread in a Christian and honest way, and cannot earn it in his fatherland otherwise than by the work of his hands, let him do so in his own country, and not in America; for he will not fare better in America. However hard he may be compelled to work in his fatherland, he will surely find it quite as hard, if not harder, in the new country. Besides, there is not only the long and arduous journey lasting half a year, during which he has to suffer, more than with the hardest work; he has also spent about 200 florins which no one will refund to him. If he has so much money, it will slip out of his hands; if he has it not, he must work his debt off as a slave and poor serf. Therefore let every one stay in his own country and support himself and his family honestly. Besides I say that those who suffer themselves to be persuaded and enticed away by the man-thieves, are very foolish if they believe that roasted pigeons will fly into their mouths in America or Pennsylvania without their working for them.14 How miserably and wretchedly so many thousand German families have fared, 1) since they lost all their cash means in consequence of the long and tedious journey; 2) because many of them died miserably and were thrown into the water; 3) because, on account of their great poverty, most of these families after reaching the land are separated from each other and sold far away from each other, the young and the old. And the saddest of all this is that parents must generally give away their minor children without receiving a compensation for them; inasmuch as such children never see or meet their fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters again, and as many of them are not raised in any Christian faith by the people to whom they are given.Gottlieb Mittelberger, Journey to Pennsylvania in the Year 1750, trans. Carl Theo Eben (Philadelphia, John Jos McVey, 1898), 25–31Mittelberger, G. (2013). Gottlieb Mittelberger, journey to Pennsylvania in the year 1750, trans. Carl Theo Eben (Philadelphia, John Jos McVey, 1898), 25–31. History Matters. Retrieved from Gottlieb Mittelberger, Journey to Pennsylvania in the Year 1750, trans. Carl Theo Eben (Philadelphia, John Jos McVey, 1898), 25–31Day 1According to the author, what conditions did European indentured servants encounter during their travel to America, according to paragraphs one through eight?According to paragraphs ten to twelve, what situations did European indentured servants encounter when they landed in the New World?In what ways, according to paragraph thirteen, did work and life differ in the New World, from life and work in Europe?According to paragraph fourteen, what were the consequences of becoming an indentured servant?What is the author’s purpose for writing this text? Slavery is Moral (1701) John SaffinTo speak a little to the Gentleman’s first Assertion: That none ought to part with their Liberty themselves, or deprive others of it but upon mature consideration; a prudent exception, in which he grants, that upon some consideration a man may be deprived of his Liberty. And then presently in his next Position or Assertion he denies it, viz: It is most certain, that all men as they are the Sons of Adam, are Coheirs, and have equal Right to Liberty, and all other outward Comforts of Life, which he would prove out of Psal. 115:16. The Earth hath he given to the Children of Men. True, but what is all this to the purpose, to prove that all men have equal right to Liberty, and all outward comforts of this life; which Position seems to invert the Order that God hath set in the World, who hath Ordained different degrees and orders of men, some to be High and Honourable, some to be Low and Despicable; some to be Monarchs, Kings, Princes and Governours, Masters and Commanders, others to be Subjects, and to be Commanded; Servants of sundry sorts and degrees, bound to obey; yea, some to be born Slaves, and so to remain during their lives, as hath been proved. Otherwise there would be a mere parity among men, contrary to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12 from the 13 to the 26 verse, where he sets forth (by way of comparison) the different sorts and offices of the Members of the Body, indigitating that they are all of use, but not equal, and of like dignity. So God hath set different Orders and Degrees of Men in the World, both in Church and Common weal. Now, if the Position of parity should be true, it would then follow that the ordinarily Course of Divine Providence of God in the World should be wrong, and unjust, (which we must not date to think, much less to affirm) and all the sacred Rules, Precepts and Commands of the Almighty which he hath given the Son of Men to observe and keep in their respective Places, Orders and Degree, from the Divine Wisdom of the most High, who hath made nothing in vain, but hath Holy Ends in all his Dispensations to the Children of men.In the next place, this worthy Gentleman makes a large Discourse concerning the Utility and Conveniency to keep the one, and inconveniency of the other, respecting white and black Servants, which conduceth most to the welfare and benefit of this Providence: which he concludes to be white men, who are in many respects to be preferred before Blacks; who doubts that? doth it therefore follow that it is altogether unlawful for Christians to buy and keep Negro Servants (for this is the Thesis) but that those that have them ought in Conscience to set them free, and so lose all the money they cost (for we must not live in any known sin) this seems to be his opinion; but it is a Question whether it ever was the Gentleman’s practice? But if he could persuade the General Assembly to make an Act, That all that have Negroes, and do set them free, shall be Reimbursed out of the Publick Treasury, and that there shall be no more Negroes brought into the Country; ’tis probable there would be more of his opinion; yet he would find it a hard task to bring the Country to consent thereto; for then the Negroes must be all sent out of the Country, or else the remedy would be worse than the Disease; and it is to be feared that those Negroes that are free, if there be not some strict course taken with them by Authority, they will be plagued to this County….Our Author doth further proceed to answer some Objections of his own framing, which he supposes some might raise.Object. 1.That these Blackamores are of the Posterity of Cham, and therefore are under the Curse of Slavery.Gen. 9:25-27. The which the Gentleman seems to deny, saying, they were the Seed of Canaan that were Cursed, &c.Ans. Whether they were so or not, we shall not dispute: this may suffice, that not only the seed of Cham or Canaan, but any lawful Captives of other Heathen Nations may be made Bond men as hath been proved.Obj. 2.That the Negroes are brought out of Pagan Countries into places where the Gospel is Preached.To which he Replies, that we must not do Evil that Good may come of it.Ans.To which we answer, That it is no Evil thing to bring them out of their own Heathenish Country,where they may have the Knowledge of the True God, be Converted and Eternally saved.Obj. 3.The Africans have Wars one with another; our Ships bring lawful Captives taken in those Wars.Ans.To which our Author answers Conjecturally, and Doubtfully, for aught we know, that which may or may not be ; which is insignificant, and proves nothing. He also compares the Negroes’ Wars, one Nation with another, with the Wars between Joseph and his Brethren. But where doth he read of any such War? We read indeed of a Domestick Quarrel they had with him, they envied and hated Joseph; but by what is Recorded, he was merely passive and meek as a Lamb. This Gentleman farther adds,That there is not any War but is unjust on side, &c. Be it so, what doth that signify: We read of lawful Captives taken in the Wars, and lawful to be Bought and Sold without contracting the guilt of the Aggressors; for which we have the example of Abraham before quoted; but if we must stay while both parties Warring are in the right, there would be no lawful Captives at all to be Bought; which seems to be ridiculous to imagine, and contrary to the tenour of Scripture, and all Humane Histories on that subject. Obj. 4. Abraham had Servants bought with his Money, and born in his House. Gen. 14:14. To which our worthy Author answers, until the Circumstances of Abraham’s purchase be recorded, no Argument can be drawn from it.Ans. To which we Reply, this is also Dogmatical, and proves nothing. He farther adds, In the mean time Charity Obliges us to conclude, that He knew it was lawful and good. Here the gentleman yields the case; for if we are in Charity bound to believe Abraham’s practice, in buying and keeping Slaves in his house to be lawful and good: then it follows that our Imitation of him in this, his Moral Action, is as warrantable as that of his Faith; who is the Father of all them that believe. Rom. 4:16…And after a Serious Exhortion to us all to Love one another according to the Command of Christ. Math. 5. 43. 44. This worthy Gentlemen concludes with this Assertion, That these Ethopians as Black as they are, seeing they are the Sons and Daughters of the first Adam; the Brethen Sisters of the Second Adam, and the Offspring of God; we ought to treat them with respect agreeable.Ans. We grant it for a certain and undeniable verity, That all Mankind are the Sons and Daughters of Adam, and the Creatures of God: But it doth not therefore follow that we are bound to love and respect all men alike; this under favour we must take leave to deny; we ought in charity, if we see our Neighbour in want, to relieve them in a regular way, but we are not bound to give them so much of our Estates [wealth], as to make them equal with ourselves, because they are our Brethen, the Sons of Adam, no, not our own natural Kinsmen: We are Exhorted to do good unto all, but especialy to them who are of the Household of Faith, Gal. 6.10. And we are to love, honour and respect all men according to the gift of God that is in them: I may love my Servant well, but my Son better; Charity begins at home, it would be a violation of common prudence, and a breach of good manners, to treat a Prince like a Peasant. And this worthy Gentlemen would deem himself much neglected, if we should show him no more Defference than to an ordinary Porter; And therefore these florid expressions, the Sons and Daughters of the first Adam, the Brethren and Sisters of the Second Adam, and the Offspring of God, seem to be missapplied to import and insinuate, that we ought to tender Pagan Negroes with all love, kindness, and equal respect as to the best of men.By all which it doth evidently appear both by Scripture and Reason, the practice of the People of God in all the Ages, both before and after the giving of the Law, and in the times of the Gospel, that there were Bond men, Women and Children commonly kept by holy and good men, and improved in Service; and therefore by the Command of God, Lev. 24;44, and their venerable Example, we may keep Bondmen, and use them in our Service still; yet with all candour, moderation and Christian prudence, according to their state and condition consonant to the Word of God.The Negroes’ CharacterCowardly and cruel are those Blacks Innate, Prone to Revenge, Imp of inveterate hate. He that exasperates them, soon espies Mischief and Murder in their very eyes.Libidious, Decietful, False and Rude,The Spume Issue Ingratuitude.The Premises consider’d, all may tell,How near good Joseph they are parallel.Resouce:John Saffin.(1701). Slavery is Immoral. National Humanities Center. Retrieved from humanitiescenter. org/pds/becomingamer/ideas/text3/slaverychristian.pdf.Day 1What is the purpose of this text, according to the author, and who is the intended audience?In your own words, what is the author referring to when he states, “doth it therefore follow that it is altogether unlawful for Christians to buy and keep Negro Servants (for this is the Thesis) but that those that have them ought in Conscience to set them free, and so lose all the money they cost (for we must not live in any known sin) this seems to be his opinion; but it is a Question whether it ever was the Gentleman’s practice”? Why does the author say, “Whether they were so or not, we shall not dispute: this may suffice, that not only the seed of Cham or Canaan, but any lawful Captives of other Heathen Nations may be made Bond men as hath been proved”?Why does the author use scripture to substantiate slavery?Day 2What is the author’s response to the biblical reference that we are all created equally?What is the author’s conclusion about slavery in relation to Christianity?Using the text to substantiate you answers, what are the author’s beliefs about blacks?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 4Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionWhat impact did indentured servitude and slavery, during the American colonial experience, have on institutions in Europe and Africa?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole.-Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain.-Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)PredatesBerberiscosMoriscosTrajectoryTransatlantic slave tradeIberiaVexingHeinousJudiciousDavid Wheat “Iberian Roots of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1440–1640” (2013)Henry Louis Gates Jr. “Ending the Slavery Blame-Game”(2010) Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.b, 7..12.C.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.bWeek 4 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore the complexity of the slave trade and the impact it had on the European and African economy. It is important to note that, although, people in America associate slave trade with America, slavery had deeper routes that originated in Europe and its’ complex relationship with African leaders. Undoubtedly, both Europeans and Africans benefited from the system of slavery that drove the development of America’s economy.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore ways in which Europe and Africa benefited economically from the institution of slavery in America. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of the complexity and intertwinement of economies.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decode. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Day One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-8 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 9-15 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1- 18 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire reading such as: In what ways did Europe, America, and Africa prosper from the slave trade?Iberian Roots of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1440–1640 by David Wheat1 In its broadest sense, African American history predates the history of the United States, colonial or otherwise; by the time the English colony of Virginia was founded in 1607, Africans and people of African descent had already been present in the Americas for more than a century. Recent estimates suggest that by 1625, approximately 475,000 enslaved Africans had been involuntarily transported to the Spanish Americas and Brazil—more than the number of Africans who disembarked in British North America and the United States during the course of the entire transatlantic slave trade. Though most research on Africans’ involuntary migration to the Americas focuses on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the roots of the transatlantic slave trade are much deeper, stretching back to Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Atlantic Africa, and Latin America during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.2 By 1430, Iberian expansion in the Atlantic was well under way with efforts to colonize Madeira, the Canary Islands, and the Azores. Over the following half century, Portuguese seafarers gradually explored southwards along Africa’s western coast, rounding the Cape of Good Hope in 1488. In western Africa, Spanish ships arrived soon after the Portuguese, leading to competition between the Iberian powers until formal negotiations at the close of the fifteenth century prohibited Spanish exploration and commerce south of the Sahara.3 Following their “discovery” of African populations willing to trade valuable commodities such as gold, ivory, wax, peppers, and grain—and slaves—the Portuguese established trading factories (feitorias) at strategic locations. Some of these outposts were eventually fortified, but unless they had been built on an uninhabited island, their maintenance depended heavily on the goodwill and tolerance of neighboring African societies. Thus while Portuguese activities in some regions were mainly limited to missions of diplomacy and evangelization, major trading factories and bulking centers were established in Arguin, the Cape Verde Islands, Elmina, and S?o Tomé. Fueled by commerce with multiple polities on the African mainland, and the local production of commodities such as textiles, sugar, and cotton, several of these outposts rapidly became Portuguese colonies peopled by Iberians and increasingly, mixed-race Luso-Africans.4 Unlike other areas of western Europe, slavery played a significant role in Iberian society at the dawn of the early modern era. In Lisbon and ?vora, and throughout much of southern Portugal, slaves comprised roughly 10 percent of the population by the mid-1550s. A comparable scenario existed in parts of southern Spain; 44,000 slaves made up nearly 10 percent of the population of the entire archbishopric of Seville in 1565. Rural slave labor in Iberia during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries mainly involved herding livestock, guarding fields and flocks, clearing land, and harvesting and processing crops. Enslaved people also commonly worked as sailors and boatmen on small vessels designed for coastal trade and river traffic. In urban areas, slaves performed a wide range of occupations, laboring as artisans and apprentices, domestic servants, stevedores and porters, construction workers, and street vendors.5 In early modern Iberia, slavery was not exclusively associated with racial categories as it would be in the colonial Americas. All available sources indicate that sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants—often referred to as “blacks”—constituted a significant segment of Iberia’s slave populations during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One recent study suggests that as many as 350,000 to 400,000 African captives may have been transported to Spain and Portugal during the two centuries from 1440 to 1640. However, during the era in question, one’s religious background, political loyalties, and geographical origins also played key roles in determining who was eligible to be enslaved. Many enslaved women and men in Iberia were Muslims born in North Africa or the eastern Mediterranean, either captured abroad or purchased as slaves in foreign or local markets. Alongside these moros (“Moors”) and berberiscos were Iberians of Muslim ancestry known as moriscos. Though some enslaved Muslims and moriscos were black, or of mixed racial background, many were described as “white slaves.” Iberia’s slave population also included smaller numbers of captives brought from India and China, as well as native Canary Islanders and indigenous peoples from the Americas.6 Given the prominence of sub-Saharan Africans among other ethnic minorities in early modern Spain and Portugal, and the significant role of slavery in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Iberian society, it should come as no surprise that Africans and people of African descent participated in Iberian efforts to colonize the Americas from the very beginning. Spanish colonization in the Americas began shortly after Columbus’s initial voyage to the Caribbean in 1492–1493. During his fourth voyage to the region a decade later, the crew of one of Columbus’s ships included a black cabin boy named Diego. In similar fashion, the Portuguese became interested in Brazil after Cabral’s voyage in 1500–1501. When Cabral first landed in Brazil, he sent a black sailor ashore to attempt to communicate with indigenous people. During the 1510s, Portuguese vessels trading for brazilwood along the Brazilian coast likewise employed small numbers of black mariners, both free and enslaved.7 Though North African, eastern Mediterranean, and morisco slaves were common in Iberia, the Spanish Crown repeatedly prohibited their transportation to the Americas for fear of spreading Islam to the fledgling colonies. Conversely, by the close of the 1530s, black slaves had accompanied Spanish expeditions of exploration and conquest throughout the Americas. Well-known “conquistadors” such as Juan Ponce de León, Hernán Cortés, Pedro de Alvarado, Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón, Hernando de Soto, Francisco Pizarro and others all relied on enslaved black auxiliaries to transport heavy burdens and herd livestock. In some instances, armed black slaves and free people of color are known to have fought alongside Spanish forces—the most famous example being the “black conquistador” Juan Garrido, an African-born former slave who participated in the conquests of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Mexico, and the exploration of Florida.8 Within the first few decades of contact with Iberians and Africans, Native populations declined throughout the Americas, most drastically in the Caribbean. In response, the Spanish Crown instituted policies designed to protect Amerindians from mistreatment and enslavement, most notably the “New Laws” of 1542, and the new repartimiento (labor distribution) system instituted in 1549. Though some loopholes remained, and the exploitation of indigenous peoples persisted in various other forms, by the middle of the sixteenth century most slaves in the Spanish Americas originated in Upper Guinea, typically arriving via the Cape Verde Islands. These enslaved women, men, and children were joined by others from Lower Guinea and West Central Africa who were first collected in S?o Tomé, then transported to the Americas.9 The first slave trade voyage known to have sailed directly from Africa to the Americas arrived in Santo Domingo, on the island Espa?ola (Hispaniola), in 1525. The ship’s cargo consisted of nearly 200 captives purchased in S?o Tomé. Several additional slave ships disembarked enslaved Africans in Espa?ola, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica during the late 1520s and 1530s. Taxes paid by slave merchants in Spain suggest that an average of about 1,200 African captives were transported to the Americas each year from the mid-1540s to 1580, though the actual numbers may have been considerably higher. While some enslaved Africans were sent to labor in mines, and in some cases sugar plantations, others were employed in traditional occupations performed by slaves in Iberia, such as street vending, domestic service, artisanal labor, construction, maritime labor, agriculture, and animal husbandry.10 Beginning in the 1560s, Spain’s legendary Indies fleets departed yearly for the Americas following a fixed trajectory; a few galleons regularly stopped in the Cape Verde Islands, and possibly S?o Tomé, to purchase captives en route to Americas. When “the fleet” arrived in Veracruz, enslaved Africans were disembarked along with merchandise destined for Mexico City or elsewhere in the viceroyalty of New Spain (colonial Mexico). The same applied to “the galleons” arriving at the Cartagena de Indias / Nombre de Dios / Portobelo port complex known as “Tierra Firme.” From the isthmus of Panama, many African captives were subsequently transported to the viceroyalty of Peru. By the 1590s, Lima’s black population numbered from 4,000 to 7,000. During the mid-seventeenth century, travelers visiting the viceroyalties of Peru and New Spain estimated that each contained up to 60,000 black inhabitants, if not more.11 The earliest known direct slave trade voyages to Brazil disembarked captives in Pernambuco in 1574 and 1575. Brazil’s indigenous populations were not decimated to the same degree as those of the Caribbean, and the outright capture and enslavement of Brazil’s native populations continued well into the eighteenth century. Despite this continued reliance on forced native labor, enslaved Africans played increasingly important social and economic roles in colonial Brazil, beginning in the second half of the sixteenth century. Black slaves were commonly employed in sugar cultivation, as well as in other forms of agriculture and urban occupations. By the century’s end, Indian slaves outnumbered Africans in some of Brazilian captaincies, but this situation was reversed in others. Bahia’s population during the mid-1580s included only 3,000 to 4,000 Africans; meanwhile, various sources suggest that during the same period, anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 black slaves lived in the captaincy of Pernambuco.12 The union of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns during the years 1580 to 1640 signaled the rise of a new era in the transatlantic slave trade. While the change may have been less noticeable in Brazilian ports such as Pernambuco, Salvador da Bahia, and Rio de Janeiro, after 1580 the Spanish Americas were directly connected to Portuguese-controlled slaving hubs in Atlantic Africa for the first time, resulting in unprecedented growth in the scale and volume of slave traffic to Spain’s American colonies. Another factor contributing to an increase in the slave trade’s volume during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was the rise of Luanda, capital of the Portuguese colony of Angola. Within just a few decades of its founding in 1575, Luanda and its hinterlands became increasingly important within the overall slave trade, exporting thousands upon thousands of West Central Africans to the Americas.13 The years from 1595 to 1640 are perhaps best known as the period of the “Portuguese asientos.” Several powerful Portuguese men, including at one point the governor of Angola, signed a series of asientos or contracts with the Spanish Crown stipulating that certain numbers of Africans would be supplied to the Americas during certain years. For example, Pedro Gomez Reinel agreed to be responsible for arranging the transportation of 4,250 enslaved Africans to the Spanish Americas every year for a period of six years, beginning in 1595.14 Estimates of the total volume of the transatlantic slave trade during this forty-five-year-period range from 200,000 to 300,000 enslaved Africans landed in the Spanish Americas. The differences in estimates proposed thus far may largely be explained by uncertainties regarding the frequency of contraband slave trading that, by all accounts, was endemic and widespread. In order to evade customs taxes, slave ship crews frequently concealed captives, or disembarked extra captives in secondary ports. Other voyages were completely unregistered; we know of their existence only because Spanish American officials apprehended some slave ships’ crew members, who typically claimed to have been “blown off course” while bound for some other destination, or “pursued by enemies” and “forced to land.”15 From 1595 to 1640, the transatlantic slave trade to the Spanish Americas was largely concentrated in just three American ports: Cartagena de Indias, Veracruz, and Buenos Aires. This concentration increased in 1604, when in an effort to limit contraband, the Crown decreed that transatlantic slave ships were authorized to disembark captives in either Cartagena or Veracruz, but nowhere else (though some exceptions were also made for Buenos Aires several years later). Port entry records for the Spanish Americas’ most important slaving hub provide a glimpse of the slave trade’s intensity at the beginning of this period: during the nine years from 1593 to 1601, nearly 150 slave ships arrived in Cartagena alone, disembarking approximately 26,000 enslaved Africans in the city’s port.16 Though historians have only recently begun to pay serious attention to the large-scale interactions between Iberia, Atlantic Africa, and the Americas between 1440 and 1640, it is clear that the slaving networks established during this era constituted, in the words of Antonio de Almeida Mendes, “the foundations of the system.” To some extent, the massive transatlantic slave trades of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries may be portrayed quite simply as new iterations, or adaptations, of earlier Iberian models. Even the history of Africans’ forced migration to English-speaking North America, from the disembarkation of small numbers of captives in Virginia during the early 1600s, to the arrival of the slave ship Clotilda in Mobile in 1860, may be seen as one more extension of an older, deeper process rooted in the Iberian Atlantic world.David Wheat,?an assistant professor of Latin American and Caribbean History at Michigan State University, is working on a book project entitled Atlantic Africa & the Spanish Caribbean, 1570–1640.Resource:Wheat, D, (2013). Iberian Roots of the transatlantic slave trade, 1440–1640. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1In what way did slavery play a role in Iberian economics?According to the text, how did Iberians substantiate the enslavement of people to support their economic system?Why was there a need, according to the text, to institutionalize slavery in the New World?In what ways did laws affect the institution of slavery in America?Day 2Citing evidence from the text, in what way did Europeans benefit from the institution of slavery in the New World?In what way was the slave trade affected by political unities?What does the author mean when he states, “Though historians have only recently begun to pay serious attention to the large-scale interactions between Iberia, Atlantic Africa, and the Americas between 1440 and 1640, it is clear that the slaving networks established during this era constituted, in the words of Antonio de Almeida Mendes, ‘the foundations of the system’”?Why according to the text, is the actual number of captured and enslaved Africans so elusive?Ending the Slavery Blame-Game By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.1 THANKS to an unlikely confluence of history and genetics — the fact that he is African-American and president — Barack Obama has a unique opportunity to reshape the debate over one of the most contentious issues of America’s racial legacy: reparations, the idea that the descendants of American slaves should receive compensation for their ancestors’ unpaid labor and bondage. 2 There are many thorny issues to resolve before we can arrive at a judicious (if symbolic) gesture to match such a sustained, heinous crime. Perhaps the most vexing is how to parcel out blame to those directly involved in the capture and sale of human beings for immense economic gain.3 While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others. 4 For centuries, Europeans in Africa kept close to their military and trading posts on the coast. Exploration of the interior, home to the bulk of Africans sold into bondage at the height of the slave trade, came only during the colonial conquests, which is why Henry Morton Stanley’s pursuit of Dr. David Livingstone in 1871 made for such compelling press: he was going where no (white) man had gone before. 5 How did slaves make it to these coastal forts? The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.6 Advocates of reparations for the descendants of those slaves generally ignore this untidy problem of the significant role that Africans played in the trade, choosing to believe the romanticized version that our ancestors were all kidnapped unawares by evil white men, like Kunta Kinte was in “Roots.” The truth, however, is much more complex: slavery was a business, highly organized and lucrative for European buyers and African sellers alike. 7 The African role in the slave trade was fully understood and openly acknowledged by many African-Americans even before the Civil War. For Frederick Douglass, it was an argument against repatriation schemes for the freed slaves. “The savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia,” he warned. “We are, therefore, less inclined to go to Africa to work against the slave trade than to stay here to work against it.” 8 To be sure, the African role in the slave trade was greatly reduced after 1807, when abolitionists, first in Britain and then, a year later, in the United States, succeeded in banning the importation of slaves. Meanwhile, slaves continued to be bought and sold within the United States, and slavery as an institution would not be abolished until 1865. But the culpability of American plantation owners neither erases nor supplants that of the African slavers. In recent years, some African leaders have become more comfortable discussing this complicated past than African-Americans tend to be. 9 In 1999, for instance, President Mathieu Kerekou of Benin astonished an all-black congregation in Baltimore by falling to his knees and begging African-Americans’ forgiveness for the “shameful” and “abominable” role Africans played in the trade. Other African leaders, including Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, followed Mr. Kerekou’s bold example. 10 Our new understanding of the scope of African involvement in the slave trade is not historical guesswork. Thanks to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, directed by the historian David Eltis of Emory University, we now know the ports from which more than 450,000 of our African ancestors were shipped out to what is now the United States (the database has records of 12.5 million people shipped to all parts of the New World from 1514 to 1866). About 16 percent of United States slaves came from eastern Nigeria, while 24 percent came from the Congo and Angola. 11 Through the work of Professors Thornton and Heywood, we also know that the victims of the slave trade were predominantly members of as few as 50 ethnic groups. This data, along with the tracing of blacks’ ancestry through DNA tests, is giving us a fuller understanding of the identities of both the victims and the facilitators of the African slave trade. 12 For many African-Americans, these facts can be difficult to accept. Excuses run the gamut, from “Africans didn’t know how harsh slavery in America was” and “Slavery in Africa was, by comparison, humane” or, in a bizarre version of “The devil made me do it,” “Africans were driven to this only by the unprecedented profits offered by greedy European countries.” 13 But the sad truth is that the conquest and capture of Africans and their sale to Europeans was one of the main sources of foreign exchange for several African kingdoms for a very long time. Slaves were the main export of the kingdom of Kongo; the Asante Empire in Ghana exported slaves and used the profits to import gold. Queen Njinga, the brilliant 17th-century monarch of the Mbundu, waged wars of resistance against the Portuguese but also conquered polities as far as 500 miles inland and sold her captives to the Portuguese. When Njinga converted to Christianity, she sold African traditional religious leaders into slavery, claiming they had violated her new Christian precepts. 14 Did these Africans know how harsh slavery was in the New World? Actually, many elite Africans visited Europe in that era, and they did so on slave ships following the prevailing winds through the New World. For example, when Antonio Manuel, Kongo’s ambassador to the Vatican, went to Europe in 1604, he first stopped in Bahia, Brazil, where he arranged to free a countryman who had been wrongfully enslaved. 15 African monarchs also sent their children along these same slave routes to be educated in Europe. And there were thousands of former slaves who returned to settle Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Middle Passage, in other words, was sometimes a two-way street. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to claim that Africans were ignorant or innocent. 16 Given this remarkably messy history, the problem with reparations may not be so much whether they are a good idea or deciding who would get them; the larger question just might be from whom they would be extracted. 17 So how could President Obama untangle the knot? In David Remnick’s new book “The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,” one of the president’s former students at the University of Chicago comments on Mr. Obama’s mixed feelings about the reparations movement: “He told us what he thought about reparations. He agreed entirely with the theory of reparations. But in practice he didn’t think it was really workable.” 18 About the practicalities, Professor Obama may have been more right than he knew. Fortunately, in President Obama, the child of an African and an American, we finally have a leader who is uniquely positioned to bridge the great reparations divide. He is uniquely placed to publicly attribute responsibility and culpability where they truly belong, to white people and black people, on both sides of the Atlantic, complicit alike in one of the greatest evils in the history of civilization. And reaching that understanding is a vital precursor to any just and lasting agreement on the divisive issue of slavery reparations. Henry Louis Gates Jr., a professor at Harvard, is the author of the forthcoming “Faces of America” and “Tradition and the Black Atlantic.” Gates, H. L. Jr. (April 23, 2010). Ending the slave blame-game. New York Times (A27). Retrieved from does the author mean when he states, “There are many thorny issues to resolve before we can arrive at a judicious (if symbolic) gesture to match such a sustained, heinous crime. Perhaps the most vexing is how to parcel out blame to those directly involved in the capture and sale of human beings for immense economic gain”?What was the role of Africans in European economic gain from the slave trade, according to the author, and how did Africa’s economy benefit from the slave trade? 3. What was Gates’ intent in quoting Douglas, according to the text? 4. What did Douglas mean when he stated, “The savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia”? 5. What was the author referencing when he wrote, “The Middle Passage, in other words, was sometimes a two-way street. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to claim that Africans were ignorant or innocent”?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 5Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionHow were Native Americans, primarily, affected by the development of the colonies?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.- Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)ObligatedEmergedMarkedlyEnmitySmallpoxMeaslesMumpsChicken PoxBubonic plaguehemorrhagic feversDeridedSurfeitedHindranceIdleDaniel K. Richter “Native American Discoveries of Europe” (2011)John Eliot “A Puritan Missionary Account of Indians” (1646)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.b, 6.12.12.D.1.aColonization and Settlement (1585-1763)Week 5 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore how Native Americans were affected by the development of the colonies. The interaction between Native Americans and Europeans had lasting effects, which are undeniable and were caused by false expectations, from both sides. The colonizers could not understand Native American traditions, rich culture, religion, and their oneness with nature. They considered them ignorant heathens who needed to be converted. The Native Americans were intrigued by the ingenuity of Europeans, in regards to technology and, at first, presumed that Europeans were God sent. Native Americans strengths were, inevitably, weakened by disease, loss of political structures, loss of land, culture, and influence of Christianity. Some historians argue, rightly, that the European sense of superiority and weaponry, led to the genocide of Native Americans. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the how Native Americans were affected by European colonization. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how European notions of superiority affected Native Americans.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decode. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Day One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-15 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-5 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 6-18 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire reading such as: Why were Native Americans perceived as savages that needed to be conquered?Native American Discoveries of Europe by Daniel K. Richter1 Native Americans discovered Europe at the same time Europeans discovered America. As far as we know, no birch bark canoes caught the gulf stream to Glasgow, and no Native American conquistadores planted flags at Florence, but just as Europeans struggled to fit evidence of “new worlds” into their frames of understanding, so too did Native North Americans in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries2 A story recorded by French Jesuit missionary Paul Le Jeune in 1633 suggests how the process worked. According to Le Jeune, an Innu (Montagnais) man whose people lived near the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence . . has told us that his grandmother used to take pleasure in relating to him the astonishment of the Natives, when they saw for the first time a French ship arrived upon their shores. They thought it was a moving Island; they did not know what to say of the great sails which made it go; their astonishment was redoubled in seeing a number of men on deck. The women at once began to prepare houses for them, as is their custom when new guests arrive, and four canoes of Natives ventured to board these vessels. They invited the Frenchmen to come into the houses which had been made ready for them, but neither side understood the other. They were given a barrel of bread or biscuit. Having brought it on shore they examined it; and finding no taste in it, threw it into the water. . . . [The Innu] said the Frenchmen drank blood and ate wood, thus naming the wine and the biscuits.3 Now as they were unable to understand to what nation our people belonged, they gave them the name which has since always clung to the French, ouemichtigouchiou; that is to say, a man who works in wood, or who is in a canoe or vessel of wood.[1]4 The story probably conflates several historical events and casts them metaphorically rather than literally. Yet it nicely summarizes the process of discovery as at least some seventeenth-century Native people understood it: initial puzzlement led to a guarded welcome, an exchange of goods, and the bestowal of a name.5 There is nothing puzzling about the puzzlement, but why should the mysterious arrival of beings from a floating island require the women of the story “to prepare houses for them, as is their custom when new guests arrive”? For the Innu, as for most eastern Native Americans, a vast range of “persons” comprised the universe, and only a small minority were humans like us; most were what anthropologists call “other-than-human persons.” These included such elemental forces as the sun, the rain, the four winds, and the earth itself, along with animals, plants, streams, mountains, and any number of other actors. Such persons could affect humans’ lives in a variety of visible and invisible ways. The results could be good or ill, or, better put, either advantageous or disadvantageous—not so much because other-than-human persons were inherently good or evil but simply because they were persons who had their own purposes and who might or might not find themselves obligated to work with others. Thus the sun might either encourage other-than-human food plants to grow, or burn them out. Those plants in turn might bear fruit that human persons could eat, or refuse to do so. Similarly, deer and other animals might voluntarily give themselves up to be eaten, or make themselves scarce.6 Blurring the line between such clearly other-than-human persons and human persons were, in endless cultural variety, gods with complicated personalities, ancestral progenitors who descended from the sky or emerged from the earth, and culture heroes or trickster figures who might intervene in history at any time. Another kind of blurring involved persons whose languages, customs, or behavior differed markedly from one’s own. The distinction is implied by the word Innu, which—like Anishinaabeg (used in the upper Great Lakes region), Lenape (in the Delaware Valley), and similar terms in countless Native languages—roughly translates as “human beings” or “real people,” and applied only to those within the circle of kin and other relationships that defined the boundaries of a tribal community. Whatever the case, human persons had to ally themselves with both human and, especially, other-than-human persons to channel their power in productive ways.7 Europeans assumed a role similar to that of those other-than-human persons in this complex world, hence the welcome prepared by the women in Le Jeune’s story. Whoever the persons who arrived on the floating island were, it was far preferable to ally with them than to risk their hostility or, perhaps worse, their making common cause with one’s enemies. Alliances were supposed to be marked by reciprocity, by exchanges of goods, labor, or other mutually advantageous benefits. Such transactions were seldom perfectly symmetrical; instead they left subordinates obligated to chiefs, elders, and powerful other-than-human persons who provided more than could be immediately returned. Often these relationships of unbalanced reciprocity were symbolized by particular material artifacts, gifts that physically demonstrated connections and obligations. Chiefs, for instance, distributed rare shell beads or other items of adornment to their followers, items that they in turn had received from other chiefs and that thus demonstrated far-flung powerful alliances. Rare items whose barely understood origins lay hundreds of miles away—shells, minerals, and especially copper—seem to have been considered gifts from, and thus signs of alliance with, powerful other-than-human persons who lived underground or underwater. Whatever the case, exchanges of goods were signs of alliance among persons; lack of such exchange was a sign of enmity.8 Thus, the curious things the European newcomers brought were central to the story that Le Jeune heard. The people in the story rejected the gift of inedible sea biscuits; hard as rocks after a long voyage, they must indeed have seemed to be blocks of wood. Meanwhile, the story deems the wine intended to wash the biscuit down not just tasteless but vile. “Frenchmen drank blood and ate wood,” observed the storyteller (who, by the way, was familiar enough with Le Jeune’s religion to know about the Roman Catholic Eucharist and its associations with bread, wine, and blood).9 Such gifts were not exactly designed to seal a firm alliance. Nonetheless, the Frenchmen received a name, which placed them in the universe of persons and made them comprehensible as a sort of human persons: “ouemichtigouchiou; that is to say, a man who works in wood, or who is in a canoe or vessel of wood.” Throughout eastern North America, Native people assigned Europeans similar identities, derived from technology and exotic material goods. In southern New England, according to Roger Williams, Native people called the English “Cháuquaquock, that is, Knive-men.” In the Mohawk country of today’s upstate New York, Europeans in general were known as asseroni or “axe-makers,” and Dutch people in particular as kristoni, which means “I am a metal maker.” In what the English called “Virginia” and what its Native inhabitants called Tsenacommacah (the densely peopled land), Tassantasses, or “strangers,” was the preferred label, yet a song sung by warriors referred to the Jamestown colonists’ first leader, Christopher Newport, as “Captain Newport [who] brought them Copper.”[2]10 Copper, axes, knives, cloth, and the technologies that produced them were the most important aspect of Native peoples’ discovery of Europe, and the most important reason that Native leaders persistently sought alliances with Europeans, untrustworthy as those who ate wood and blood might be. Copper kettles, iron cutting implements, woolen textiles, and other articles from a world new to Americans soon proved their superiority to earthenware pottery, stone tools, and fur robes. Perhaps more importantly, arrowheads fashioned from scrap copper and, later, firearms purchased from traders spawned Native American arms races that required people to ally with Europeans or succumb to those with access to superior weapons. It is little wonder then, that rumors of the marvels to be had in exchange for beaver pelts and other furs apparently preceded the axe-makers wherever they went; a constant theme in European accounts of first explorations of bays and rivers is the appearance of canoe-loads of people waving beaver pelts they desired to trade. “The Beaver does everything perfectly well,” a Native man explained to Le Jeune. “It makes kettles, hatchets, swords, knives, bread; and, in short, it makes everything.”[3]11 The beaver, the deerskin, the corn, or whatever else could be traded for European goods could also increase the political power of Native leaders and their communities in a system where exotic material goods embodied the strength that came from alliance with their source. Two stories, one from what the French called Canada and the other from Tsenacommacah (present-day Virginia), provide some insight into the dynamics at work. In 1636, an Algonquin chief announced to a group of Wendats (Hurons) who were reluctant to join him in a military campaign “that his body was hatchets; he meant that the preservation of his person and of his Nation was the preservation of the hatchets, the kettles, and all the trade of the French, for the Hurons.” Indeed, he claimed that he was so much “master of the French” that he could make them “all recross the sea.”4 Europeans made the hatchets, but the power flowed through him.12 A quarter-century earlier, Powhatan, paramount chief of Tsennacommacah, had repeatedly expressed a similar idea. One example among many comes from 1614, shortly after Powhatan’s daughter Pocahontas had married Englishman John Rolfe. Virginia Governor Thomas Dale dispatched colonist Ralph Hamor to try to convince Powhatan to give another daughter to the English. The Native leader refused. Among his many complaints was that gifts Hamor had brought him—“two large pieces of copper, five strings of white and blue beads, five wooden combs, ten fish-hooks, and a pair of knives”—were “not so ample . . . as formerly Captaine Newport”[4] had given him. To clarify what he expected, Powhatan “caused to be fetched a great glass of sack, some three quarts or better, which Captain Newport had given him six or seven years since, carefully preserved by him, not much above a pint in all this time spent.” To each of the Englishmen in Hamor’s party he dispensed “in a great oyster shell some three spoonfuls” of the fortifed wine and then instructed Hamor to tell Dale. . to send him these particular, Ten pieces of copper, a shaving knife, an iron frow to cleave boards, a grinding stone, not so big but four or five men may carry it, which would be big enough for his use, two bone combs . . . , an hundred fish-hooks or if he could spare it, rather a fishing seine, and a cat, and a dog.13 Powhatan insisted that Hamor repeat each item and, the Englishman said, “yet still doubtful that I might forget any of them, he bade me write them down in such a Table book as he showed me, which was a very fair one.” Like the bottle of sack and like the axes the later Algonquin chief compared himself to, possession of the blank notebook (which might or might not have come from Newport and which Hamor was not allowed to mark) ratified Powhatan’s power over the English in the eyes of his Native allies and rivals. “He told me,” said Hamor, “it did him much good to show it to strangers which came unto him.”[5]14 For at least two reasons, these displays of power lasted little longer than the first generation of discovery. Europeans quickly saturated the market with their goods. Once substantial numbers of Europeans arrived in any given region, it quickly became impossible for a single chief to control access to goods now sold by the barrel to all comers. As early as January 1608—only a few months after the establishment of Jamestown—John Smith complained that ordinary colonists and visiting sailors were trading so much copper to ordinary Indians that corn and furs “could not be had for a pound of copper, which before was sold for an ounce.” The threat that such wide-scale democratic trade presented to Native political structures helps explain the long list of exotica Powhatan sought to extract from Hamor to demonstrate his power; mere copper and axes no longer served the purpose15 Yet a far greater threat to Native political structures—indeed, to the entire fabric of Native communities—came from an aspect of the discovery of Europe that no chief, and no colonist, could control. Before communities could fully assimilate their discovery of Europeans and their goods, viral diseases that the newcomers inadvertently brought with them swept through Native America. Smallpox was the greatest of these killers, but measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenzas in their ever-evolving forms were nearly as deadly. Bubonic plague and hemorrhagic fevers similar to Ebola might also have been part of the gruesome mix.16 As early as 1585, at Roanoke on the Outer Banks of today’s North Carolina, English colonists reported that Native “people began to die very fast, and many in short space” after the English colonists visited their villages. “In some towns about twenty, in some forty, in some sixty, and in one six score” perished.[6] Similarly, in 1616 a French missionary said that the Native people of Acadia “often complain that, since the French mingle with and carry on trade with them, they are dying fast, and the population is thinning out.”[7] A year later, what one English colonist described as “a great mortality” struck both Jamestown and Powhatan’s people; its impact was “far greater among the Indians,”[8] who endured repeated bouts over a three-year stretch. There is no direct evidence, but Powhatan himself, who died in 1618, may have been one of the victims. During the same period, an unidentified ailment struck much of the coast of New England. Perhaps the worst episode of all occurred between 1633 and 1641, when a pandemic of smallpox struck New England, the St. Lawrence Valley, the Great Lakes region, and the continental interior at least as far south as Chesapeake Bay and as far west as the Appalachians. A Dutch chronicler was likely not exaggerating when he wrote in 1650 that “the Indians . . . affirm, that before the arrival of the Christians, and before the small pox broke out amongst them, they were ten times as numerous as they now are.”[9]17 Le Jeune heard the Innu story about the first arrival of the French in 1633 on the eve of the great smallpox epidemic. The image of persons who “drank blood and ate wood” thus takes on a prophetic tone. For Native people, the discovery of Europe was a discovery of death on an unimaginable scale and of a struggle for cultural survival that continues to this day.[1] Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed., The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610–1791 (Cleveland, 1896-1901), 5:119–121. In all quotations, spelling and punctuation has been modernized.[2] William Strachey, Lewis Wright and Virginia Freund, eds., The Historie of Travell into Virginia Britania (1612) (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1953), 85–86.[3] Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, 6: 295–97.[4] Thwaites, 10:75.[5] Raphe Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia, and the Success of the Affaires There till the 18 of June, 1614 (London, 1615), 41–45.[6] Thomas Harriot, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia (Frankfort-am-Main, 1590), 24–30.[7] Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, 3:103.[8] Quoted in Helen C. Roundtree, Pocahontas’s People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), 64.[9] Adrian van der Donck, Description of the Conflict and Commerce: The Founding of New Netherland, trans. Jeremiah Johnson (New York: New-York Historical Society Collections, 2d ser.), 1 (1841): 183.Daniel Richter is the Roy F. and Jeannette P. Nichols Professor of American History and the Richard S. Dunn Director of the McNeil Center for Early American Studies. His most recent publication is Before the Revolution: America’s Ancient Pasts (2011).Reference:Richter, D. (2011). Native American discoveries of Europe.Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1In what ways, according to the text, did Native American belief influence their interaction with European colonizers?According to the text, why were Native Americans forced to make alliances with Europeans?In what ways did massive colonization affect the political structures of Native Americans, according to the text?What is the author referencing when he states, “For Native people, the discovery of Europe was a discovery of death on an unimaginable scale and of a struggle for cultural survival that continues to this day”?A Puritain Missionary’s Account of Indians (1646) John EliotA Puritain Missionary’s Account of Indians (1646)23… Methinks now that it is with the Indians, as it was with our New English ground when we first came over, there was scarce any man that would believe that English grain would grow or that the plow could do any good in this woody and rocky soil…. so we have thought of our Indian people and therefore have been discouraged to put plow to such dry and rocky ground, but God having begun thus with some few, it may be they are better soil for the Gospel than we can think. I confess I think no great good will be done till they be more civilized, but why may not God begin with some few to awaken others by degrees? Nor do I expect any great good will be wrought by the English (leaving secrets to God) although the English surely begin and lay the first stones of Christ’s kingdom and temple amongst them, because God is wont ordinarily to convert nations and people by some of their own countrymen who are nearest to them and can best speak and most of all pity their brethren and countrymen. But yet if the least beginnings be made by the conversion of two or three it is worth all our time and travails and cause of much thankfulness for such seeds, although no great harvest should immediately appear.The obervations I have gathered by conversing with them are such as these:That none of them… derided God’s messenger: Woe unto those English that are grown bold to do that which Indians will not- heathens dare not.That there is a need of learning in ministers who preach to /Indians, much more [than] to Englishmen and gracious Christians, for these had sundry philosophical questions which some knowledge of the arts must help to give answer to; and without which these would not have been satisfied. Worse than Indian ignorance has blinded their eyes that renounce learning as an enemy to gospel ministries.That there is no necessity of extraordinary gifts nor miraculous signs always to convert heathens… for we see the Spirit of God working mightily upon the hearts of these natives in an ordinary way, and I hope will, they being but a remnant, the Lord using to show mercy to the remnant. For there be but few that are left alive from the plague and pox, which God sent into those parts; and , if one or two can understand, they usually talk of it as we do of news- it flies suddenly far and near, and truth scattered will rise in time, for ought we know.If Englishmen begin to despise the preaching of faith and repentance and humiliation for sin, yet the poor heathens will be glad of it and it shall do good to them; for so they are and so it begins to do. The Lord grant that the foundations of our English woe be not laid in the ruin and contempt of those fundamental doctrines of faith, repentance, humiliation for sin, etc., but rather relishing the novelties and dreams of such men as are surfeited with the ordinary food of the Gospel of Christ. Indians shall weep to hear faith and repentance preached, when Englishmen shall mourn, too late, that are weary of such truths.That the deepest estrangements of man from God is no hindrance to His grace nor to the spirit of grace; for what nation or people ever so deeply degenerated since Adam’s fall as these Indians, and yet the Spirit of God is working upon them?...We have cause to be very thankful to God who has moved the heats of Generall Court to purchase so much land for them to make their town in which the Indians are much taken with. And it is so somewhat observable that, while the court were considering where to lay out their towns, the Indians (not knowing of anything) were about that time consulting about laws for themselves, and their company who sit down with Waaubon [a local Christain Indian leader]. There were ten of them; two of them are forgotten.Their laws were these:That if any man be idle a week, at most a fortnight, he shall pay 5s [shillings].If any unmarried man shall lie with a young woman unmarried, he shall pay 200s.If any man shall beat his wife, his hands shall be tied behind him and [he shall be] carried to the place of justice to be severely punished?Every young man, if not another’s servant and if unmarried, he shall be complled to set up a wigmam and plant for himself, and not live shifting up and down to other wig,ans.If any woman shall not have her hair tied upbut hang loose or be cut as men’s hair, she shall pay 5s.If any woman shall go with naked breasts, [she] shall pay 2s. 6d [2 shilling 6 pence].All those men that wear longlocks shall pay 5s.If any shall kill their lice between their teeth, they shall pay 5s. This law, tough ridiculous to English ears, yet tends to preserve cleanliness among Indians.It is wonderful in our eyes to understand these two honest Indians [helpers of Eliot] what prayers Waaubon and the rest of them use to make, for he that preaches to them professes he never yet used any of their words in his prayers, from whom otherwise it might be thought that they had learned them by rote. One is this:Amanamen Hehovah tahassen metagh.(Take away Lord my stony heary.)Another:Checheson Jehovah kekowhogkew.(Wash Lord my soul.)Another:(Lord lead me, when Idies, to heaven.)These are but a taste. They have many more, and these more enlarged than thus expressed, yet what are these but the sprinkling of the spirit and blood of Christ Jesus in their hearts?And it is no small matter that such dry, barren, and long-accursed ground should yield such kind of increase in so small a time. I would not readily commend a fair day before night, nor promise much of such kind beginnings, in all persons, nor yet in all of these, for we know that profession of very many is but a mere paint, and their best graces nothingbut mere flashes and pangs, which are suddenly kindled and soon go out and are extinct again. Yet God, does not usually send Hid plow and seed-man to a place but there is at least some little piece of good ground, althoughthree to one be naught. And methinks the Lord Jesus would have made so fit a key for their locks, unless He had intended to open some of their doors, and so to make way for His coming in. He that God has reaised up and enabled to preach unto them is a man (you know) of a most sweet, humble, loving, gracious, and enlarged spirit, whom God hath blessed, and surely will still delight and do good by.Resource:Eliot, John. (1646). Day breaking, if not the sun-rising, of the gospel with Indians in New-England. Massachusetts Historical Society Collections (3). Retrieved from 1What does the author mean when he states, “So we have thought of our Indian people, and, therefore, have been discouraged to put plow to such dry and rocky ground, but God, having begun thus with some few, it may be they are better soil for the gospel that we think”?According to the text, what does the author propose is God’s will and purpose for the Native Americans and Europeans?What assertions does the author make about Native Americans and their acceptance of Christianity?What does the author believe is causing the death of Native Americans, using evidence from the text?Day 2What is the author referencing when he states, “Indians shall weep to hear faith and repentance preached, when Englishmen shall mourn, too late, that are weary of such thing”?What is the irony in the author’s statement, “We have cause to be very thankful to God who has moved the hearts of the General Court to purchase so much land for them to make their town in which the Indians are much taken with”?In what ways, according to the text, have Europeans influenced Native American’s way of life?What is the author referencing when he states, “And it is no small matter that such dry, barren, and long-accursed ground should yield such increase in so small time”?What does the author mean when he wrote, “I would not readily commend a fair day before night, nor promise much of such kind of beginnings, in all persons, nor yet in all of these, we know the profession of very many is but a mere paint, and their best graces nothing but mere flashes and pangs, which are suddenly kindled and as soon go out and are extinct again”? Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 6Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent did reform movements, which occurred in the eighteenth century, influence the development of the colonies in America?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)RevivalDoctrinalConvertsEpisodicallyTheologianChurnedPietisticIntrospectiveOstentatiouslySchismDeistsArchetypeEpitomizedItinerancyEschewedConnotationsIntriguinglyTumultuousAscribedIncensedAsunderdiscourseJon Butler, “Religion and Eighteenth-Century Revivalism” (2013)Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (1741)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.aColonization and Settlement (1585-1763)Week 6 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore how the religious reforms, during the eighteen century, influenced the American colonies. Although some historians argue that these movements created unification, which led to the Revolutionary war, an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that this movement actually created conflicts within and between colonies. Furthermore, these movements concentrated more on saving souls than politics. It is unconceivable, however, to deny the lasting effects of this revival, because although church and state are separate identities, evidence in core American documents, our money, and the Pledge of Allegiance demonstrate the role that religion played in the development of America. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the role the revival movement played on the development of America. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of the limitations and enduring affects the revival movement had on the development of America. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decode. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-11 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 12- 25 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-10 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: Taking into consideration prominent religious revivalists, like Edwards, what were the limitations and enduring effects of the religious revival movement, which originated in New England’s mainland, on America? Religion and Eighteenth-Century Revivalism by Jon Butler1 Revivals and revivalists seem endemic to the broad sweep of American history—Billy Graham’s 1957 “crusade” appearance at New York City’s Yankee Stadium; Amy Semple McPherson’s theatrical preaching and healing at her Angeles Temple in the 1920s and 1930s; Charles Finney’s “anxious bench” of the 1820s and 1830s; and Jonathan Edwards’s infamous 1741 sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, still a staple in many high school and college American literature courses.2 The revivalists’ calls for spiritual recovery and renewal reveal their concern for religion’s uneven influence in America, even in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century colonies. Massachusetts and Connecticut were founded as havens for a puritanized Protestantism and Pennsylvania as a model for religious toleration. But the remaining colonies, from New York, New Jersey, and Delaware to Virginia and North and South Carolina only occasionally saw religion typify motivation for European emigration or dominate colonial life before the American Revolution.3 The American revival tradition originated in Britain’s eighteenth-century mainland colonies, and some historians have linked them to the American Revolution. But a closer examination suggests that the revivals actually bore little unifying or political force, exhibited strong regional and religious differences, and had no substantial relationship to the Revolution. A few of their features indeed became commonplace in nineteenth- and twentieth-century American revivals, but others proved distinctively colonial and unique to special circumstances in the colonies where revivals emerged and then receded.4 “Revival” had two important meanings when it first appeared in eighteenth-century religious settings. It meant a “born-again” experience that transformed individuals spiritually and personally. The term also sometimes implied that men and women should recover the piety presumably common to their ancestors. Both have been standard features of religious revivals from the eighteenth century to the present.5 Many modern studies of colonial American revivalism focus on New England and homogenize the religious revivals of the period with “The Great Awakening,” a term not invented until the 1840s. In fact, the eighteenth-century revivals emerged in different colonies under substantially different circumstances, never achieved the consistency of a cohesive colonies-wide movement, reflected several different theological modes, and evinced interrelationships with Britain and Europe largely absent in the next century’s revivals.6 In general, revivals stressed personal religious experience rather than doctrinal knowledge in the converted as well as in revival ministers. This tendency became one of revivalism’s flash points, producing erratic behavior in converts as well as anti-intellectual impulses often common to American revivalism.7 Revivalism emerged episodically in Britain’s mainland colonies in different places and times. New Englanders experienced them early. Solomon Stoddard encouraged religious “harvests” in Northampton, Massachusetts, at least five different times from the 1690s to the 1720s, and in his 1714 Guide to Christ, Stoddard reminded clergy and laity alike that even after individuals began a “work of preparation,” “sin reigns in them as much as before.” Revivals overtook many New England congregations from the late 1730s to the mid-1740s, and Stoddard’s grandson Jonathan Edwards became the region’s most famous theologian of revival. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn1" \o "" [1]8 The New England revivals focused primarily on rejuvenating spiritual commitment among third- and fourth-generation Puritans, on drawing in members’ indifferent children, and on bringing un-churched neighbors into lagging congregations. Yet even this carefully limited appeal churned up enthusiastic men and women who struck out on their own, producing “imprudences and errors,” like the unordained James Davenport, who burned anti-revival tracts in New London, Connecticut. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn2" [2] The New England clergy denounced Davenport, and as Congregationalist and Baptist congregations split over revivals into “New Light” (pro-revival) and “Old Light” (anti-revival) camps, Jonathan Edwards and other ministers pulled back. Edwards quickly encouraged ministerial discipline: “no wonder then that when a people are as sheep without a Shepherd, they wander out of the way.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn3" [3] The revival-inspired tensions within communities sometimes intersected politics because New England towns paid a minister’s salary, and by 1745, many towns were relieved to see the revivals declining.9 While revivals essentially skipped New York, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina, they roiled the Dutch Reformed of New Jersey and Presbyterians in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, demonstrating the uniqueness of revivals in different colonies. The newly arrived Dutch immigrant Rev. Theodorus Frelinghuysen created tension in his and other New Jersey Dutch Reformed congregations in the 1720s. He emphasized a pietistic, introspective moralism that demanded rectified lives in church members. But Frelinghuysen’s methods and demeanor won as much hostility as favor from Dutch Reformed congregants and neighbors. He infamously “fenced” in his Communion table, admitting only the most pure, but excluding many others, and his moralism knew few limits. Frelinghuysen insulted New York City’s senior Dutch minister, Rev. Gaultherus DuBois, telling him that a large wall mirror DuBois owned was ostentatiously out of place in a minister’s home.10 Rev. William Tennent and his three minister sons, William Jr., Gilbert, and John, became engines of Presbyterian revival in New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the 1730s and 1740s. Their demands for religious renewal, and particularly their emphasis on discipline among Presbyterian clergymen, produced a schism in the Presbytery of Philadelphia in 1741 that lasted until 1758. They walked out to form a rival Presbytery of New York that would better train and supervise “true” Presbyterian clergy as the only ministers capable of effectively leading revived congregations.11 Concern about revival excesses concerned Pennsylvania Presbyterians as much as it had New England Congregationalists. Samuel Blair led “soul exercises” for his congregants in New Londonderry, Pennsylvania, but warned them to “moderate and bound their passions.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn4" [4] In 1740 New Jersey’s Gilbert Tennent ridiculed ministers learned in theology but lacking a conversion experience as “Pharisee-shepherds.” But only two years later he denounced unsanctioned and untrained preaching by “ignorant young converts” for introducing “the greatest errors and the greatest anarchy and confusion.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn5" [5]12 In contrast to New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Baptist and Presbyterian revivals in Virginia and North Carolina stimulated major confrontations with the established Church of England headed by George III (the “Anglican” Church) and occurred mainly in the 1760s and early 1770s, two decades after the northern revivals. Virginia sheriffs, provoked by prominent local Anglican parish vestrymen and their Anglican ministers, beat, whipped, arrested, and jailed Baptist and Presbyterian ministers to stop their preaching. In 1771 the Anglican minister in Virginia’s Caroline County ran “the end of his horsewhip in [the Baptist minister’s] mouth.” When he finished preaching, Anglican supporters “violently jerked [the minister] off the stage” then “caught him by the back part of his neck [and] beat his head against the ground, some times up[,] sometimes down,” after which the sheriff gave him “twenty lashes with his Horse Whip.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn6" [6]13 Despite this religious opposition, Virginia Baptists and Presbyterians supported the Revolution as strongly as did Virginia’s mostly Anglican aristocratic elite. After the Revolution, Baptists and Presbyterians alongside deists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison helped lead Virginia toward modern religious toleration and an end to government establishment for religion.14 The preaching of George Whitefield cut across the different local and regional appearances of religious revival and reinforced the colonial connections to Britain and Europe. Whitefield was one of the few Church of England ministers to embrace revivalism. He had been part of a “Holy Club” at Oxford with Charles and John Wesley, who later founded the Methodist movement. Whitefield made seven different preaching tours of Britain’s mainland North American colonies between 1738 and his death in Newburyport, Massachusetts, in 1770. These American tours, coupled with his preaching in Britain, made him one of the most famous ministers and, indeed, most famous individuals on either side of the Atlantic in the eighteenth century.15 Whitefield’s effect can be traced in lives of Nathan Cole, a common Connecticut farmer and carpenter, and Benjamin Franklin. Cole had been told that Whitefield preached “like one of the old apostles,” and when he heard that Whitefield would preach in nearby Middletown, Connecticut, he reported, “I was in my field at Work, [and] dropt my tool that I had in my hand and ran home to my wife telling her to make ready quickly to go and hear Mr Whitfield preach at Middletown, then run to my pasture for my horse with all my might; fearing that I should be too late.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn7" [7]16 The ever cool Franklin confessed Whitefield’s effect on him in his Autobiography: “I silently resolved he should get nothing from me, I had in my pocket a handful of copper money, three or four silver dollars, and five pistoles in gold. As he proceeded I began to soften, and concluded to give the coppers. Another stroke of his oratory made me asham’d of that, and determin’d me to give the silver; and he finish’d so admirably, that I empty’d my pocket wholly into the collector’s dish, gold and all.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn8" [8]17 Whitefield asked a simple question of thousands of Britons and colonists: “Are you saved?” The challenge was dramatic, and Whitefield’s pliant and fascinatingly mercurial voice often produced transfixed silence. David Garrick, a famous eighteenth-century British actor and producer, confessed, “I would give a hundred guineas, if I could say ‘Oh’ like Mr. Whitefield.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn9" [9]18 Had Whitefield’s dramatic performances created a coherent, culture-changing event in the pre-Revolutionary mainland colonies? Whitefield indeed became the archetype for the image of the modern Protestant “revivalist,” such as Billy Graham and Charles Finney. Whitefield also epitomized the attention that flowed to revival clergy generally. Revivals actually tended to increase leaders’ stature and authority, even if laypeople were the objects of their attention. Thus, the names most famous in the eighteenth-century revivals are seldom the common laypeople like the Connecticut farmer Nathan Cole whom the clergy sought to convert, but preachers like Jonathan Edwards and Gilbert Tennent in the 1740s or Virginia’s Baptist preachers of the 1750s and 1760s, such as “Swearing Jack” Waller and James Ireland. Local revival ministers influenced their own congregations and other ministers through publications and personal relationships. If they turned to itinerancy, the results could be mixed, not least because they could impose on town ministers who hadn’t invited them, even if they did turn out and inspire excited listeners.19 The outsized Whitefield attracted enormous crowds that regional itinerants never mustered. But his events brought little change to the colonies’ denominational structure. Congregations formed by avid Whitefield supporters in Salem, Boston, and Philadelphia had closed by 1780, only a decade after Whitefield’s death.20 The denominational variety and regional differences of the colonies’ eighteenth-century revivals reflected the distinctive pre-independent, colonial character of Britain’s mainland colonies. Revivals tended to reflect local impulses and personalities, although Congregationalists and Baptists in New England and Presbyterians in New Jersey and Pennsylvania demonstrated the possibility of regional cooperation, both in support of revivals and in corralling them. The success of George Whitefield’s seven preaching tours of the colonies between 1738 and 1770 demonstrated colonists’ fascination with the theater he provided and at least a momentary fretfulness about salvation in a society where material success and failure seemed the most pressing concerns. And perhaps Whitefield’s British origins and his fame across the Atlantic inspired extraordinary colonial interest.21 Unlike many nineteenth- and twentieth-century successors, the eighteenth-century revivals eschewed secular politics. They did not tie themselves to efforts at British moral or political renewal and did not confront contemporary moral issues, such as slavery (both Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield owned slaves). The contest over unlicensed Baptist and Presbyterian preaching in Virginia in the 1760s and early 1770s perhaps bore the most obvious secular connotations. But even there, Baptists intriguingly posed a specifically religious rather than secular precedent to support their preaching: rather than calling on developing secular notions of open political speech, they simply argued that Baptist preaching “resembled primitive times, when the gospel was preached in the land of Judea.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn10" [10]22 In short, the episodic religious upheavals of eighteenth-century America were the local expressions of colonists who were a long way from Britain and, as yet, a long way from each other. Whitefield touched many but never brought them together, and where revivals prospered, their concern centered on souls rather than politics, except perhaps in Virginia.23 Yet after the Revolution, American religious leaders saw possibilities in the history of the eighteenth-century revivals. In 1842 the Protestant evangelical Joseph Tracy published The Great Awakening: A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield. He brought the disparate colonial revivals together as a precedent for revivals he hoped would overtake and influence a tumultuous, unruly, and disturbingly heterogeneous nation a half-century after independence.24 Tracy’s The Great Awakening homogenized the eighteenth-century past so he might steady his own anxious nineteenth-century society. Looking at it critically, however, offers an opportunity to understand eighteenth-century colonial revivalism for what it was in its own time, not in Tracy’s time or ours. The sometimes peculiar and quite different Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian revivals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the whipping and jailing of Baptist preachers by Virginia sheriffs and courts on the eve of the American Revolution, and the tension inside declining New England Puritan congregations that fostered revivals there, point to the artificiality of Tracy’s homogenizing label about the eighteenth-century revivals, “The Great Awakening.”25 But modern American revivals bore at least two important links to their colonial predecessors. The charismatic theatricality of George Whitefield, Gilbert Tennent, and “Swearing Jack” Waller would take modern American form in Charles Finney, Amy Semple McPherson, Billy Graham, and these modern revivalists also emphasized individual conversion and the “born-again experience,” just as George Whitefield had done. In these ways, at least two critical features of the eighteenth-century colonial revivals lived on far beyond their own time to shape distinctive features of modern American life. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref" \o "" [1] Solomon Stoddard, A Guide To Christ (Boston, 1714), 6. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref2" [2] Jonathan Edwards, “Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards: The Great Awakening, ed. C. C. Goen (New Haven, 1972), 4:269. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref3" [3] Edwards, “Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God,” in Works of Jonathan Edwards: The Great Awakening, ed. C. C. Goen (New Haven, 1972), 4:269. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref4" [4] Samuel Blair, “A Short and Faithful Narrative of the Late Remarkable Revival of Religion in the Congregation of New-Londonderry,” in Richard L. Bushman, ed., The Great Awakening: Documents on the Revival of Religion, 1740–1745 (New York, 1970), 73. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref5" [5] Gilbert Tennent, “The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry,” in Alan Heimert and Perry Miller eds., The Great Awakening: Documents Illustrating the Crisis and Its Consequences (Indianapolis, 1967), 90, 97. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref6" [6] Quoted in Rhys Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740–1790 (Chapel Hill, 1982), 162. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref7" [7] Michael J. Crawford, ed., “The Spiritual Travels of Nathan Cole,” William and Mary Quarterly, no. 3d ser., 33 (1976), 92. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref8" [8] Leonard W. Labaree, et al., ed. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. 2nd ed. (New Haven, 2003), 177. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref9" [9] Quoted in Harry S. Stout, The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, 1991), 237. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref10" [10] William Fristoe, A Concise History of the Ketocton Baptist Association (Staunton [Va.], 1808), 66.Jon Butler is the Howard R. Lamar Professor of American Studies, History, and Religious Studies at Yale University. His publications include Religion in American Life: A Short History (2008) (with Grant Wacker and Randall Balmer), Becoming American: The Revolution before 1776 (2000), and Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People (1990).Butler, J. (2013). Religion and eighteenth-century revivalism. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from .org/history-by-era/colonization-and-settlement-1585-1763/religion-and-eighteenth-century-revivalismDay 1According to the text, what was the ultimate goal of the Revivalist movement in the eighteenth century?What were the effects of the religious revival in America, which originated in the Europe, according to paragraphs two to five? In which ways did the revival create tensions within communities, citing evidence from the text?What did the author mean, when he stated, “But only two years later he denounced unsanctioned and untrained preaching by ‘ignorant young converts’ for introducing ‘the greatest errors and the greatest anarchy and confusion’”?Day 2In which ways did the revival movement differ regionally, according to the text?According to the author, what were the limitations of the revival movement?What was the author referring to when he stated, “In short, the episodic religious upheavals of eighteenth-century America were the local expressions of colonists who were a long way from Britain and, as yet, a long way from each other”?In your own words, what is the author referring to when he states, “The sometimes peculiar and quite different Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian revivals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the whipping and jailing of Baptist preachers by Virginia sheriffs and courts on the eve of the American Revolution, and the tension inside declining New England Puritan congregations that fostered revivals there, point to the artificiality of Tracy’s homogenizing label about the eighteenth-century revivals, ‘The Great Awakening’”?In which ways, according to the text, did the revival have a lasting effect on America?Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God (1741)1 Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), a Congregational minister in New England, was certainly exposed to Enlightenment thought and intellectual vigor as well as to the methodology it engendered, but he had also been educated in the rich, challenging Calvinist theology of the earlier Puritan church. Edwards believed that people had fallen away from the demanding faith, with its emphasis on God's grace, that was so essential to their salvation. With that in mind, this great theologian began a revival in his Northampton, Massachusetts, church in the 1730s that became part of the general revival movement called the Great Awakening. To awaken people's faith and belief in the majesty of God, he presented both positive and negative images of God's power. He wanted people to feel God's presence, not just think about it.2 The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked. His wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire. He is of purer eyes than to bear you in his sight; you are ten thousand times as abominable in his eyes as the most hateful, venomous serpent is in ours. 3 You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince, and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else that you did not got to hell the last night; that you were suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell since you have sat here in the house of God provoking his pure eye by your sinful, wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell. 4 O sinner! consider the fearful danger you are in! It is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath that you are held over in the hand of that God whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of Divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it and burn it asunder. . . . 5 It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite, horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see along forever a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul. And you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages in wrestling with this Almighty, merciless vengeance. And then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point [dot] to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. 6 Oh! who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it. It is inexpressible and inconceivable: for "who knows the power of God's anger"! 7 How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh! that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! 8 There is reason to think that there are many in this congregation, now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. 9 If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing it would be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! 10 But, alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell! And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons that now sit here in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, and quiet and secure, should be there before tomorrow morning! Resource:Edwards, J, (1741). Sinners in the hands of an angry God. W. W. Norton College. Retrieved from . com/college/ history/archive/resources/documents/ch03_03.htmDay 1What was the purpose of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”?What is the main idea of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and why did it resonate with the era?According the text, what dangers does Edwards warn people to avoid?What factors attributed to the effectiveness of the text?In what ways is “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” representative of Butler’s description of eighteenth-century revivalism?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 7Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionWhat factors led to the merging of the thirteen colonies? Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole.-Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain.-Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Seven Years’ WarTreaty of Paris of 1763Mason-Dixon lineInterregnumIndian uprising of 1622IdeologicalEncroachmentsContiguousProroguedQuorumscalpFrancis J. Bremer “The Thirteen Colonies” (2013) Benjamin Franklin “Plan of Union” (1759)William Trent “William Trent’s Journal” (1763)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.aColonization and Settlement (1585-1763)Week 7 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore the factors that led to the unification of the thirteen colonies. As control of the British over the American colonies diminished, because of internal conflicts, the need for unification of the thirteen colonies flourished. Many factors led to the necessity of unification, including the need of protection from Native Americas, which posed a threat to the colonies. Each colony developed a local form of government, which was joined by the Plan of Union, but was never pushed by the British, which were fearful that the unity of these colonies would mean the end of British control over the colonies.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the various motivations for the unification of the thirteen colonies. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how the need to defend colonies from attacks and other issues led to the unification of the colonies. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decode. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-18 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-30 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-9 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: Using evidence from the readings, describe which factors led to the unification of the thirteen colonies.The Thirteen Colonies by Francis J. Bremer1 The thirteen colonies that joined together to become the United States of America were but a part of the first British Empire. They were the product of a broad and dramatic expansion of England that began with the establishment of “plantations” in Ireland during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and reached a peak with the conquest of Canada and the extension of British influence over India during the 1760s. In the New World alone at the time of the American Revolution Britain had close to two dozen colonies, most in the Caribbean, apart from the thirteen rebellious ones. As was the case for other colonizing nations, this expansion was driven by a variety of factors, including religion, nationalism, and economics—often categorized as God, Glory, and Gold. Specific colonies typically combined more than one of these objectives. The Roanoke colony of 1585, for example, was intended to serve as a privateer base that would undermine Spain’s Catholic empire in America, advance the interests of England, and enrich those who would actually capture Spanish possessions.2 Unlike the overseas expansion of European powers such as Spain and France, English colonization was rarely the result of government initiatives. Instead, the Crown granted charters authorizing overseas ventures to individuals and commercial corporations. Exceptions to this were colonies acquired by conquest, as when, in 1664, an English expedition seized the sprawling Dutch colony of New Netherland (which the English divided into New York and New Jersey), and when Canada joined the empire as a result of the Treaty of Paris of 1763 that ended the Seven Years’ War.3 Colonial charters specified the land that an individual or corporation had the right to settle. In the case of the New World, the English government, like its European counterparts, dismissed the rights of the Native American inhabitants and claimed title as the Christian discoverers of the lands. An imprecise awareness of the actual geography of territory often led to conflicting land claims—for instance the precise border separating the lands granted to Maryland and Pennsylvania was not settled until the surveying of the Mason-Dixon line between 1763 and 1767, and the region that is now the state of Vermont was claimed by both New Hampshire and New York until the time of the American Revolution.4 The charters granted by the Crown authorized the creation of colonial governments. They had considerable autonomy but were subject to certain conditions, including a provision that they not pass any legislation which violated English law. The three types of charters are commonly categorized as proprietary, corporate, or royal.5 Proprietary colonies were established by individuals who received a charter to explore, settle, and exploit a set geographical region claimed by England. The failed Roanoke colony of 1585 was sponsored by Sir Walter Raleigh. Most notable of the proprietary colonies were Maryland, settled under the terms of a charter granted to Cecil Calvert, Lord Baltimore, in 1632; and Pennsylvania, founded by William Penn, who received his charter in 1681. Generally listed as one of the thirteen colonies, Delaware was originally part of Pennsylvania. Settled prior to 1681 by Swedes, Dutchmen, and some English, it was granted a separate assembly by William Penn in 1701 when it became evident that its residents did not share the Quaker vision or values. While proprietary charters were typically granted to individuals, the grant for the Carolinas was awarded to a group of eight Lords Proprietors in 1663. Though William Penn envisioned settling in Pennsylvania and did manage to visit on two occasions, most proprietors directed the affairs of their colonies from England, appointing governors (in the case of Maryland, occasionally a family member) to pursue their goals.6 One of the disadvantages of proprietary colonies was that an individual family or small group of men bore the sole financial responsibility for the enterprise, a burden that few were able to assume. One way of sharing the risks was for those interested in colonization to band together with others to form a corporation in which financial support was spread over a large number of investors and liability was similarly dispersed. Corporations almost always based their colonial operations in England, appointing agents to carry out their policies abroad. Many who invested in these ventures were involved in more than one colonial enterprise—for example, the Somers Island Company was formed in 1615 by shareholders of the Virginia Company to govern the colony that became Bermuda. The last of the original colonies was Georgia, founded through the chartering of a corporation headed by James Oglethorpe in 1732.7 Charters did not necessarily require that corporate headquarters be maintained in a specific location, and the leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Company took advantage of this when they moved their operations, and the actual charter itself, to their colony in 1630, thus gaining some protection against royal interference. Some corporations sub-granted their territory to other groups. Other colonies founded under such a corporate aegis became semi-autonomous relatively quickly. The Plymouth colony, established by the Pilgrims and other settlers, was financed by a group of Merchant Adventurers who had received a grant from the Virginia Company of London. When it became evident that the settlement was outside the jurisdiction of the original charter, the Merchant Adventurers turned to the Council for New England for a new patent. Disheartened by the meager returns on their investment, the Merchant Adventurers sold their interest to a group of the colony’s leaders.8 Royal colonies were under the direct control of the English government rather than an individual or corporation. Governors were appointed by the king—or, between 1649 and 1660, the authorities governing England during the interregnum between the execution of Charles I and the restoration of the monarchy. Some of these colonies were established by conquest, as when forces sent by England’s Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell captured Jamaica in 1655. Other colonies came under royal control when a proprietary or corporate charter was revoked for a failure to adhere to the terms under which it was granted. Internal dissension in the Company and unfavorable attention resulting from an Indian uprising in 1622 led King James to revoke the Virginia Company’s charter in 1624, eighteen years after it was issued, and the colony came under direct Crown control.9 Some colonies were formed without any official authorization. Almost a decade after they were first settled, towns in Massachusetts that had been established by dissenters came together in 1643 and received a Parliamentary charter as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; that authorization was later confirmed by a royal charter in 1663. A bit farther south, the largely unauthorized settlements of the separate Connecticut and New Haven colonies were merged into one colony by the Connecticut charter of 1662. Other unauthorized communities were recognized by the Crown as the colony of New Hampshire in 1679.10 Regardless of how they were created, the actual governance of the various colonies came to reflect local interests more than the desires of the English authorities that claimed jurisdiction. The evolution of most colonial governments up to 1775 may be categorized as involving, on the one hand, a struggle for home rule by colonists opposing proprietary, corporate, and royal efforts to impose policies on them and, on the other, a related struggle between various colonial factions over how power within a colony should be allocated. The political evolution of New England differed from that of the other mainland colonies. The puritans who settled Massachusetts brought their charter and powers of government with them, thus largely eliminating any question of English control over their affairs. Because their faith relied heavily on the participation of individual believers, they shaped their colonial institutions to reflect a broad participation in government, including popular election of governors and other officials and the creation of representative assemblies to pass laws. Though over time various economic interests created more diversity in the political sphere, the conflicts were relatively minor compared to those found elsewhere in America.11 In the case of colonies founded with the expectation of control from England, history proved that persuading free Englishmen to undertake the dangerous voyage to the New World and the challenges of carving out an existence in a sometimes hostile environment required promises of land and some degree of participation in their own governance. Once in the New World, colonists sought to control the decisions that influenced their lives, often clashing with fellow colonists who had different interests. The Virginia House of Burgesses, first called into session in 1619, was an elective assembly offered as an inducement to attract new colonists. The settlers of Pennsylvania forced William Penn to make three separate modifications to his original frame of government, each one vesting greater authority in local institutions and lessening Penn’s own ability to determine the course of the colony’s affairs. Occasionally this pressure could threaten violence, as when Protestant settlers challenged the autocratic rule of the Catholic Calvert family in Maryland on a number of occasions in the seventeenth century. The result of such pressure was that every one of the colonies that would eventually come together to make up the United States had a legislative assembly by the 1680s, with the exception of New York, the proprietary colony of James Stuart, the Duke of York, whose arbitrary instincts would produce England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 following his ascension to the throne in 1685.12 Those assemblies became the stages on which conflicting interests vied for political control. In the two Chesapeake colonies a tobacco-planter elite emerged as the dominant political force. In Virginia the planters controlled the Council (upper house) and the House of Burgesses, though their dominance was challenged in the decades leading up to the Revolution by the emergence of settlers, such as Patrick Henry, from the western parts of the colony. The Quaker elite who had wrested control of Pennsylvania from William Penn in the early decades of the colony kept the waves of non-English and non-Quaker immigrants who settled the frontier inadequately represented. New York’s internal politics featured conflict between the merchant elite in New York City and the large landholders of the Hudson River Valley.13 Proprietors and corporations in England did not have the resources to control the colonists who settled on their lands in America, and for most of the seventeenth century, the Crown was incapable of effectively suppressing challenges to the authorities. England was financially troubled and embroiled in religious and constitutional disputes that would result in conflict with Scotland and an English civil war. The establishment of evolving puritan regimes after the execution of the king would only end with the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.14 Not until the colonial economies began to thrive and the powers of the monarchy began to increase was much attention paid by English authorities to the affairs of the colonies. Beginning in the 1660s and lasting until the 1690s, the governments of Charles II and James II did attempt to reverse the long history of neglect, seeking to impose an imperial vision on the various parts of the empire. The climax of that effort in North America came with the creation of the Dominion of New England, revoking all previous charters and incorporating the New England colonies and New York into a single jurisdiction controlled by an appointed governor general and abolishing all vestiges of self-government. This centralizing effort came to an end when the Glorious Revolution toppled James II and the new monarchs, William and Mary, plunged England into a series of wars with France that demanded the full attention of the government. A rebellion against the Dominion in Boston led to the granting of a new charter for Massachusetts (incorporating the former Plymouth colony) and the restoration of the remainder of the region’s governments. In New York, Leisler’s Rebellion divided the colonists along geographic and economic lines but did institutionalize a colonial legislature. In Maryland, a Protestant revolt led to the revocation of the Calvert family’s political control of the colony.15 In the decades between 1690 and the 1763 Treaty of Paris, the colonies on the North American mainland were once again left largely to determine their own affairs. Spurred by the growing prosperity of the groups that were largely represented in the lower houses of colonial legislatures, and by the ideological argument for parliamentary rights and a republican balance in government that had fueled the two seventeenth-century English revolutions, the colonial assemblies came to assume that they had the right to decide the policies that affected their people.16 The idea that only colonial governments could legislate for the people of a given colony became a cherished belief of many British colonists in North America. When the English government sought to impose new laws and taxes (and enforce pre-existing ones) upon an empire that had vastly expanded with the Treaty of Paris, many colonists were determined to resist encroachments on what they’d come to view as their rights as Englishmen living in America. The colonies that would resist the most forcefully (the “thirteen”) were geographically contiguous and part of a mature colonial economic system that was largely self-sufficient.17 This was not necessarily the case with the British colonies elsewhere. Island colonies such as Barbados and Antigua had single-crop economies and were not self-sufficient. They were also more vulnerable to attack by other powers, and thus more dependent on the British navy. Furthermore, the large island planters were likely to actually reside in England, making them less concerned with colonial autonomy and more engaged with how to shape policy to suit their personal economic advantage as opposed to challenging those policies.18 On the mainland from Georgia to New Hampshire colonial assemblies were a forum that allowed the various local interests to advance and defend their own interest, much as the House of Commons had come to serve that function in the years leading to the Puritan Revolution in England. Colonists came to view the assemblies as equivalent to the English Parliament. In the assemblies and in various local governing bodies, colonial leaders learned the art of governing that would lead them to organize a new nation.Francis J. Bremer is a professor emeritus of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania and editor of the Winthrop Papers. He has just completed work on Building a New Jerusalem: John Davenport, a Puritan in Three Worlds (2012) and First Founders: American Puritans and Puritanism in the Atlantic World (2012). He is currently working on a full-length biography of Roger Williams.Bremer, F. (2013). The thirteen colonies. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from era/thirteen-colonies/essays/thirteen-coloniesDay 1According to the text, what were the origins of the thirteen colonies, which united to form the United States of America?In what ways did English colonization differ from the European powers’ colonization?According to the text, what role did charters play in the unification of the thirteen colonies?Why were legislative assemblies important for the colonies, according to the text?Why did England lose control over governing the colonies, according to paragraphs fourteen through eighteen?Which factors led to the unification of the thirteen colonies, according to paragraphs fourteen through eighteen?Plan of Union Benjamin Franklin (1759)left000This popular woodcut was seen often during the later colonial era, and urged the colonists to overcome their parochial interests and form a strong union. Not until the Revolution, however, did unity outweigh long-standing suspicions. 1 In the early 1750s, rivalry between England and France over who would control the North American continent led inexorably to what is known as the French and Indian Wars. This conflict lasted from 1756 to 1763, and left England the dominant power in the area that now comprises the eastern United States and Canada. 2 Aware of the strains that war would put on the colonies, English officials suggested a "union between ye Royal, Proprietary & Charter Governments."1 At least some colonial leaders were thinking along the same lines. In June 1754 delegates from most of the northern colonies and representatives from the Six Iroquois Nations met in Albany, New York. There they adopted a "plan of union" drafted by Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. Under this plan each colonial legislature would elect delegates to an American continental assembly presided over by a royal governor. 3 The plan is noteworthy in several respects. First of all, Franklin anticipated many of the problems that would beset the government created after independence, such as finance, dealing with the Indian tribes, control of commerce, and defense. In fact, it contains the seeds of true union, and many of these ideas would be revived and adopted in Philadelphia more than thirty years later. 4 After the plan was unveiled, the Crown did not push it since British officials realized that, if adopted, the plan could create a very powerful entity that His Majesty's Government might not be able to control. The royal counselors need not have worried; the colonists were not ready for union, nor were the colonial assemblies ready to give up their recent and hard-won control over local affairs to a central government. That would not happen until well after the American settlements had declared their independence. For further reading: Robert C. Newbold, The Albany Congress and the Plan of Union of 1754 (1955). Footnote 1: The thirteen colonies were divided at the time among those founded or ruled by royal charter (Virginia, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia), those that were proprietary in nature, that is, owned by a family or individual (Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland), and those that were governed under charters (Rhode Island and Connecticut). Albany Plan of Union It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows. 1. That the said general government be administered by a President-General, to be appointed and supported by the crown; and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several Colonies met in their respective assemblies. 2. That within -- months after the passing such act, the House of Representatives that happen to be sitting within that time, or that shall be especially for that purpose convened, may and shall choose members for the Grand Council, in the following proportion, that is to say, Massachusetts Bay 7 New Hampshire 2 Connecticut 5 Rhode Island 2 New York 4 New Jersey 3 Pennsylvania 6 Maryland 4 Virginia 7 North Carolina 4 South Carolina 4 ------ 483. -- who shall meet for the first time at the city of Philadelphia, being called by the President-General as soon as conveniently may be after his appointment. 4. That there shall be a new election of the members of the Grand Council every three years; and, on the death or resignation of any member, his place should be supplied by a new choice at the next sitting of the Assembly of the Colony he represented. 5. That after the first three years, when the proportion of money arising out of each Colony to the general treasury can be known, the number of members to be chosen for each Colony shall, from time to time, in all ensuing elections, be regulated by that proportion, yet so as that the number to be chosen by any one Province be not more than seven, nor less than two. 6. That the Grand Council shall meet once in every year, and oftener if occasion require, at such time and place as they shall adjourn to at the last preceding meeting, or as they shall be called to meet at by the President-General on any emergency; he having first obtained in writing the consent of seven of the members to such call, and sent duly and timely notice to the whole. 7. That the Grand Council have power to choose their speaker; and shall neither be dissolved, prorogued, nor continued sitting longer than six weeks at one time, without their own consent or the special command of the crown. 8. That the members of the Grand Council shall be allowed for their service ten shillings sterling per diem, during their session and journey to and from the place of meeting; twenty miles to be reckoned a day's journey. 9. That the assent of the President-General be requisite to all acts of the Grand Council, and that it be his office and duty to cause them to be carried into execution. 10. That the President-General, with the advice of the Grand Council, hold or direct all Indian treaties, in which the general interest of the Colonies may be concerned; and make peace or declare war with Indian nations. 11. That they make such laws as they judge necessary for regulating all Indian trade. 12. That they make all purchases from Indians, for the crown, of lands not now within the bounds of particular Colonies, or that shall not be within their bounds when some of them are reduced to more convenient dimensions. 13. That they make new settlements on such purchases, by granting lands in the King's name, reserving a quitrent to the crown for the use of the general treasury. 14. That they make laws for regulating and governing such new settlements, till the crown shall think fit to form them into particular governments. 15. That they raise and pay soldiers and build forts for the defence of any of the Colonies, and equip vessels of force to guard the coasts and protect the trade on the ocean, lakes, or great rivers; but they shall not impress men in any Colony, without the consent of the Legislature. 16. That for these purposes they have power to make laws, and lay and levy such general duties, imposts, or taxes, as to them shall appear most equal and just (considering the ability and other circumstances of the inhabitants in the several Colonies), and such as may be collected with the least inconvenience to the people; rather discouraging luxury, than loading industry with unnecessary burdens. 17. That they may appoint a General Treasurer and Particular Treasurer in each government when necessary; and, from time to time, may order the sums in the treasuries of each government into the general treasury; or draw on them for special payments, as they find most convenient. 18. Yet no money to issue but by joint orders of the President-General and Grand Council; except where sums have been appropriated to particular purposes, and the President-General is previously empowered by an act to draw such sums. 19. That the general accounts shall be yearly settled and reported to the several Assemblies. 20. That a quorum of the Grand Council, empowered to act with the President-General, do consist of twenty-five members; among whom there shall be one or more from a majority of the Colonies. 21. That the laws made by them for the purposes aforesaid shall not be repugnant, but, as near as may be, agreeable to the laws of England, and shall be transmitted to the King in Council for approbation, as soon as may be after their passing; and if not disapproved within three years after presentation, to remain in force. 22. That, in case of the death of the President-General, the Speaker of the Grand Council for the time being shall succeed, and be vested with the same powers and authorities, to continue till the King's pleasure be known. 23. That all military commission officers, whether for land or sea service, to act under this general constitution, shall be nominated by the President-General; but the approbation of the Grand Council is to be obtained, before they receive their commissions. And all civil officers are to be nominated by the Grand Council, and to receive the President-General's approbation before they officiate. 24. But, in case of vacancy by death or removal of any officer, civil or military, under this constitution, the Governor of the Province in which such vacancy happens may appoint, till the pleasure of the President-General and Grand Council can be known. 25. That the particular military as well as civil establishments in each Colony remain in their present state, the general constitution notwithstanding; and that on sudden emergencies any Colony may defend itself, and lay the accounts of expense thence arising before the President-General and General Council, who may allow and order payment of the same, as far as they judge such accounts just and reasonable. Source:Franklin, B. (2013). Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 5 (1959), 387-92. The American Philosophical Society and Yale University 1What events, according to the text, led to the writing of the Plan for the Union?Why would the British crown be fearful of this statement, “It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows”, according to the text?Based on the text, what was the purpose of this Union?What powers were granted to this “general government”, according to the text? In your own word, what did the author mean by, “That the laws made by them for the purposes aforesaid shall not be repugnant, but, as near as may be, agreeable to the laws of England, and shall be transmitted to the King in Council for approbation, as soon as may be after their passing; and if not disapproved within three years after presentation, to remain in force”?William Trent’s Journal, 1763 During the summer of 1763, while stationed at Fort Pitt, William Trent kept a journal and orderly book, which togetherpresent one of the most detailed and complete accounts of the Indian siege on the British settlements. May 29 At Break of day this Morning three Men came in from Col. Claphams who was settled at the Oswegly Old Town about 25 Miles from here, on the Youghyogane River, with an account that Col. Clapham, with one of his Men, two women and a child were Merdered by Wolfe and some other Delaware Indians, about two o’Clock the day before. The 27th Wolfe with some others robed one Mr. Coleman on the Road between this and Ligonier of upwards of ?50— The women that were killed at Col. Claphams, were treated in such a brutal manner that Decency forbids the Mentioning. This Evening we had two Soldiers killed and scalped at the Sawmill. June 1 Two Men who were sent of Express last Night to Venango returned being fired on at Shanopins Town and one of them wounded in the leg. . . . June 5 2 o’Clock at Night one Benjamin Sutton came in who says he left Redstone two days ago and found that place evacuated and saw a number of Shoe Tracks going towards Fort Cumberland which he supposes was the Garrison: that there was with him there a White Man named Hicks and an Indian names Recois who would have burnt the Fort had he not persuaded them from it, that Hicks told him that an Indian War was broke out and that he would kill the white People wherever he found them, and went with Intention to murder Madcalfs People nine Miles from here who had removed some time before, he says they intended to have taken him Prisoner but the Wind blowing hard and it growing very dark when he came nigh the Fort made for it and called the Centinel Hicks and the Indian went by in their Bark Cannoes. June 6 Nothing Extraordinary June 12 An Indian was discovered from the Garden, about 11 o’Clock a Party out cutting Spelts saw two Indians and fired on them, on which a number more appeared and fired on our People, who returned it an[d] some more shot being fired from the Cannon in the Fort the Indians ran off. June 13 and 14 Nothing worth Notice. June 15 A Party was sent out to cut Spelts and were fired on. Serjt Miller of the Militia contrary to orders with3 others advanced to Grants Hill and just as they had gained the Summit, Miller was shot Dead, a party advancing drove the Enemy off and prevented their scalping him. Between 11 and 12 o’Clock at Night as an Express from Bedford was challenged by one of the Centinels from the Rampart the Enemy fired a number of Shotts at him and the Centinels in the Fort. June 23 about 12 o’Clock at Night Two Delawares called for Mr. McKee and told him they wanted to speak to him in the Morning. June 24 The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [?] as Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go a speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and a Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.Resource:Trent, W. (1763). William Trent’s Journal. HSP. Retrieved from sites/files/ migrated/excerptsfromwilliamtrent.pdfDay 1What does the author mean when he states, “2 o’Clock at Night one Benjamin Sutton came in who says he left Redstone two days ago and found that place evacuated and saw a number of Shoe Tracks going towards Fort Cumberland which he supposes was the Garrison: that there was with him there a White Man named Hicks and an Indian names Recois who would have burnt the Fort had he not persuaded them from it, that Hicks told him that an Indian War was broke out and that he would kill the white People wherever he found them, and went with Intention to murder Madcalfs” ?Describe the tensions between the Native Americans and colonists, using evidence from the text.According to the text, what technique did the commanding officer use to avoid further conflict and what was the outcome of this technique?What was the author referring to when he stated, “Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and a Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect”?Using evidence from the text, why was unity between the colonies important for safety of the colonists?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“Colonization and Settlement (1585-1763)”Week 8Summative AssessmentStudents will take an assessment analyzing primary and secondary source documents of the Colonization and Settlement Era and write an argument citing evidence from those source documents which they select and defend a position about whether the means used to colonize and develop colonies regionally and economically was justified by the motives used to colonize and develop the thirteen colonies.Focus QuestionWere the means used to colonize and develop colonies regionally and economically justified by the motives used to colonize and develop the thirteen colonies?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Gottlied Mittlberge “ Poor Europeans Should Not Come to America as Indentured Servants” (1754)John Saffin “Slavery is Moral” (1701) James Horn “Early Settlement” (2013)Richard Hakluyt “Reasons for Colonization” (1585) John Winthrop “Religious Reasons to Colonize the New World” (1629)Louis Thibou “Letter from Louis Thibou to friends and family in France” (1683)William Penn “Report on Pennsylvania” (1685)American Husbandry “Argriculture in the Middle Colonies” (1775)Francis Higginson “ Vol. I. The Transplanting of Culture: 1607–1650” (1630)Gottlied Mittlberge “ Poor Europeans Should Not Come to America as Indentured Servants” (1754)John Saffin “Slavery is Moral” (1701)David Wheat “Iberian Roots of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1440–1640” (2013)Henry Louis Gates Jr. “Ending the Slavery Blame-Game”(2010) Daniel K. Richter “Native American Discoveries of Europe” (2011)John Eliot “A Puritan Missionary Account of Indians” (1646)Jon Butler, “Religion and Eighteenth-Century Revivalism” (2013)Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (1741)Francis J. Bremer “The Thirteen Colonies” (2013) Benjamin Franklin “Plan of Union” (1759)William Trent “William Trent’s Journal” (1763)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.b, 6.1.12.B.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.b, 6.1.12.D.1.aColonization and Settlement (1585-1763)Week 8 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to synthesize the readings of the past seven weeks.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summative AssessmentAmerican development of the thirteen colonies is attributed to many factors, included indentured servitude and slavery. Native Americans were also affected by colonization. Many historians believe that these systems were necessary to establish the thirteen colonies.Considerations:What is your evaluation of this? Were the means used to colonize and develop colonies regionally and economically justified by the motives used to colonize and develop the thirteen colonies? Why? What other evidence would you need to strengthen your claim?Writing TaskCiting evidence from various texts read in this unit, defend a position about whether the means used to colonize and develop colonies regionally and economically was justified by the motives used to colonize and develop the thirteen colonies.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States I Unit Overview“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Summative AssessmentStudents will write an argument citing evidence from those documents in which they select and defend a position about whether the American Revolution was a radical revolution, in terms of addressing economical, ideological, and political issues which drove the Revolutionary War.Essential QuestionsEnduring UnderstandingsTo what degree was the American Revolution a radical revolution? Was the Revolutionary war economical, ideological or political in nature?Taxation without representation, freedom from religious operation, a need for individual rights and liberties, free capitalism, and separation from a totalitarian state were all motivators to seek independence from the Great Britain.The Revolutionary war was a difficult and long war, as both sides had advantages that led to a costly war.The Articles of Confederation failed to provide the federal government enough power and resources to sustain a united country.The Constitution created a system of government, which attempted to ensure that power was balanced, through a system of checks and balances and separation of powers. The Bill of Rights attempted to protect citizens from the government and reinforced state and federal power.Despite having a system of government and laws, the New Nation was still struggling with concepts of state rights verses federal rights, amongst other issues.Focus QuestionsWeek 1:In which way was the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence important in defining American power and ideology, nationally and internationally?Week 2:What was the most important factor that contributed to America gaining independence from Great Britain?Week 3:In what ways, did American fears, cited in the Declaration of Independence, lead to the failure of the Articles of Confederation?Week 4:To what extent was the United States Constitution influenced by the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence?Week 5To what degree did the Constitution fail to address issues that led to the Revolutionary War? Week 6:In which way, mainly, did the early republic shape American policies, but fail to abide by values that led to the Revolution? Week 7:In which ways were Jefferson and Hamilton’s ideologies demonstrative of unresolved issues that led to the Civil War?Week 8:In which ways, if at all, was the Revolution War a radical revolution, in terms of addressing economical, ideological, and political issues which drove the Revolutionary War?Learning Targets-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Academic VocabularySovereignty Dissolve EndowedUnalienable Deriving PrudenceShewn Usurpations TyrannyEvinces relinquish depositoryDissolutions convulsions disavowEndeavoured magnanimity SovereigntyInvocation Conspicuous Hunkered Entrenchments Hoisted fawningCondescension pugnacity despondent Dispersal obliterating ensnaredCessation sedentary cessationEnsnared bolted hitheredthithered Expatriate CulminationSpawned Shrewd DecadenceAghast Tyrannically Sovereignty Defray Adjourn ConstituentsInviolably Posterity Ordain VestedEnumeration Subsequent PrescribedConcurrence ascertained EmolumentMisconstruction Declaratory ascertainedDeclaratory Seized PresentmentIndictment compulsory construedIrreverent Plebescite FerventGnawing Languishing Irreverent Jarring Contentious EgalitarianOminous Contemptible ContentiousAmbiguous Ambivalent Enumerated Subverted circumventing UntroddenFervent Prevailing PunditsBedevil Adroit CovertDespotic hyperbolic preposterousPartisan Foreseeable SkullduggeryPrerequisite Abode PenalSureties Tenor insurrectionEscheat Paramount ConstruedSusceptible Enumerated ad libitumSolicitude Elucidation NugatoryAxiom Incumbent PalpableJurisprudence SubvertedContent-Specific Vocabulary/TermsDeclaration of Independence Articles of Confederation United States ConstitutionBill of Rights State Sovereignty Federalism Battle of Lexington Battle of Concord SaratogaYorktown Battle of Capes Articles of ConfederationShay’s Rebellion United States Constitution Bill of RightsAbolitionist Federalists AntifederalistsFrederick Douglass William Garrison Abolitionist George Washington Thomas Jefferson HamiltonMadison XYZ Alien and Sedition Acts in July of 1798National BankStandards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, RH 9-10.6, RH 9-10.9, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.a, 6.1.12.A.2.b, 6.1.12.d, 6.1.12.A.2.e, 6.12.A.2.f Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's) Unit OverviewUnit Rationale: In this unit, students gain an understanding of how power struggles led to the Revolutionary War, but were largely unaddressed by the Constitution. Students will investigate whether the Revolutionary War was economical, ideological or political in nature. They will also assess the degree to which unresolved issues brought conflicts, which would eventually lead to the Civil War. First-person accounts, maps, speeches, and other primary and secondary source materials may be used to answer historical questions. Historical Thinking: The study of history rests on knowledge of facts, dates, names, places, events, and ideas. However, true historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and to marshal solid evidence in support of their answers; to go beyond the facts presented in their textbooks and examine the historical record for themselves; to consult documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites, works of art, quantitative data, and other evidence from the past, and to do so imaginatively--taking into account the historical context in which these records were created and comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time.“Facts are crucial to historical understanding, but there is only way for them to take root in memory: Facts are mastered by engaging students in historical questions that spark their curiosity and make them passionate about seeking answers.” (“Reading Like A Historian”, Wineburg, Martin, and Monte-Sano, Teachers College Press, New York, 2011.) Four main skills help to facilitate historical understanding: sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating. Sourcing-Historians begin reading a document at the end by sourcing it. They glance at the first couple of words but then go immediately to the document’s attribution. Who wrote this source and when? Is it a diary entry? A memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act? A leaked e-mail? Is the author in a position to know first-hand or this account based on hearsay? Sourcing transforms the act of reading from passive reception to engaged and active interrogation.Contextualizing-Contextualizing is the notion that events MUST be located in place and time to be properly understood. Close Reading-Primary and secondary sources provide students with an opportunity for close reading. They are the place to teach students to slow down and read closely, to think deeply about word choice and subtext. Corroborating-Corroborating is a strategy in which a reader asks questions about important details to determine points of agreement and disagreement. By comparing and contrasting multiple account, students can start to build a real understanding of what happened in the past and why.Discipline Specific Literacy: Research has shown that a key to literacy is exposing students to a rich diet of texts that mix genre and style “at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics.” Primary sources confront readers with varied styles and textures of language that push the boundaries of literacy.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Week 1Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way was the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence important in defining American power and ideology, nationally and internationally?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Declaration of Independence DissolveEndowedUnalienableDerivingPrudenceShewn UsurpationsTyrannyEvinces relinquishdepositorydissolutionsconvulsionsendeavouredmagnanimitydisavowInvocationsConspicuousSovereignty“Declaration of Independence” (1776)David Armitage “The Declaration of Independence in Global Perspective” (2013)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.A.2.a, 6.1.12.A.2.bRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 1 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore one of the most influential documents in American history, the Declaration of Independence, and the influence this document had on other countries and America. More precisely, students will focus on examining why the colonists declared independence from Great Britain and the influence of this document during the Revolutionary war, in terms of alliances. Furthermore, students will analyze and explore how this document transcended, beyond its intended purpose, and became a skeleton for other important documents. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the impact the Declaration of Independence had in history. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how this revolutionary document impacted the outcome of the Revolutionary War and other countries. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-171 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-48 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 48- 130 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which way was the Declaration of Independence epic on a national and international level and in which way did it aid in American victory in the Revolutionary War ?The Declaration of Independence: A TranscriptionIN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offencesFor abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:Column 1Georgia:???Button Gwinnett???Lyman Hall???George WaltonColumn 2North Carolina:???William Hooper???Joseph Hewes???John PennSouth Carolina:???Edward Rutledge???Thomas Heyward, Jr.???Thomas Lynch, Jr.???Arthur MiddletonColumn 3Massachusetts:John HancockMaryland:Samuel ChaseWilliam PacaThomas StoneCharles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:George WytheRichard Henry LeeThomas JeffersonBenjamin HarrisonThomas Nelson, Jr.Francis Lightfoot LeeCarter BraxtonColumn 4Pennsylvania:???Robert Morris???Benjamin Rush???Benjamin Franklin???John Morton???George Clymer???James Smith???George Taylor???James Wilson???George RossDelaware:???Caesar Rodney???George Read???Thomas McKeanColumn 5New York:???William Floyd???Philip Livingston???Francis Lewis???Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:???Richard Stockton???John Witherspoon???Francis Hopkinson???John Hart???Abraham ClarkColumn 6New Hampshire:???Josiah Bartlett???William WhippleMassachusetts:???Samuel Adams???John Adams???Robert Treat Paine???Elbridge GerryRhode Island:???Stephen Hopkins???William ElleryConnecticut:???Roger Sherman???Samuel Huntington???William Williams???Oliver WolcottNew Hampshire:???Matthew ThorntonDeclaration of Independence (2031). The charters of freedom. National Archives. Retrieve from /charters/declaration_transcript.htmlDay 1Citing evidence from the text, what is the author’s purpose for writing this text?What is the authoring referring to when he states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”?According to the second paragraph of the text, why did colonists declare Independence from Great Britain, under the rule of the current King of Britain at that time?In which ways could independence from Britain have been avoided, according to lines seventy seven through eighty three of the text? To which extend are lines eighty four through ninety two powerful in defining the United States of America? The Declaration of Independence in Global Perspectiveby David Armitage A French translation of the Declaration of Independence from Recueil des loix constitutives des colonies, published in Philadelphia in 1778 and sold in Paris. (Gilder Lehrman Collection)No American document has had a greater global impact than the Declaration of Independence. It has been fundamental to American history longer than any other text because it was the first to use the name “the United States of America”: in this sense, the Declaration was the birth certificate of the American nation. It enshrined what came to be seen as the most succinct and memorable statement of the ideals on which that nation was founded: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the consent of the governed; and resistance to tyranny. And, as the first successful declaration of independence in world history, its example helped to inspire countless movements for independence, self-determination, and revolution after 1776. One of its most enthusiastic admirers was the nineteenth-century Hungarian nationalist, Lajos Kossuth: for him, the Declaration was nothing less than “the noblest, happiest page in mankind’s history.”The Declaration was addressed as much to “mankind” as it was to the population of the colonies. In the opening paragraph, the authors of the Declaration—Thomas Jefferson, the five-member Congressional committee of which he was part, and the Second Continental Congress itself—addressed “the opinions of Mankind” as they announced the necessity for .?.?. one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them. .?.?.After stating the fundamental principles—the “self-evident” truths—that justified separation, they submitted an extensive list of facts to “a candid world” to prove that George III had acted tyrannically. On the basis of those facts, his colonial subjects could now rightfully leave the British Empire. The Declaration therefore “solemnly Publish[ed] and Declare[d], That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES” and concluded with a statement of the rights of such states that was similar to the enumeration of individual rights in the Declaration’s second paragraph in being both precise and open-ended:.?.?. that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.This was what the Declaration declared to the colonists who could now become citizens rather than subjects, and to the powers of the earth who were being asked to choose whether or not to acknowledge the United States of America among their number.The final paragraph of the Declaration announced that the United States of America were now available for alliances and open for business. The colonists needed military, diplomatic, and commercial help in their revolutionary struggle against Great Britain; only a major power, like France or Spain, could supply that aid. Thomas Paine had warned in Common Sense in January 1776 that “the custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until by an independence, we take rank with other nations.” So long as the colonists remained within the empire, they would be treated as rebels; if they organized themselves into political bodies with which other powers could engage, then they might become legitimate belligerents in an international conflict rather than treasonous combatants within a British civil war.The Declaration of Independence was primarily a declaration of interdependence with the other powers of the earth. It marked the entry of one people, constituted into thirteen states, into what we would now call international society. It did so in the conventional language of the contemporary law of nations drawn from the hugely influential book of that title (1758) by the Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel, a copy of which Benjamin Franklin had sent to Congress in 1775. Vattel’s was a language of rights and freedom, sovereignty and independence, and the Declaration’s use of his terms was designed to reassure the world beyond North America that the United States would abide by the rules of international behavior. The goal of the Declaration’s authors was still quite revolutionary: to extend the sphere of European international relations across the Atlantic Ocean by turning dependent colonies into independent political actors. The historical odds were greatly against them; as they knew well, no people had managed to secede from an empire since the United Provinces had revolted from Spain almost two centuries before, and no overseas colony had done so in modern times.The other powers of the earth were naturally curious about what the Declaration said. By August 1776, news of American independence and copies of the Declaration itself had reached London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, as well as the Dutch Republic and Austria. By the fall of that year, Danish, Italian, Swiss, and Polish readers had heard the news and many could now read the Declaration in their own language as translations appeared across Europe. The document inspired diplomatic debate in France but that potential ally only began serious negotiations after the American victory at the battle of Saratoga in October 1777. The Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce of February 1778 was the first formal recognition of the United States as “free and independent states.” French assistance would, of course, be crucial to the success of the American cause. It also turned the American war into a global conflict involving Britain, France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic in military operations around the globe that would shape the fate of empires in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean worlds.The ultimate success of American independence was swiftly acknowledged to be of world-historical significance. “A great revolution has happened—a revolution made, not by chopping and changing of power in? any one of the existing states, but by the appearance of a new state, of a new species, in a new part of the globe,” wrote the British politician Edmund Burke. With Sir William Herschel’s recent discovery of the ninth planet, Uranus, in mind, he continued: “It has made as great a change in all the? relations, and balances, and gravitation of power, as the appearance of a new planet would in the system of the solar world.” However, it is a striking historical irony that the Declaration itself almost immediately sank into oblivion, “old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won,” as Abraham Lincoln put it in 1857. The Fourth of July was widely celebrated but not the Declaration itself. Even in the infant United States, the Declaration was largely forgotten until the early 1790s, when it re-emerged as a bone of political contention in the partisan struggles between pro-British Federalists and pro-French Republicans after the French Revolution. Only after the War of 1812 and the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, did it become revered as the foundation of a newly emergent American patriotism.Imitations of the Declaration were also slow in coming. Within North America, there was only one other early declaration of independence—Vermont’s, in January 1777—and no similar document appeared outside North America until after the French Revolution. In January 1790, the Austrian province of Flanders expressed a desire to become a free and independent state in a document whose concluding lines drew directly on a French translation of the American Declaration. The allegedly self-evident truths of the Declaration’s second paragraph did not appear in this Flemish manifesto nor would they in most of the 120 or so declarations of independence issued around the world in the following two centuries. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen would have greater global impact as a charter of individual rights. The sovereignty of states, as laid out in the opening and closing paragraphs of the American Declaration, was the main message other peoples beyond America heard in the document after 1776.More than half of the 192 countries now represented at the United Nations have a founding document that can be called a declaration of independence. Most of those countries came into being from the wreckage of empires or confederations, from Spanish America in the 1810s and 1820s to the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Their declarations of independence, like the American Declaration, informed the world that one people or state was now asserting—or, in many cases in the second half of the twentieth century re-asserting—its sovereignty and independence. Many looked back directly to the American Declaration for inspiration. For example, in 1811, Venezuela’s representatives declared “that these united Provinces are, and ought to be, from this day, by act and right, Free, Sovereign, and Independent States.” The Texas declaration of independence (1836) likewise followed the American in listing grievances and claiming freedom and independence. In the twentieth century, nationalists in Central Europe and Korea after the First World War staked their claims to sovereignty by going to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Even the white minority government of Southern Rhodesia in 1965 made their unilateral declaration of independence from the British Parliament, by adopting the form of the 1776 Declaration, though they ended it with a royalist salutation: “God Save the Queen!” The international community did not recognize that declaration because, unlike many similar pronouncements made during the process of decolonization by other African countries, it did not speak on behalf of all the people of their country.Invocations of the American Declaration’s second paragraph in later declarations of independence are conspicuous by their scarcity. Among the few are those of Liberia (1847) and Vietnam (1945). The Liberian declaration of independence recognized “in all men, certain natural and inalienable rights: among these are life, liberty, and the right to acquire, possess, and enjoy property”: a significant amendment to the original Declaration’s right to happiness by the former slaves who had settled Liberia under the aegis of the American Colonization Society. Almost a century later, in September 1945, the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh opened his declaration of independence with the “immortal statement” from the 1776 Declaration: “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, Ho immediately updated those words: “In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples of the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.” It would be hard to find a more concise summary of the message of the Declaration for the post-colonial predicaments of the late twentieth century.The global history of the Declaration of Independence is a story of the spread of sovereignty and the creation of states more than it is a narrative of the diffusion and reception of ideas of individual rights. The farflung fortunes of the Declaration remind us that independence and popular sovereignty usually accompanied each other, but also that there was no necessary connection between them: an independent Mexico became an empire under a monarchy between 1821 and 1823, Brazil’s independence was proclaimed by its emperor, Dom Pedro II in 1822, and, as we have seen, Ian Smith’s Rhodesian government threw off parliamentary authority while professing loyalty to the British Crown. How to protect universal human rights in a world of sovereign states, each of which jealously guards itself from interference by outside authorities, remains one of the most pressing dilemmas in contemporary politics around the world.So long as a people comes to believe their rights have been assaulted in a “long Train of Abuses and Usurpations,” they will seek to protect those rights by forming their own state, for which international custom demands a declaration of independence. In February 2008, the majority Albanian population of Kosovo declared their independence of Serbia in a document designed to reassure the world that their cause offered no precedent for any similar separatist or secessionist movements. Fewer than half of the current powers of the earth have so far recognized this Kosovar declaration. The remaining countries, among them Russia, China, Spain, and Greece, have resisted for fear of encouraging the break-up of their own territories. The explosive potential of the American Declaration was hardly evident in 1776 but a global perspective reveals its revolutionary force in the centuries that followed. Thomas Jefferson’s assessment of its potential, made weeks before his death on July 4, 1826, surely still holds true today: “an instrument, pregnant with our own and the fate of the world.”David Armitage is the Lloyd C. Blankfein Professor of History and Director of Graduate Studies in History at Harvard University. He is also an Honorary Professor of History at the University of Sydney. Among his books are The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (2007) and The Age of Revolutions in Global Context, c. 1760–1860 (2010).?Armitage, D. (2013). The Declaration of Independence in global perspective. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1According to lines one through eleven of the test, why was the Declaration of Independence globally influential?Why, according to the text, is this statement epic in illustrating the importance of the Declaration of Independence, “that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do”?Why was the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence monumental to the Revolutionary War, according to lines thirty to thirty seven of the text?What was the author’s purpose in stating, “Thomas Paine had warned in Common Sense in January 1776 that “the custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until by an independence, we take rank with other nations”?What does the author mean when he states, “The Declaration of Independence was primarily a declaration of interdependence with the other powers of the earth”?Day 2 In which way did the Declaration of Independence transcend beyond its intended purpose to dissolve British control over America, according to the text?What does the author mean when he states, “The farflung fortunes of the Declaration remind us that independence and popular sovereignty usually accompanied each other, but also that there was no necessary connection between them: an independent Mexico became an empire under a monarchy between 1821 and 1823, Brazil’s independence was proclaimed by its emperor, Dom Pedro II in 1822, and, as we have seen, Ian Smith’s Rhodesian government threw off parliamentary authority while professing loyalty to the British Crown”?The author states, “Thomas Jefferson’s assessment of its potential, made weeks before his death on July 4, 1826, surely still holds true today: “’an instrument, pregnant with our own and the fate of the world’”. To which extent was Thomas Jefferson’s statement representative of the effects of the Declaration of Independence globally?In which way was America also impacted by the influence of the Declaration of Independence, after the Revolutionary War, according to the text?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Week 2Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionWhat was the most important factor that contributed to America gaining independence from Great Britain?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)HunkeredEntrenchmentsHoistedfawningcondescensionpugnacitydespondent withdispersalobliteratingcessationsedentarycessationensnaredboltedhitheredthitheredBattle of LexingtonBattle of ConcordSaratogaYorktownBattle of CapesExpatriateCulminationSpawnedShrewdDecadenceAghastMartin, J. “No Way Out: Lord Cornwallis, the Siege of Yorktown, and America’s Victory in the War for Independence” (2013)Bernstein, R. “Inventing American Diplomacy” (2013)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.bRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 2 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore important facts that led to American victory in the Revolutionary War. Alliances played a major role in American triumph, but these alliances were very complex in nature. Students will analyze the alliance between America and France, which was essential to American success, as this alliance provided America with more man power and resources to win the war. However, mistrust between the French and Americans was evident and each country had their own agenda. Students will also explore crucial decisions by British Generals, during the war, which proved to be costly. These decisions were the product of miscommunication and the failure to foresee the power of Americans and alliances. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the impact of alliances in the Revolutionary War and how British miscommunication led to American victory. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of important factors that led to American victory in the Revolutionary War. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-98 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 98-186 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 114 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In way did alliances and British miscommunication lead to American victory?No Way Out: Lord Cornwallis, the Siege of Yorktown, and America’s Victory in the War for Independenceby James Kirby Martin Early on the morning of October 17, 1781, Lieutenant General Charles, Lord Cornwallis, found himself hunkered down in a cave near the southern shoreline of the York River. Above him was the disintegrating hamlet of Yorktown, Virginia, now being systematically bombarded into rubble by American and French cannon fire. Cornwallis understood that imminent surrender was the certain fate of his entrapped military force, an army that consisted of about 8,000 British, Hessian, and loyalist soldiers, in addition to wives, consorts, and even children. An attempted breakout had failed the previous evening. A sudden tropical storm disrupted an effort to move his army northward across the York River to Gloucester Point—and possible escape. Now with the ground continually shaking all around him, Cornwallis prepared to order a white flag hoisted above his battered entrenchments, even as he reckoned with the reasons why his army had gotten into such a hopeless position.Lord Cornwallis had been born into the highest ranks of British society in 1738. He attended the best schools, including Eton and later Cambridge University, and then chose to pursue a military career. Unlike many of the titled nobility that filled the upper ranks of the British military establishment, Cornwallis took time to study the science of conducting warfare at the well-known military academy in Turin, Italy. His father purchased a military commission for him as an ensign in the 1st Foot Guards, and Cornwallis soon traveled to Germany where he distinguished himself in combat during the height of the Seven Years’ War (also known as the French and Indian War in its North American phase).Cornwallis also pursued a political career in Parliament, getting elected to the House of Commons before being elevated to his family’s seat in the House of Lords to succeed his father, who died in 1762. Amazingly, given his later martial actions in America, he opposed various legislative plans, including the Stamp Act, designed to bring Britain’s American colonies under greater imperial control. As an apparent friend of the colonists, of which there were few in the House of Lords, Cornwallis winked at American resistance. But when resistance turned to open rebellion and warfare in the wake of the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, he did not hesitate to accept a general’s commission from King George III and sail for America, arriving in early 1776.Many of the key British generals suffered from a lack of martial aggressiveness. They considered the colonists their inferiors, the kind of fainthearted nobodies who would wither and run when they had to face massed British arms. By virtue of his education and training as a peer of the realm, Cornwallis was no fawning admirer of the Americans, but he would not allow his condescension to hold him back from acting decisively, with almost a reckless form of pugnacity, in his attempts to suppress the rebellion.Stated differently, Cornwallis was not timid about going after rebellious colonists. He displayed his aggressiveness in various actions directed against Washington’s Continental forces in 1776 and 1777. A year later, he returned to England to care for his beloved, sickly wife. When she passed away in February 1779, Cornwallis was despondent with grief. A few months later, hoping to divert his mind from his emotional pain, he sailed back to America to press on with efforts to put an end to the American rebellion.Even before Cornwallis returned to England, British strategy aimed at winning the war had shifted dramatically. Up until 1778 much of the effort had focused on knocking out Washington’s army as well as re-conquering New England, the initial seat of the rebellion. While Washington’s troops took a series of poundings but continued to survive in the middle states, major combat in upstate New York resulted in a critical patriot triumph at Saratoga, about thirty miles north of Albany along the Hudson River. On October 17, 1777, after two earlier pitched battles, a British army of near 5,000 troops, commanded by overconfident, slow-moving, and indecisive “Gentleman” Johnny Burgoyne, surrendered to the Americans.This impressive victory set in motion the process by which France, an ancient enemy of England, signed an alliance agreement with the American rebels in February 1778. The French both recognized American independence and promised to stand as a good and faithful ally of the patriot cause. Heretofore, the French had secretly aided the Americans with cash subsidies, loans, and war goods. Now they would do much more, including providing invaluable land and naval forces that would give their American allies a critical martial advantage in subduing British forces in North America, as Cornwallis would ultimately experience at Yorktown.French intervention turned what had been a civil war into an international conflict. The French navy could attack valuable British possessions almost anywhere, including such targets as the English West Indian sugar islands. The French even gave thought to mounting a sea offensive against England itself. In response, England’s wartime leaders decided to withdraw troops from North America for defense of other imperial holdings.The possibility of troop reductions, literally taking the eye off the American rebels, resulted in a new strategic approach designed to snuff out the rebellion. Some evidence suggested that the southern colonies were teeming with loyalists, perhaps up to 50 percent of the population. So the South became the new focal point of British strategy. With loyalists serving under British arms, manpower shortages would be resolved. The new plan was to recapture and subdue one former colony after another, starting with Georgia, then proceeding northward through the Carolinas and into Virginia and beyond. British-loyalist forces were to move forward in careful steps, making sure of the full restoration of royal authority before continuing the advance. The southern strategy got off to a successful start with a campaign that brought Georgia back into the British fold at the end of 1778.Returning to New York City, the main base of British operations, in the summer of 1779, Cornwallis would serve as second in command under Henry Clinton. The two men had very different temperaments. Clinton, seemingly mentally immobilized by the dispersal of British troops from North America, did not have faith that the rebellion could be subdued without an infusion of additional British forces. He had little confidence in loyalists as martial substitutes. Cornwallis, on the other hand, was ready to make due with whatever resources, including loyalists, were available to him. Clinton was passive and indecisive. Cornwallis was aggressive and decisive. In addition, the two generals did not trust each other. Ever suspicious of each other’s motives, Clinton wondered whether Cornwallis’s return to England had really been about getting some form of independent command. For his part, Cornwallis had secured a commission to replace Clinton, should the latter decide to resign and go home. Clinton had more than once threatened to do so, even asking in 1779 to be relieved of command, a request that King George III pointedly turned down.Despite their differences, the two generals worked together effectively in a large-scale seaborne siege campaign to recapture Charleston, South Carolina. This second step in the British southern strategy succeeded in May 1780, resulting in the capture of some 5,500 defenders under the commander of the Continental Army’s Southern Department, Major General Benjamin Lincoln. Before Clinton sailed back to New York, leaving Cornwallis in charge of further campaigning in the South, the two generals were bickering over details, as they had done on occasion earlier in the war. The revival of ill feelings would lead to all sorts of communication problems as Cornwallis acted on his own in a virtual independent command while Clinton hovered about New York City and its environs fretting about possible rebel actions against British defensive positions there.Advancing by careful steps, as called for by the southern strategy, was alien to Cornwallis’s temperament. Now on his own, he chose to go after rebel resisters with little concern about securing the ground behind him. When he saw an opportunity in mid-August 1780 to wipe out a newly forming patriot army under Major General Horatio Gates, who had replaced the captured Lincoln as the southern Continental commander, he virtually annihilated this force at Camden, South Carolina. Next Cornwallis marched into North Carolina and divided his troops to chase after smaller units of rebel resisters, including partisan bands operating under the likes of “Swamp Fox” Francis Marion behind him in South Carolina. Yet another rebel commander, the brilliant Major General Nathanael Greene, appeared in North Carolina. Greene read his opponent well. He first divided his own force, then waved his small rebel contingent at the ever aggressive Cornwallis, who grabbed at the bait and chased after Greene all the way north into southern Virginia, then back to central North Carolina, before the two forces squared off in a bloody but indecisive battle at Guilford Court House on March 15, 1781.Once focused on Greene, Cornwallis did not bother to send communications to Clinton until after he marched his exhausted force from Guilford Court House to the North Carolina coast. As he rested and refitted his army, Cornwallis decided on his own authority to advance into Virginia rather than to pull back to Charleston. From his correspondence, he seemed to be looking for a climactic, set-piece, winner-take-all battle with the rebels. He also spoke of cutting off supplies flowing south from Virginia in support of Greene’s army and partisan units operating in the Carolinas. In his apparent distress, if not anger about not yet crushing his rebel opponents, Cornwallis ignored the possibility that he was marching his army into an inescapable trap.People and the course of events now seemed to conspire against Cornwallis. Certainly one source of problems was an agitated, confused, angry Clinton, disturbed by his subordinate’s lack of communication and his unauthorized decision to invade Virginia. Clinton began sending Cornwallis contradictory instructions, more or less written as suggestions rather than specific orders. Cornwallis made some effort to follow Clinton’s waffling messages, first by trying to find a defensible position where Royal Navy vessels could sail into Chesapeake Bay and pick up troops not needed to defend that location. When some 2,000 Hessians arrived in New York to reinforce Clinton, which eased his worries about having enough soldiers to defend New York City from the hovering combined Franco-American force under Washington and the Comte de Rochambeau, his messages became more specific. As if now renouncing the southern strategy, Clinton advised Cornwallis to find a defensible location where naval vessels could sail into Chesapeake Bay and remove his whole army for likely operations elsewhere, possibly against Philadelphia. The bustling community of Yorktown was Cornwallis’s choice, where in early August 1781 his troops began to construct an outer and an inner line of defensive works.Even as Cornwallis’s army was digging in to protect against a possible landside assault, Washington and Rochambeau received an amazing message. In mid-August they learned from the Comte de Grasse, in command of a major French fleet, that he was sailing north from the West Indies with twenty-seven ships and 3,200 troops. His ships, sailors, and soldiers would be available, a least for a couple of months, for combined operations against British forces, possibly against New York City or elsewhere. Rochambeau convinced Washington that Cornwallis’s army was a more conquerable target than New York, especially if the French fleet blocked off the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, thereby denying the enemy force an escape route from Yorktown by sea.Washington agreed, and the two commanders started marching their armies south, leaving behind just a token force to convince Clinton of their plan to attack New York City. However, Clinton soon learned that Washington and Rochambeau were on the move, and he arranged for a naval fleet under Admiral Sir Thomas Graves to sail quickly for Chesapeake Bay. The British vessels did not arrive in time, and a series of engagements with Grasse’s ships began on September 5 (the Battle of the Capes) that damaged both fleets, caused Graves to give up any attempted penetration into the bay. The British admiral sailed his wounded fleet back to New York.Clinton, meanwhile, sent Cornwallis messages in early September warning that he soon would face Franco-American forces on the landside. At the same time, Clinton promised relief by sea, including possible troop reinforcements for Cornwallis, even though he had not yet learned about Graves’s naval failure. The expectation of relief caused Cornwallis to sit tight and hope for the best, rather than attempt to get away from Yorktown before the forces of Washington and Rochambeau appeared. With more than sixty artillery pieces and a double defensive line, Cornwallis convinced himself that his army could hold out until a British rescue fleet arrived. However, he warned Clinton in a message dated September 17 that he should expect to receive the worst possible news if relief did not occur soon.A month later the worst had happened, at least from the British point of view. By the end of September Washington and Rochambeau had their armies in place before Yorktown. French land and naval forces totaled 7,800. Washington had 5,700 Continentals and 3,200 militia available to him, meaning that the allies had Cornwallis’s army outnumbered by a ratio of more than two to one. Worse yet, when Cornwallis received another misleading message from Clinton in late September that a relief fleet was on its way, along with 5,000 troops, he decided to abandon his outer defenses. He mistakenly assumed that he had to hang on for only a few more days.The allies decided to use traditional siege tactics by digging parallel trenches from which they could safely bombard Yorktown. The unrelenting allied cannonade began on October 9 with thousands of cannonballs flying into the British lines for the next several days, not only causing mayhem and death but also obliterating portions of Yorktown. Almost as bad for Cornwallis, horrible diseases were spreading among his soldiers, including the highly contagious killer smallpox.On October 15, not knowing that the promised relief force was yet to sail from New York, Cornwallis penned a message to Clinton that his army could not be saved. After the failed breakout attempt across the York River late on the evening of the 16th, Cornwallis, reckoning with possible annihilation of his force, sent out a lone drummer boy and an officer waving a white flag who carried a brief message asking for a cessation of hostilities and acceptable surrender terms.That Cornwallis, the most aggressive of the ranking British generals, became sedentary and allowed himself to get ensnared at Yorktown might be described as ironic. Over and over again during the southern campaigns, he had bolted hither and thither, not following the dictates of the southern strategy but often wounding patriot forces while also wearing down his own. His decision to march into Virginia, looking for an all-out, climactic battle, was one aggressive move too many. Complying with vacillating instructions from his superior Clinton, he got himself stuck at Yorktown, even as he showed no dynamism to seize the few opportune moments available to extricate his force before it was too late.What Cornwallis failed to appreciate was the prospect of combined Franco-American operations actually succeeding. For more than three years after the alliance came into being, American and French forces had not functioned together effectively. Then, somehow, everything came together for them at Yorktown, a thought that would bedevil Cornwallis for the rest of his life, even while he served in India and elsewhere in the British empire before his death in 1805. His legacy would be that of the general who allegedly lost America.For the aristocrat general, the surrender ceremonies on the sunny autumn afternoon of October 19 were simply too personally humiliating. Cornwallis declared himself indisposed, and he sent out his second in command, Brigadier General Charles O’Hara, to lead his defeated column along a roadway past assembled French and American soldiers and sailors. Once at the surrender field, O’Hara looked for Rochambeau and offered him his sword, as if to say that the rebel force could not have prevailed without significant French assistance. Rochambeau pointed toward Washington, indicating that the victory belonged to the Americans. In turn, the patriot commander was not going to accept a sword from anyone of lower rank than Cornwallis, his defeated equal in command. He directed O’Hara to hand the sword to his second in command, General Benjamin Lincoln, who, as irony would have it, had suffered the indignity of surrendering his own sword to the British when they captured Charleston back in May 1780.The scene on the afternoon of October 19 was cheerless for the British officers and soldiers who laid down their arms. Their drummers and fifers, with black ribbons attached to their instruments, played various tunes. Legend has persisted that one was the mournful melody “The World Turned Upside Down.” Whether true or not, Yorktown turned the world upside down for the colonists’ former masters and, as such, represented a defining moment of triumph in the American experience. Yes, the war continued in the West Indies and other parts of the globe into 1783, but Yorktown set in motion a train of diplomatic events that resulted in Britain’s official recognition of American independence.The southern strategy, a direct response to the Franco-American alliance, had failed; both Clinton and Cornwallis had failed; the French and the Americans had succeeded. In many ways O’Hara’s rude gesture of first seeking out Rochambeau had merit. The French did play an inestimable part in achieving American independence. At the same time, rebel persistence, as personified by George Washington and his long-term veteran Continentals, had kept the patriot cause intact until that day of surrender outside Yorktown—and even beyond. The result was a new republic bearing the name the United States of America, a nation with a grand destiny waiting to be realized.James Kirby Martin is the Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen University Professor of History at the University of Houston. His many books include Benedict Arnold: Revolutionary Hero: An American Warrior Reconsidered (1997); A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763–1789 (2nd edition, 2006, with Mark E. Lender); Forgotten Allies: The Oneida Indians and the American Revolution (2006, with Joseph T. Glatthaar); and a new edition of a classic wartime memoir of a young Continental soldier, Ordinary Courage: The Revolutionary War Adventures of Joseph Plumb Martin (2013).Martin, J. (2013). No Way Out: Lord Cornwallis, the Siege of Yorktown, and America’s Victory in the War for Independence. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1According to lines eighteen to twenty four of the text, what was Cornwallis’ position concerning colonists’ resistance to British control? According to the author, in which ways did the American and French alliance contribute to American victory in the Revolutionary war?What does the author mean when he states, “French intervention turned what had been a civil war into an international conflict”?What actions did the British take to counteract the American and French alliance, which proved to be effective?According to the author, in which ways did Cornwallis’ aggressively decisive actions hinder British Victory? Day 2In which ways did the lack of communication between Cornwallis and Clinton lead to American victory, according to the author?Which factors contributed to the weakening on the British army and eventual surrender in Yorktown, according to the text?What is the author referring to when he states, “That Cornwallis, the most aggressive of the ranking British generals, became sedentary and allowed himself to get ensnared at Yorktown might be described as ironic”?According to the text, what led to Britain’s official recognition of American Independence?Inventing American Diplomacyby R. B. Bernstein In 1783, the expatriate artist Benjamin West began what became his most memorable painting, “The Peacemakers.” West intended to produce a group portrait of the diplomats whose negotiations resulted in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, but the British diplomats refused to sit for the portrait, and West had to leave it unfinished. The Americans who sat for the portrait seem to embody the virtues of diplomacy, in particular a calm collegiality uniting the new nation’s diplomats. John Jay stands to the left, grim and resolute. Beside him sit John Adams, looking weary but tranquil; Benjamin Franklin, the only one looking out at the viewer, with a faint smile on his face suggesting his pleasure with the negotiations’ results; and his grandson, William Temple Franklin, the American delegation’s secretary, leaning with head on hand looking pensive and attentive. Behind the two Franklins stands Henry Laurens, looking anxious and worn, as befitted a man who had spent nearly two years as an imprisoned guest of George III in the Tower of London.“The Peacemakers” shows no sign of the discord that raged among these diplomats and their colleagues, nor between the Americans and their adversaries the British and their allies the French. It gives no clue to the slapdash, turbulent, and conflicted history for which the treaty was the culmination. Nor does it suggest that the treaty spawned a turbulent history that led to the Constitution of the United States.It is important to remember that independence from Britain was more than just a severing of ties between the United States and its former mother country. It created the chance for the United States to establish its presence in the community of nations. Thus the American Revolution not only created the United States; it was the catalyst for the invention of American diplomacy.Even before the war began, the thought of independence led Americans to explore securing support from Britain’s European rivals. In late 1775, the Second Continental Congress created a Committee of Secret Correspondence to make covert feelers toward foreign powers. That committee authorized the Connecticut merchant Silas Deane to undertake a confidential mission to France, Once independence was declared, Congress decided to bolster its diplomatic presence in France. It named Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, perhaps the most famous and eminent American in the world, and Arthur Lee of Virginia, to join Deane as a team of diplomats seeking recognition from France. Franklin led this series of negotiations, meeting with the French foreign minister, the Comte de Vergennes. At the same time, he also conducted a shrewd and well-crafted campaign of public relations to make the American cause the toast of Paris and the central issue of the time. Clad in modest dress topped by a fur-trimmed hat, taking on the role of an ingenuous American farmer-philosopher from the banks of the Delaware, Franklin proved a master of political theater. Even with all these efforts, which he maintained throughout his diplomatic service, Franklin needed to prove to the skeptical Vergennes and his colleagues that the Americans could make effective use of the aid they sought. Not until news of the American victory at the Battle of Saratoga in October 1777 reached Paris could Franklin induce the French to enter into a formal treaty of alliance between France and the United States.Unfortunately for Franklin, his colleagues bickered with each other and with him—a characteristic that dominated the earliest years of American diplomacy. Of the various representatives that Congress sent to Europe, only Franklin had extensive previous experience in the Old World, and only Franklin possessed the talents and abilities essential to the mission’s success. Deane was out of his depths and defensive; Lee was wary of everyone but himself, suspecting Deane of corruption and Franklin of being susceptible to French influence and flattery. He tended to voice these suspicions not only in arguments with his colleagues but in letters to his political allies in Congress.More than personal animosity underlay these divisions and disputes. Most Americans had been steeped in distrust and fear of Catholic France since the days of the colonial wars, and many Americans’ felt that their own country was innocent and virtuous while Europe, in particular France, was decadent and corrupt. This feeling sparked American wariness that decadence and corruption might gain too much influence over America in general and its diplomats in particular.Franklin found having to deal with Deane and Lee bad enough—but in some ways things were about to get worse. In 1777, Congress sent one of its leading members, John Adams of Massachusetts, to Paris to help secure an alliance with France. Unfortunately Adams arrived in early 1778, after the establishment of the alliance. Feeling all but useless and frustrated by his uselessness, Adams also became aghast at what he considered Franklin’s sloppiness in keeping records and Franklin’s preference for convivial dinners and banquets over the hard work of diplomacy.Adams did not understand Franklin’s mastery of indirect diplomacy conducted under the guise of social engagements. But at the same time Franklin did not understand Adams’s lawyerly conception of diplomacy. For Adams, a diplomat was a lawyer for his country, committed to argue for its interests. Adams concluded that the Comte de Vergennes was insufficiently committed to the American cause—and, in some measure, Adams was correct, for Vergennes put France’s interests first, and saw the American cause as a means for France to humble and injure its old enemy Great Britain. Determined to defend American interests from French indifference, Adams lobbied, pressured, argued with, and even berated Vergennes. In return, Vergennes pressed Congress to recall the troublesome Adams.In June of 1779, overcome by frustration, Adams welcomed the news from home that he could leave France for America. He soon returned to the fray, however, sailing back to Paris at the end of 1779, named as the American commissioner to negotiate a treaty of peace with Britain. French objections to Adams as the sole appointment for such an important diplomatic task eventually led Congress to name four other diplomats to join Adams as a commission of diplomats—Benjamin Franklin; John Jay, a polished and suave New Yorker who had spent two years seeking without avail to establish a treaty of alliance with Spain; Thomas Jefferson, a diplomatic and genial Virginian who was friendly with both Adams and Franklin; and Henry Laurens, a powerful figure in South Carolina. Jefferson, however, was unable to set sail for Europe before the commission concluded its work, and Laurens was captured by a British ship, arrested for treason, and jailed in the Tower of London, where he languished until he was exchanged for General Cornwallis in 1781. Thus, Franklin, Adams, and Jay comprised the team entrusted with the fate of the United States.John Jay held Adams and Franklin in a careful, tenuous, ever-shifting balance. More suspicious of France than Franklin (as a descendant of French Huguenot Protestants, Jay still remembered with bitterness the persecution of his family by French Catholics in the late sixteenth century), but more diplomatic in style and manner than the blustery Adams, Jay tipped the scales decisively among the American commissioners. Congress had directed the American diplomats always to coordinate and work in close contact with their French counterparts in any negotiations with Britain. But Adams and Jay distrusted the French and persuaded Franklin that their best course of action was to open direct talks with the British and seek a separate peace. According to legend, the three men were smoking in front of a fireplace at Franklin’s rented house at Passy, just outside Paris, when Franklin asked Jay, “Would you break our instructions?” Jay supposedly threw his pipe into the fireplace, where it shattered, and answered, “I would break our instructions as soon as I would break that pipe.”Thus in late 1782, the American diplomats and their British counterparts began the subtle, difficult, and complex negotiations that ended in late 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The situation of the negotiations was complex. France was bound to Spain by secret agreements to recover Gibraltar from the British and some British factions did not want to concede American independence despite Cornwallis’s surrender. British diplomats were prepared to insist that the United States make good on the losses suffered by loyalists, whose property was confiscated, and British merchants, to whom Americans owed considerable debts. Americans, on the other hand, were determined to secure access to the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian Atlantic coast.Americans faced several additional problems. It was difficult to keep Congress informed of the negotiations, for messages carried across the Atlantic could take as long as two months to reach their intended destination. Congress itself was wracked by internal political divisions, and this led to sometimes conflicting instructions and advice and demands reaching the American diplomats in Paris. Suspicions that agents of rival European powers were seeking to influence Congress further complicated the diplomats’ task. And there was always the need to be on guard against espionage agents, hoping to discover American intentions and willing to sow disinformation to all parties involved in the negotiations.For the most part Franklin, Adams, and Jay managed to bury their differences so that they could effectively deal with the British diplomats. Adams managed to secure American access to the fisheries of the Canadian coast, and Franklin parried British claims for reparations for loyalists by arguing that those claims had to be set off against American claims against Britain for property destroyed in the war.The preliminary articles of peace between Britain and the United States which served as the basis for the final treaty, (1) recognized American independence, (2) ceded to the United States all territory held by Great Britain between the Allegheny Mountains and the Mississippi River, (3) recognized American rights of access to the Newfoundland fisheries in Canada, (4) required the American states to make good on any valid legal claims of loyalist refugees or British subjects against American debtors, and (5) gave up any attempt to seek compensation for by loyalists and British subjects for lost property.Although the Treaty of Paris brought a triumphant end to the war with Great Britain, and was one of the greatest achievements of the American government operating under the Articles of Confederation, it also left a legacy of political and constitutional uncertainty. The United States had great difficulty inducing the individual states to see that legitimate debts were paid to loyalist and British creditors. In retaliation, the British refused to withdraw their forces from forts in the Old Northwest. Further, Britain refused to give Americans “most favored nation” status in commercial relations, injuring American trade. The treaty’s most important consequence, perhaps, was that it highlighted the Confederation’s inability to defend American interests abroad or enforce the terms of the treaty. This contributed to a movement to revise—or replace—the Articles of Confederation. The Treaty of Paris was thus a step-parent of the Constitution of the United States.R. B. Bernstein is Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law at New York Law School and author of The Founding Fathers Reconsidered and Thomas Jefferson.Bernstein, R.(2013). Inventing American diplomacy. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from .org/history-by-era/war-for-independence/essays/inventing-american-diplomacyDay 11.According to the author, in which way was the alliance between France and America complex and in which way did it aid in American victory?2.In which way, according to the text, did Americans betray the French and how did this aid America?3.According to the text, why did secret alliances complicate negotiations?4.What issues between America and Great Britain were unresolved by the Treaty of Paris, according to the text?5.What does the author mean when he states, “The Treaty of Paris was thus a step-parent of the Constitution of the United States”?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Week 3Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn what ways, did American fears, cited in the Declaration of Independence, lead to the failure of the Articles of Confederation?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)TyrannicallySovereignty DefrayAdjournConstituentsInviolablyArticles of Confederation obligedinsurgentsemphaticalproprietyefficatiousenumeratedebilitatedannihilatedShay’s Rebellion“Articles of Confederation” ( 1777)“George Washigton’s letter to Henry Knox” (1787)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.dRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 3 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore how the Declaration of Independence influenced major concepts in the Articles of Confederation. After declaring independence from Great Britain’s tyranny, the next logical step was to create unity between the states. The founding fathers attempted to do this through the creation of the Articles of Confederation, but fear of extreme federal power resulted in an almost powerless national government. Ultimately, this weak federal government started failing, because states had too much sovereignty. Events, such as Shay’s rebellion, led politicians to believe that America would fail under this system of government. Ultimately, the founding fathers threw away the Articles of Confederation and created the United States Constitution.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how fears, which were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, influenced the creation of the Articles of Confederation. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of important factors that led to the demise of the Articles of Confederation. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-127 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 128- 202 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 54 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: What major features of the Articles of Confederation, which were inspired by the Declaration of Independence, led to its eventual demise? Transcript of Articles of Confederation (1777)To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.Article I. ?The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”Article II. ?Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.Article III. ?The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.Article IV. ?The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other State of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.??????? ???????????????If any Person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence.?????? ????????????????Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.Article V. ?For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.???????????????? No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.???????????????? Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states.???????????????? In determining questions in the united states, in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote.???????????????? Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.Article VI. No State, without the Consent of the united States, in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conferrence, agreement, alliance, or treaty, with any King prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the united states, in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united states, in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united States in congress assembled, with any king, prince, or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united states in congress assembled, can be consulted: nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or State, and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled shall determine otherwise.Article VII. When land forces are raised by any state, for the common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each state respectively by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the state which first made appointment.Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings ?and improvements thereon shall be estimated, according to such mode as the united states, in congress assembled, shall, from time to time, direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.Article IX. The united states, in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article - of sending and receiving ambassadors - entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made, whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever -? of establishing rules for deciding, in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the united Sates, shall be divided or appropriated - of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace? -? appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and establishing courts; for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures; provided that no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.The united states, in congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal, in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another, shall present a petition to congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given, by order of congress, to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names, as congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of congress, be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present, shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive; the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress, for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection, or hope of reward: “provided, also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the congress of the united states, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different states.The united states, in congress assembled, shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states - fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the united states - regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states; provided that the legislative right of any state, within its own limits, be not infringed or violated - establishing and regulating post-offices from one state to another, throughout all the united states, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same, as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office - appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of the united States, excepting regimental officers - appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the united states; making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.The united States, in congress assembled, shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated, “A Committee of the States,” and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction - to appoint one of their number to preside; provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the united states, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses; to borrow money or emit bills on the credit of the united states, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted, - ?to build and equip a navy - to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state, which requisition shall be binding; and thereupon the legislature of each state shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip them, in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the united states; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states, in congress assembled; but if the united states, in congress assembled, shall, on consideration of circumstances, judge proper that any state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm, and equip, as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled.The united states, in congress assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the united states, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united states, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same, nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled.The congress of the united states shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the united states, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six Months, and shall publish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State, on any question, shall be entered on the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the said Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several states.Article X. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states, in congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall, from time to time, think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states, in the congress of the united states assembled, is requisite.Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.Article XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by or under the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united states, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the united States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united states and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, Know Ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.Resource:Articles of Confederation. (1777). Our documents. Retrieved from ? Flash=true&doc=3&page=transcript?Day 1The Articles of Confederation states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled”. To which extent was this sentence, in the Articles of Confederation, influenced by American fears of tyranny, according to the text?According to lines thirteen to sixteen, what was the main goal of the Articles of Confederation?Why are lines forty two to forty five descriptive of grievances addressed in the Declaration of Independence?According to the text, what powers are reserved to federal government?According to the text, what powers are reserved to the states?Day 2What conflicting authority did lines one hundred and twenty eight to one hundred and thirty grant congress and the states, according to the text?In what ways did lines one hundred and fifty nine to one hundred and sixty six limit congressional powers?What are the weaknesses and strengths of the Articles of Confederation? Please use the text to substantiate your answer.In what way did grievances against the British, which were addressed in the Declaration of Independence, influenced the writing of the Articles of Confederation?George Washington to Henry Knox Mount Vernon, Virginia, 3 February 1787.Autograph letter signed, 6 pages + docket. Mount Vernon 3d. February. 1787My dear Sir; I feel myself exceedingly obliged to you for the full, & friendly communications in your?letters of the 14th. 21st. & 25th. ult; and shall (critically as matters are described in the latter) be extremely anxious to know the issue of the movements of the forces that were assembling, the one to support, the other to oppose the constitutional rights of Massachusetts. – The moment is, indeed, important! – If government shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws; fresh maneuvers will be displayed by the insurgents – anarchy & confusion must prevail – and every thing will be turned topsy turvey in that State; where it is not probable the mischiefs will terminate. – In[2] In your letter of the 14th. you express a wish to know my intention respecting the Convention, proposed to be held at Philada, in May next. – In confidence I inform you, that it is not, at this time, my purpose to attend it. – When this matter was first moved in the Assembly of?this State, some of the principal characters, of it wrote to me, requesting to be permitted to put my name in the delegation. – To this I objected – They again pressed, and I again refused; assigning among other reasons my having declined meeting the Society of the Cincinnati at that place, about the same time; & that I thought it would be disrespectful to that body (to whom I ow’d much) to be there on any other occasion. – Notwithstanding these intimations, my name was inserted in the Act; and an official [inserted?: communication] thereof made by the Executive to me; to whom, atthe same time [inserted?: that] I expressed my sense of the confidence reposed in me, I declared, that as I saw no prospect of my attending, it was my [3] my wish that my name might not remain in the delegation, to the exclusion of another. – To this I have been requested, in emphatical terms, not to decide absolutely, as no inconvenience would result from the non-appointment of another, at least for sometime. – Thus the matter stands, which is the reason of my saying to you in confidence that at present I retain my first intention – not to go. – In the meanwhile as I have the fullest conviction of your friendship for, and attachment to me; – know your abilities to judge; – and your means of information, – I shall receive any communications from you, respecting this business, with thankfulness. – My first wish is, to do for the best, and to act with propriety; and you know me too well, to believe that reserve or concealment of any circumstance or opinion, would be at all?pleasing to me. The legallity of this Convention I do not mean to discuss – nor how problematical [4]?problematical the issue of it may be. – That powers are wanting, none can deny. – Through what medium they are to be derived, will, like other matters, engage public attention. – That which takes the shortest course to obtain them, will, in my opinion, under present circumstances, be found best.?– Otherwise, like a house on fire, whilst the most regular mode of extinguishing it is contending for, the building is reduced to ashes. – My opinion of the energetic wants of the federal government are well known – publickly & privately, I have declared it; and however?constitutienally it may be for Congress to point out the defects of the federal System, I am strongly inclined to believe that it would not be found the most efficatious channel for the recommendation, more especially the alterations, to flow – for reasons too obvious to enumerate. –The System on which you seem disposed to build a national government [ 5 ] vernment [?sic]is certainly more energetic, and I dare say, in every point of view is more desirable than the present one; which, from experience; we find is not only slow – debilitated – and liable to be thwarted by every breath, but is defective in that secrecy, which for the accomplishment of many of the most important national purposes, is indispensably necessary; and besides, having the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary departments concentered, is exceptionable. – But at the same time I give this opinion, I believe that the political machine will yet be much tumbled & tossed, and possibly?be wrecked altogether, before such a system as you have defined, will be adopted. – The darling Sovereignties of the States individually, – The Governors elected & elect. – The Legislators – with a long trait of etcetera whose political consequence will be lessened, if not anihilated, would give their weight of opposition to [6?] to such a revolution. – But I may be speaking without book, for?scarcely ever going off my own farms I see few people who do not call upon me; & am very little acquainted with the sentiments of the great world; [strikeout ] indeed, after what I have seen, or rather after what I have heard, I shall be surprized at nothing; for if three years ago any person had told me that at this day, I should see [ strikeout ] such a formidable [inserted : rebellion] against the laws & constitutions of our own making [inserted : as now appears] I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house. Adieu, you know how much, and how sincerely am,ever, Yr. Affecte& Most Obedt Servant Go: WashingtonMrs Washington joins me in every good wish for yourself, – Mrs. Knox and the family. – [docket ]V.V.V. Mount Vernon, 3 February 1787. His Excellency Genl Washington Original No 26 –George Washington to Henry Knox. (1787). Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from /86912278 /George-Washington-discusses-Shays%E2%80%99-Rebellion-and-the-upcoming-Constitutional-Convention-1787#fullscreenDay 1According to the text, what risk did George Washington foresee if Shay’s Rebellion was successful? What is the author referring to when he states, “– If government shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws; fresh maneuvers will be displayed by the insurgents – anarchy & confusion must prevail – and every thing will be turned topsy turvey in that State; where it is not probable the mischiefs will terminat”?What did George Washigton mean when he stated, “The legallity of this Convention I do not mean to discuss – nor how problematical the issue of it may be. That powers are wanting, none can deny”?What does the author mean when he states, “My opinion of the energetic wants of the federal government are well known – publickly & privately, I have declared it; and however constitutienally it may be for Congress to point out the defects of the federal System, I am strongly inclined to believe that it would not be found the most efficatious channel for the recommendation, more especially the alterations, to flow – for reasons too obvious to enumerate”?According to George Washington, how should power be divided between the states and the federal government?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Week 4Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent was the United States Constitution influenced by the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)PosterityOrdainVestedEnumerationSubsequentPrescribedConcurrenceascertainedEmolumentMisconstructionDeclaratoryDeclaratorySeizedPresentmentIndictmentascertainedcompulsoryconstruedUnited States ConstitutionBill of Rights“United States Constitution”“Bill of Rights”Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.b, 6.1.12.A.2.dRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 4 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore the extent to which major concepts discussed in the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation were addressed in the Constitution. The constant struggle for power is evident, even in the Constitution, as several parts of the Constitution aim to address this struggle through a system of checks and balances, state verses federal rights, and citizen verses state and federal government rights. Ironically, remnants of unresolved issues which led to the Revolutionary War were still present, even after the establishment of a new government.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how concepts of power, which were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and addressed in the Articles of Confederation, were still the center of attention of the Constitution. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of ways the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation inspired the United States Constitution.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-375 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 357- 468 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 75 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent were major features of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation addressed in the Constitution? The Constitution of the United States: A TranscriptionWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Article. I.Section. 1.All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.Section. 2.The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.Section. 3.The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.Section. 4.The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.Section. 5.Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.Section. 6.The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.Section. 7.All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;To establish Post Offices and post Roads;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide and maintain a Navy;To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--AndTo 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 Officer thereof.Section. 9.The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.Article. II.Section. 1.The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.Section. 3.He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.Section. 4.The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.Article III.Section. 1.The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.Section. 2.The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.Section. 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.Article. IV.Section. 1.Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.Section. 3.New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.Section. 4.The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.Article. V.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.Article. VI.All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all 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 Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Article. VII.The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, the Word "Thirty" being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words "is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.Attest William Jackson Secretarydone in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,G°. WashingtonPresidt and deputy from VirginiaDelawareGeo: ReadGunning Bedford junJohn DickinsonRichard BassettJaco: BroomMarylandJames McHenryDan of St Thos. JeniferDanl. CarrollVirginiaJohn BlairJames Madison Jr.North CarolinaWm. BlountRichd. Dobbs SpaightHu WilliamsonSouth CarolinaJ. RutledgeCharles Cotesworth PinckneyCharles PinckneyPierce ButlerGeorgiaWilliam FewAbr BaldwinNew HampshireJohn LangdonNicholas GilmanMassachusettsNathaniel GorhamRufus KingConnecticutWm. Saml. JohnsonRoger ShermanNew YorkAlexander HamiltonNew JerseyWil: LivingstonDavid BrearleyWm. PatersonJona: DaytonPennsylvaniaB FranklinThomas MifflinRobt. MorrisGeo. ClymerThos. FitzSimonsJared IngersollJames WilsonGouv MorrUnited States Constitution (1787). Archives. Retrieved from /constitution.htmlDay 11.According to the texts, in which way is this statement contradicting the fundamentals of the Declaration of Independence, “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”? 2.What is the text referring to when it states,” three fifths of all other Persons”?3.What precautions, according to the text, where taken to prevent any politician from becoming too powerful or a tyrant?4.In which ways was the United States Constitution able to address concerns that led to the inevitable failure of the Articles of Confederation, according to the text, in reference to lack of centralized power?Day 21.Article four declares the United States Constitution the ‘supreme law of the land”. According to the text, why is this significant is establishing division of power?2. “No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due”. In what ways does this statement, according to the text, define the relationships between states, while addressing limitations of the Article of Confederation?3.In what ways, according to the text, did the Constitution address power struggles, which were evident in the Declaration of Independence?4.In what ways, according to the text, did the Constitution address power struggles, which were evident in the Articles of Confederation?The Bill of RightsThe Preamble to The Bill of RightsCongress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment IIA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Amendment IIINo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Amendment VIIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.Amendment VIIIn Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.Amendment VIIIExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Day 11.What was the purpose of creating the Bill of Rights, according to the text?2.In which ways, according to the text, are concepts in the Declaration of Independence expressed in the Bill of Rights?3.The bill of rights states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. Why is this statement provocative in demonstrating the limitations of the new government?4.What do the authors mean when they state, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”?5.In which ways, according to the text, is the struggle of power between citizens, states, and federal government still evident, according to the text?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Week 5Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what degree did the Constitution fail to address issues that led to the Revolutionary War? Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)IrreverentPlebesciteFerventAbolitionistWilliam Lloyd GarrisonAntifederalistsFrederick DouglassGnawingLanguishingJarringContentiousEgalitarianOminousContemptibleContentiousAmbiguousAmbivalentEnumeratedsubvertedcircumventingGeorge WashingtonThomas Jefferson Gary B. Nash “Ordinary Americans and the Constitution” (2013)James O. Horton “Race and the American Constitution: A Struggle toward National Ideals James”Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.b, 6.1.12.A.2.dRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 5 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore the extent to which issues that led to the Revolutionary War were addressed by the Constitution. The issue of slavery, with complex economic and political ramifications, was largely compromised on, but never completely resolved by the passing of the Constitution. Many Americans wondered whether the Constitution was really written for all Americans and were disappointed at the outcome of the new government, which resulted from the Revolution. Issues, such as representation and human rights, discussed in the Declaration of Independence, were not manifested completely in the Constitution, as much of the population, because of passages of the Constitution, remained largely not enfranchised politically by the Constitution.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how federalism and anti-federalism was fired by undertones of slavery, economy, and political power and ways in which compromises, manifested in the Constitution, left Americans disappointed at the capstone of their Revolutionary experience. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how the Constitution failed to address the values represented by the Declaration of Independence.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-111 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 98 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 98- 206 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent were values addressed in the Declaration of Independence unrepresented in the Constitution?Ordinary Americans and the Constitution by Gary B. NashThe Constitution is so honored today, at home and abroad, that it may seem irreverent to suggest that for a great many ordinary Americans, it was not what they wished as a capstone of their revolutionary experience. This is not to say that they opposed the Constitution from beginning to end. Far from it. Rather, they were alarmed at important omissions in the Constitution, particularly a Bill of Rights. Many believed that the Constitution was the work of men of wealth and prestige who meant to submerge the most democratic features of the American Revolution. This is why historians are generally agreed that if the Constitution had been put before the electorate for an up-and-down vote—a plebescite, in effect—it would not have been ratified. Considering that the suffrage was limited to about half of the adult white men (others were not qualified for lack of property), this would have been a thumping rejection of what was seen by ordinary people as a conservative, elitist-tinged document.With this in mind, let’s consider how three large groups—African Americans, artisans, and small farmers—viewed the Constitution, and examine why these groups had deep reservations about its ability to steer the nation forward without compromising the founding principles of the American Revolution.African AmericansNot until 1845, after Madison’s long-hidden notes on the debates of the Constitutional Convention were published, would William Lloyd Garrison, a fervent abolitionist, call the Constitution a “covenant with death” and “an agreement with hell” because of the several pro-slavery clauses embodied in the document and how the delegates to the convention put them there. Enslaved African Americans—about one-sixth of the nation’s population in 1790—knew that well enough, for the Constitution that began with the lofty words “To create a more perfect union” did nothing to release them and their children from slavery.This was obvious as well to free African Americans, though their fragile position in the northern and Chesapeake states made it difficult for them to criticize the Constitution once it was ratified. And it was well known that among the Antifederalists opposing ratification of the Constitution, some were disturbed at the pro-slavery character of the document. One such person was Luther Martin, attorney general of Maryland, who railed against delaying the end of the slave trade for twenty years and lamented that the Constitution did not include a clause “to authorize the general government from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves.” In protesting the fugitive slave clause (Article IV, Section 2) shortly after ratification, black Americans again signified their understanding that northern delegates to the Constitutional Convention had bowed to southern slave owners.It would take a half century before Frederick Douglass expressed what many of his black predecessors latently believed about the Constitution, and this feeling grew as the number of slaves increased rapidly in the first half of the nineteenth century. “The Constitution of the United States—What is it?” asked Douglass. “Who made it? For whom and for what was it made?” His answer was disquieting for whites but empowering for blacks: “Liberty and Slavery—opposite as Heaven and Hell—are both in the Constitution; and the oath to support the latter is an oath to perform that which God has made impossible. .?.?. If we adopt the preamble, with Liberty and Justice, we must repudiate the enacting clauses, with Kidnapping and Slave holding.”ArtisansRepresenting perhaps one-tenth of the population, craftsmen ranged across a great many trades, and they were far from unified in their political views. Nonetheless, most supported the Constitution. They knew that the Articles of Confederation left the Continental Congress with no taxing power, with no “energy,” with no authority to raise an army to suppress insurrections, either by black slaves or white farmers’ desperate at post-1783 demands for taxes and debt payments that they could not meet in the midst of a postwar depression. Also, they favored a shift of power from state legislatures to a federal government because it promised federal protection for the American-made goods that they produced in competition with British artisans. Tariff protection, mandated by a stronger central government, fit their needs for the public to “buy American.”Yet a great many artisans had concerns about the Constitution. Particularly, they feared that it would usher in an era where the democratic promise of the Revolution—both in economic and political terms—would wither away.The artisans’ economic concerns centered on equal access to capital, land, and education and the chance to achieve what they called a “decent competency.” Believing in the virtuousness of productive labor and the indispensability of laboring people to the community, many artisans deplored what they saw as a growing tendency of the rich to feed off the poor, while casting aspersions on “the sheeplike masses” and “the vulgar herd.” If the Constitution facilitated the rise of a super-wealthy commercial elite, the day was not far off before the small producers’ dream of social justice and a rough economic equality would be shattered. George Bryan, writing as “Centinel,” put it plainly. He opposed the Constitution because it played into the hands of the “aristocratic juntos of the well-born few, who had been zealously endeavoring since the establishment of their [colonial] constitutions, to humble that offensive upstart—equal liberty.”Liberty also meant political rights. The artisans had found their voice during the Revolution, throwing off deference to wealthy leaders, and coming to play important positions on seaport committees charged with enforcing boycotts against British products. They had insisted that they were a part of the body politic—to be enfranchised, allowed to run for office, and given respect for their service to the community. At the time of Constitution-making, they were beginning to form mechanic organizations, which would soon become nodes of political consciousness. All of this seemed at risk as the ratification debates engaged the public.In some towns, especially in the interior, artisans and small shopkeepers fiercely opposed ratification of the Constitution. In Carlisle, Pennsylvania, for example, reported William Petrikin, an ordinary man, “almost every day some new society [was] being formed” to block “this detestable federal conspiracy.” A volunteer militia company that he led even pledged “to oppose the establishment of the new Constitution at the risque of our life and fortunes.” Crowd action occurred only rarely during the ratification process, but sentiments ran strong against what thousands of ordinary citizens saw as a retreat from the liberties they had gained during the Revolution.By the late eighteenth century, most artisans had drifted away from the Federalist Party into the Jefferson-led Democratic-Republican Party because some of the features of the Constitution that worried them at the time of its creation came to the fore under the first several Congresses and the presidencies of Washington and Adams. As one New York City sailmaker declaimed at a Fourth of July celebration in 1797, “Wherever the wealthy by the influence of riches are enabled to direct the choice of public officers, there the downfall of liberty cannot be very remote.” Proud to live “by the sweat of their brows,” the artisans passed down their fears of concentrated economic and political power—the enemy of a society of equal opportunity and social justice—to industrial laborers who by the 1820s were confronting capital in its expansive, freewheeling form.Small FarmersWhen Amos Singletary, the rough-hewn farmer from Worcester County, Massachusetts, rose before the state’s elected convention gathered in 1788 to decide on whether to ratify the Constitution, he spoke without benefit of any schooling. But standing behind the plow, he had developed a wealth of feelings and political instincts. Singletary may have appreciated that a written constitution was in itself a landmark event in the Western world, and he may have celebrated the fact that conventions of delegates elected by their constituents were charged with deciding on the wisdom of the document. These, after all, were breathtaking innovations in putting the power in the people—or, as was the case in Massachusetts, to give a say in political matters to about half the white adult males who qualified through property ownership.But gnawing at Singletary’s innards was something born of his lifelong experience with the men of wealth in western Massachusetts. He, like most debt-ridden farmers tilling marginal lands in New England, had just left behind a wrenching, blood-filled civil insurrection born out of desperation. “These lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk so finely, and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill,” he sputtered, “expect to get into congress themselves; they expect to be managers of the Constitution and get all the power and all the money into their own hands, and then they will swallow up all of us little folks, like the great Leviathan. Mr. President; yes just as the whale swallowed up Jonah. This is what I am afraid of.”Singletary did not speak for all farmers and probably not for most of the commercially successful men of the plow. But he spoke for the hardscrabble families who eked out a living far from commercial markets. Such men toiled on the frontiers of the new nation, especially in the Appalachian hill country from Maine to Georgia. As small agricultural producers, they feared and hated what they regarded as moneyed, parasitical men who did not live by their own labor but handled money, speculated in land, bore hard on debtors to whom they made loans, and paid low taxes in relation to their wealth.Many ordinary farmers did support the Constitution because they accepted the Federalists’ arguments that the nation was languishing under a government with insufficient power to levy taxes for national defense, conduct a muscular foreign policy, and devise national solutions to other national problems. The promise of the addition of a Bill of Rights, the lack of which was a bone in the throat of a majority of people, set at ease many who feared the aristocratic tendencies of the Constitution and the transfer of power from state legislatures to a federal Congress. But decade after decade, usually in times of economic stress, agrarian radicals would step forward in every part of the expanding nation to seek redress for grievances that were rooted, in their view, from a narrow, aggrandizing minority of wealthy Americans who benefited the most from the Constitution.Gary B. Nash is professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Los Angeles. His books include The Urban Crucible: Social Change, Political Consciousness and the Origins of the American Revolution (1979), The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America (2005), and The Forgotten Fifth: African Americans in the Age of Revolution (2006).Nash, Gary. (2013). Ordinary Americans and the Constitution. Retrieved from 11.According to the text, to what extent did the Constitution fail to address “what they wished” was “a capstone of their revolutionary experience”?2.What did Garrison mean when he stated that the Constitution was “covenant with death” and “an agreement with hell”, according to the text?3.Douglass states, “Liberty and Slavery—opposite as Heaven and Hell—are both in the Constitution; and the oath to support the latter is an oath to perform that which God has made impossible. . . . If we adopt the preamble, with Liberty and Justice, we must repudiate the enacting clauses, with Kidnapping and Slave holding.” According to the text, to what extent is this statement true?4. What did the author referring to, according to the text, when he stated, “’These lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men, that talk so finely, and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill,’ he sputtered, ‘expect to get into congress themselves; they expect to be managers of the Constitution and get all the power and all the money into their own hands, and then they will swallow up all of us little folks, like the great Leviathan. Mr. President; yes just as the whale swallowed up Jonah. This is what I am afraid of’”?5. According to the text, to which extent was the Bill of Rights a compromise between federalists and anti-federalists?6. Referencing the Bill of Rights, in what ways did the Bill of rights fail to completely address the needs of all citizens?Race and the American Constitution: A Struggle toward National Idealsby James O. HortonIn 1780, Pennsylvania passed legislation that provided for gradual emancipation, and four years later Connecticut and Rhode Island did the same. Thus, by the time the Constitutional Convention met in the spring of 1787, it was clear to most delegates that the nation was moving toward a regional split on the question of slavery.The convention gathered at the State House in Philadelphia, the same location where eleven years earlier the Declaration of Independence had been signed. For four months, fifty-five delegates from twelve states met to frame a Constitution for a new federal republic. Rhode Island, fearing federal interference with its internal state affairs, refused to send a delegate and was the only state not represented. Other states had similar concerns about the power of centralized government, but sent delegates nonetheless. In southern states, where slaves were most numerous and the institution of slavery most economically and politically powerful, regional leaders were determined to protect slaveholding interests against federal interference. These fears were heightened by the action of the Congress in July, just two months after the convention convened. Then, still operating under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, creating a new territory from the land of the United States west of Pennsylvania In the summer of 1852 Frederick Douglass took the platform at Rochester, New York’s Corinthian Hall at the invitation of the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society. The society had asked the former slave, who had become one of the most recognized anti-slavery speakers in the nation, to deliver an oration as a part of its Fourth of July observance. Since the Fourth of July fell on a Sunday in 1852, the society moved its observance to Monday, July 5, a decision with which Douglass agreed. For years, free African Americans and many white abolitionists had refused to celebrate the Fourth of July. Their refusal was a protest against the nation’s continuance of slavery, even as its Declaration of Independence professed its commitment to human freedom. At New York City’s African Free School, for example, students vowed to use the Fourth to attack the nation’s hypocrisy. In agreeing to address the Rochester group on July 5, Douglass determined to use the occasion for his own personal protest.On July 5, 1852, a crowd of at least six hundred filled Corinthian Hall as Douglass delivered one of the most striking lectures the residents of Rochester or any other American city had ever heard. It was, in fact, one of America’s most memorable orations, presented at a critical moment in American history. Barely two years before, in 1850, the federal government had issued an assault on the rights of African Americans in the form of a harsh fugitive slave law. The law, part of a massive compromise measure, was designed to appease the plantation South, making it easier for slaveholders to recover fugitive slaves, especially those seeking shelter in non-slaveholding states and territories. Not only did the law mandate the capture and return of fugitives, but it also endangered free blacks by requiring no legal protections or defense for anyone charged with being a fugitive. The law even prohibited accused fugitives from speaking in their own defense. It also forced all citizens, when charged, to assist authorities and slave catchers under penalty of fine and imprisonment for refusal. Such injustice was a vivid reminder that African Americans could count on few legal protections. Also, because this federal law nullified any opposing state measure, it was a jarring reminder of the fact that the law of the land protected the rights of slaveholders, virtually ignoring African American rights.As Douglass stood before the crowd, he asked the question that cut to the core of America’s national contradiction. “What to the slave is your Fourth of July?” His answer was even more unsettling to those gathered to hear his words. It is, he said, “a day that reveals to him [the slave], more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.” In light of its public commitment to human rights and personal liberty, America’s continued support and protection of slavery, and its oppression of free African Americans, Douglass leveled this indictment: “For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn1" \o "" [1]Douglass’s charge was stinging, but hardly unique within the African American community or to any who had followed the history of race in America to that time. From long before the United States claimed its independence through revolution or established its governmental structure based on its grand Constitution, the contradiction of a freedom-loving people tolerating and profiting from depriving their fellow human beings of freedom was central to any understanding of the nation’s formation. Despite the lofty proclamations of the declaration meant to justify the national break from England, and long before its independence, America fell short of its ideals.On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, the representative body appointed by the legislatures of the thirteen colonies then in rebellion against Great Britain, ratified America’s Declaration of Independence. This Congress had been meeting since the start of the hostilities that came to be known as the American Revolution. In 1781, after the American adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the original governing instrument of the new nation, the Continental Congress assumed the name the Congress of Confederation. This representative body governed the nation through the uncertain years of the Revolution until 1783. When Britain accepted the Treaty of Paris, recognizing America’s independence and bringing the war to an end, the United States of America struggled to maintain its national unity in the face of competing state interests.One of the most contentious issues of debate was the future of America’s institution of slavery, which by the mid-1780s held hundreds of thousands of Africans and African Americans in bondage. Some Americans were struck by the obvious contradiction between America’s egalitarian Declaration of Independence and its support of slavery. During the Revolution and in its aftermath, many moved to abolish slavery, especially in northern states where slaveholdings were generally smaller and slaveholders less powerful than in the South. In its constitution of 1777, Vermont became the first of the rebellious colonies to banish slavery. In 1783 and 1784 Massachusetts and New Hampshire followed, removing slavery through a variety of legal interpretations of constitutional provisions and northwest of the Ohio River. This was a vast region, more than 260,000 square miles encompassing the area of the modern states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the northeastern part of Minnesota. Included as part of the ordinance was a provision prohibiting the movement of slavery into this Northwest Territory. Slavery supporters interpreted this measure as an ominous sign for the future of the institution.Significantly, many of the largest slaveholders in the United States were delegates at the Convention. Most of them were determined to guard the institution against federal interference. The Georgia and South Carolina delegations were adamant that their states would not accept any national constitution that restricted slavery. “Without [slaves],” argued Rawlins Lowndes of his home state of South Carolina, “this state is one of the most contemptible in the Union.” It was the source of the state’s “wealth, [and] our only natural resource,” he declared. South Carolina, he believed was endangered by, “our kind friends in the [N]orth [who were] determined soon to tie up our hands, and drain us of what we had.”[2]Debate grew so heated that delegates sought to sidestep the issue of slavery whenever possible, but they could not avoid the subject. The Constitution, as accepted in the fall of 1787, protected slavery and empowered slaveholders in important ways. In the three-fifths clause, it allowed states to count three-fifths of their slave population in calculating the population number to be considered for apportioning representation in the US House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Under this measure a single slaveholder with one hundred slaves counted as the equivalent of sixty-one free people, giving the slave states increased numbers of representatives and greatly expanding their power in the US Congress. This was a compromise between delegates from non-slave states who argued that slaves should not be counted at all in determining population size for the purpose of congressional representation and slave state delegates who demanded that the entire slave population be added to state population figures. Thus, the three-fifths compromise increased southern political power, allowing for greater protection of the institution of slavery. The South’s disproportionate power in the Electoral College allowed Thomas Jefferson to secure the presidency in 1800.The framers also wrote into the Constitution a provision that assisted slaveholders in the recovery of fugitive slaves, especially those who might seek sanctuary in non-slave states and territories. This section read, “No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”[3] This fugitive slave clause protected a slaveholder’s human property, making the act of assisting a fugitive a constitutional offense. The Constitution also protected slaveholders from their slaves, giving the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.The third provision written into the Constitution concerning slavery focused on the Atlantic slave trade. Debates over this issue were some of the most contentious in the entire four months of the convention. Although arguments on this issue broke largely along regional lines, with the North favoring an end to American participation in the African slave trade and the South standing against such a policy, restricting the trade was a complex issue. Northern business often played a significant role in financing the trade, outfitting and supplying the crews, and building the ships that transported slaves to American ports. This lucrative enterprise helped create northern support for protecting the slave trade. Meanwhile, in some southern states concern about a growing black population encouraged support for limiting slave importation. During the Revolution and in its aftermath, Virginia (1778), Maryland (1783), North Carolina (1786), and South Carolina (1787) had actually closed their ports to the African slave trade, hoping to limit the size of, and thus the danger posed by, their slave populations. Indeed in an early draft of the Declaration, Jefferson had included as one of the grievances giving rise to the quest for national independence a paragraph condemning the slave trade and the whole institution of slavery as a “cruel war against human nature itself” forced on the colonies by Britain. Yet, the need for labor and the increasing economic value of slavery overwhelmed these objections. It was one thing for slaveholders to limit or expand the number of their slaves, but most would never accept such a condemnation of slavery or agree to give up control of the institution. In response to the objections of his fellow slaveholders, Jefferson excluded that paragraph from the final document.The question of the extent of state power under the national constitution was directly relevant to the question of slavery and the slave trade. Some southern delegates insisted that the federal Congress have no authority to interfere with slavery at all, but others agreed to a middle ground. More moderate delegates supported a measure to deny Congress any power to limit the slave trade for at least twenty years. To many delegates, northern and southern, this seemed a practical compromise. Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts rose to support the idea. Some were uncomfortable with any constitutional reference to the trade, but Virginia delegate James Madison raised the only voice against the compromise. He had drafted a plan for a strong federal government, which he called the Virginia Plan, and he argued that “Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from liberty to import slaves.” He then predicted that “So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the constitution.”[4] Madison’s words did not persuade many of his fellow southerners who demanded that the federal government should have no right to interfere with the Atlantic slave trade. The compromise held, however. “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808,” read the constitutional provision. It also provided that “a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person,” so long as the trade remained legal.[5]Thus, in the three-fifths compromise, the fugitive slave clause, and its twenty-year protection of the Atlantic slave trade, the Constitution dealt with the slavery question, but never by name. So controversial was the issue, that the framers consciously avoided the words “slave” and “slavery” as they crafted the Constitution. Neither word appeared in the document as accepted by the convention and submitted to the states. As an article in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer announced, “the dark and ambiguous words .?.?. are evidently chosen to conceal from Europe that, in this enlightened country, the practice of slavery has its advocates among men in high stations.”[6]George Washington, one of the nation’s most revered leaders, attended the convention as a Virginia delegate and remained largely silent during these exchanges on slavery. He was a slaveholder but was also ambivalent about slavery. His experience with black soldiers during the Revolution had raised questions in his mind about the slave system, but he did not argue against it. To end slavery immediately, he believed, would be dangerous. He hoped for a gradual abolition of the institution, but he understood the delicacy of the issue and its potential danger for the formation of a strong national government. After the adoption of the Constitution he explained that he was not happy with the compromises needed to construct a document acceptable to the convention, especially those on the slavery issue. In early January of 1788, he wrote to Edmund Randolph, then governor of Virginia, “There are some things in the new form [the Constitution] I will readily acknowledge, which never did, and I am persuaded never will, obtain my cordial approbation.”[7]Over the next half century, the Constitution was continuously used to protect the institution of slavery from federal interference and attacks leveled by the increasingly militant abolition movement. The Constitutional standing of free African Americans was ambiguous, however. Under its provisions the First US Congress passed a law in 1790 that specifically limited naturalized citizenship to white aliens. Again, with constitutional sanction, the Second Congress passed legislation establishing a “uniform militia throughout the United States,” but limited it to “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.[8]The Bill of Rights did not protect free blacks from local and state laws that deprived them of virtually all those rights enumerated in the first ten Constitutional amendments. Despite the 1787 ordinance that outlawed slavery from the Northwest Territory, Congress provided that only free white males could vote in the decision to carve out Indiana from that region as a territory in preparation for statehood.In the pre–Civil War years, the Constitution did not protect free blacks from the racially discriminatory actions of individual states. By 1830, free blacks could vote on an equal basis with whites only in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. In the Northwest Territory, where slavery had been prohibited during the post-Revolutionary era, territorial governments severely restricted the rights of free blacks. Some required that African Americans post a bond ranging from $500 to $1,000 in order to settle within the territory, while others prohibited black immigration all together. Some of these restrictions remained in force for much of the pre–Civil War period. Illinois in 1848 and Indiana in 1851 incorporated the prohibition of African American settlement into their respective state constitutions. In 1849 the Oregon legislature prohibited African American settlement in the territory. This restriction, paired with a ban on black voting rights, was built into Oregon’s constitution as it was admitted to statehood in 1859.For many African Americans, a Constitution that would allow and even support individual states that enslaved them and disregarded the liberty of even those who were free was a pro-slavery document not to be respected. William Wells Brown, a former slave who, like Douglass, became an important figure in the abolition movement, was convinced that as an instrument of proslavery power the Constitution must be replaced by a new document oriented toward true liberty and human equality. “I would have the [slaveholder’s] Constitution torn in shreds and scattered to the four winds of heaven,” he announced. “Let us destroy the Constitution and build on its ruins the temple of liberty.” Many white abolitionists agreed that the Constitution was a product of pro-slavery creation. In 1843 Boston abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison proposed that non-slaveholding states secede from the nation governed by any such proslavery document as he held the Constitution to be. He called it “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.” Eleven years later, on the Fourth of July in 1854, Garrison publicly burned a copy of the US Constitution, pronouncing it “the source and parent of the other [American] atrocities.” As the document burned, he cried out: “So perish all compromises with tyranny!” to which the abolitionist crowd replied “Amen.”[9] Given the general denial of rights to all African Americans, free as well as slave, and the growing impatience of abolitionists, white and black alike, with the governmental support of racial injustice, Douglass’s question to his fifth of July Rochester audience in 1852 might well have been, “What to freedom-loving Americans is the Fourth of July?” Eventually, Douglass came to believe that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery document, but that it was being subverted in its intent by pro-slavery forces.The Constitution, then, was a creation of the ideals, the interests, and also the racial assumptions and prejudices of those who drafted it and those who ratified it. The nation that took shape under its legal sanctions both reflected and extended its original characteristics. As the voices of anti-slavery grew louder and more strident during the first half of the nineteenth century, the constitutional protections of slavery came under increasing attack. Finally, the secession of the southern states and the coming of civil war enabled President Abraham Lincoln and his administration to remove constitutional protections for slavery, and to prohibit it with the Thirteenth Amendment. In the aftermath of the Civil War the Constitution was further reshaped to remove race as a prohibition to citizenship. In 1857 the Supreme Court had ruled that Dred Scott, a slave seeking his freedom, could not bring his case before the federal court because African American people were not and could not be American citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1868 declared that citizenship could not be withheld on account of race, and the Fifteenth Amendment ratified in 1870 sought to protect African American voting rights.The post–Civil War amendments to the Constitution did not prevent individual states, especially those in the South, from circumventing constitutional protections for African American citizenship rights. They did, however, provide a foundation upon which the twentieth-century Civil Rights Movement could build. Despite the Supreme Court ruling in the 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson case allowing the formation of the Jim Crow segregation system, a series of court victories based on constitutional civil rights protections led to the momentous 1954 Brown decision and set the stage for the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965. American racial attitudes have traditionally contradicted American professed ideals of freedom and equality. America’s Constitution has reflected that contradiction and the struggle to reconcile American rhetoric with American reality. Over the last two centuries, freedom-loving Americans have remained determined to see America live up to the Revolutionary values upon which it founded its constitutional democracy.[1] Frederick Douglass, “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,” in Philip S. Foner, ed., The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass (New York: International Publishers Co., Inc., 1975), 181–204.[2] Lawrence Goldstone, Dark Bargain: Slavery, Profits and the Struggle for the Constitution (New York: Walker and Co., 2005), 3–4.[3] United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2.[4] Quoted in Matthew T. Mellon, Early American Views on Negro Slavery (New York: Bergman Publishers, 1969), 127–128.[5] United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9.[6] Quoted in Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997) 501.[7] Jared Sparks, ed., The Writings of George Washington (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1855), 9:297.[8] Quoted in John Hope Franklin and Genna Rae McNeil, eds., African Americans and the Living Constitution (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995), 23.[9] Richard Newman, ed., African American Quotations (New York: Checkmark Books, 2000), 90; Goldstone, 16; Henry Mayer, All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998), 445.James O. Horton is the Benjamin Banneker Professor Emeritus of American Studies and History, George Washington University, and Historian Emeritus of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History. His books, coauthored with Lois E. Horton, include In Hope of Liberty: Free Black Culture and Community in the North, 1700–1865 (1997) and Slavery and the Making of America (2004), the companion book for the WNET PBS series of the same name that aired in February 2005.Resource:Jorton, J. (2013). Race and the American Constitution: A Struggle toward National Ideals. Retrieved from 1What does the author mean, according to the text, when he states, “ From long before the United States claimed its independence through revolution or established its governmental structure based on its grand Constitution, the contradiction of a freedom-loving people tolerating and profiting from depriving their fellow human beings of freedom was central to any understanding of the nation’s formation”?In which way, according to the text, where largely southern political and economic notions influential in the Constitutional convention?According to the text, in which way was the Declaration of Independence hypocritical, in light of the newly formed government? According to the text, in what way was the three fifths compromise more about political power and less about the value placed on African American life?Why was the federal and antifederal debate fired by slavery, according to the text?Day 2Why was the ban of the Transatlantic Slave Trade excluded from the Constitution, according to the author?According to the text, why were compromises, regarding slavery, necessary to pass the Constitution?What was the author referring to when he stated, “As an article in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer announced, ‘the dark and ambiguous words . . . are evidently chosen to conceal from Europe that, in this enlightened country, the practice of slavery has its advocates among men in high stations’”?In which way was George Washington conflicted by the notion of slavery and the passing of the Constitution? According to the text, what did the author mean when he stated, “Eventually, Douglass came to believe that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery document, but that it was being subverted in its intent by pro-slavery forces”?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Week 6Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way, mainly, did the early republic shape American policies, but fail to abide by values that led to the Revolution? Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)UntroddenFerventPrevailingPunditsBedevilAdroitCovertdespotichyperbolicpreposterouspartisanForeseeableHamiltonMadisonJeffersonSkullduggeryPrerequisiteXYZAlien and Sedition Acts in July of 1798AbodePenalSuretiesTenorinsurrectionJoseph J. Ellis “The Early Republic” (2013)Transcript of Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.bRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 6 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore the extent to which the early republic shaped American policy, but failed to address valued which led to the Constitution. Slavery, for example, that was against the ideals of the Revolution, was unaddressed by the National Government and was allowed to grow dramatically in following years, because Madison’s team claimed that it was a state issue. Problems between the distinction between states’ rights and federal rights were apparent when states did not abide by the Treaty of New York with the Creek Nation. Tensions grew over Hamilton’s financial ideas, because Sothern’s were fearful of the creation of a national bank. Jay’s Treaty and the Proclamation of Neutrality made people question Washington and his authority. The Constitution called into question the Alien Sedition Act and again the power of a president. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how many concepts addressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution remained unresolved even after the Revolutionary War. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how early republic policies highlight unresolved concepts in the Constitution and issues mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-89 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 90-161 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 152 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which way, according to the texts, did the early republic shape American policies, but cause controversy? The Early Republicby Joseph J. EllisIn April of 1789 the ink on the recently ratified Constitution was barely dry when George Washington began the trek from his Mount Vernon plantation to the national capital at New York. The public reverence usually accorded to royalty was on display throughout the weeklong trip, including a laurel crown lowered from an arch of triumph in Philadelphia, rose petals cast in Washington’s path by white-robed girls at Trenton, and a specially composed ode sung by a chorus of sailors in New York harbor to the tune of “God Save the King.” It was a rather courtly way to launch a republic.When he observed, “I walk on untrodden ground,” Washington was not exaggerating. The opening words of the Constitution—“We the people of the United States”—expressed a fervent hope rather than a social reality. The roughly four million settlers spread along the coastline and streaming over the Alleghenies felt their primary allegiance, to the extent they felt any allegiance at all, to local, state, and regional authorities. No republican government had ever before exercised control over a population this diffuse or a land mass this large, and the prevailing assumption among most European pundits of the day was that, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln’s later formulation, a nation so conceived and so dedicated could not endure. The central task facing Washington and the political elite that formed around him was to prove the pundits wrong.The numbers above, taken from the first census (1790), in addition to recording the size and distribution of the American population, also exposed the central dilemma destined to bedevil American politics for the next seventy years. That, of course, was slavery, which simultaneously contradicted the core principles of the American Revolution and yet dominated the demography and economy of the states south of the Chesapeake. Fully a quarter of the American population was African American, 90 percent of them enslaved, and their numbers were doubling every twenty years. Of all the problems facing the early republic, slavery posed the greatest threat to the infant American nation.And so, with Washington’s silent endorsement, southern delegates in the First Congress, under James Madison’s adroit management, removed slavery from the federal agenda. In response to two petitions from Philadelphia Quakers calling for an end to the slave trade and a gradual emancipation to end slavery itself, the second petition signed by no less than Benjamin Franklin, the House ruled the petitions out of order on the grounds that slavery was a state matter, thereby defusing the explosive issue for the foreseeable future. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 then extended and further imbedded slavery as the labor source in the Cotton Kingdom of the Deep South.The census of 1790 made no mention of the approximately 100,000 American Indians, the vast majority living in about thirty tribal units between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi. A collision was clearly coming between these indigenous Americans and the tidal wave of white settlers pouring into the Ohio Valley. At the prompting of Secretary of War Henry Knox, Washington made a heroic effort to resolve the American Indian dilemma in accord with republican principles.In the summer of 1790 he signed the Treaty of New York with the Creek Nation, which granted the Creeks sovereign control over the tribal lands in western Georgia and eastern Alabama, guaranteeing them federal protection from white settlers, who would presumably flow past this Indian enclave. Washington envisioned this treaty as the model to be followed with the other tribes, creating a series of Native American protectorates east of the Mississippi that made Indian removal unnecessary.But it was not possible to enforce the treaty without the compliance of the state governments and a substantial increase in the size of the Army, neither of which proved possible. The result was a tragedy of epic proportions, namely genocide in slow motion.The centerpiece of Washington’s domestic program was Alexander Hamilton’s financial plan, passed in three installments in 1790 and 1791. The flamboyant secretary of the treasury assumed responsibility for paying off the national debt, estimated at $77.1 million, and rescuing American fiscal policy from the chaos created under the Articles of Confederation. He proposed funding the national debt at par, assuming all the state debts, then establishing a national bank, forerunner of the Federal Reserve Board, to manage the economy.Consolidating the debt and the fiscal policy at the national level made perfect sense to Hamilton, who presumed that the Constitution had vested such powers in the executive branch. But opposition to the assumption scheme, and even more so the National Bank, was fierce. Madison and Jefferson took the lead in declaring that the bank was unconstitutional and that the whole Hamiltonian program constituted a conspiracy (i.e., “the dreaded consolidation”) against the agrarian interests of the South.At first the Virginians attempted to negotiate with Hamilton, most famously in a bargain, brokered over dinner, that traded passage of the assumption bill in return for locating the national capital on the Potomac. But after losing the battle over the bank, Madison and Jefferson went into absolute, though covert, opposition to the entire Federalist agenda. Jefferson hired the New Jersey journalist and part-time poet Philip Freneau to edit an opposition newspaper, the National Gazette, which depicted Hamilton’s financial plan as a hostile takeover of the American Revolution by “monarchists and moneymen” and accused the Federalists of attempting to recreate just the kind of British tyranny on American soil that the war for independence had supposedly banished.This was hyperbolic rhetoric, and the suggestion that George Washington was the second coming of George III was preposterous. But in 1794, when Washington led thirteen thousand militia to western Pennsylvania to put down an insurrection by farmers protesting an excise tax on whiskey, both Jefferson and Madison described his behavior as despotic. The seeds of an organized opposition, soon to call themselves Republicans, were now planted.Claiming to be true defenders of “the spirit of ’76” and denying with utter sincerity that they were members of a political party despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Republicans regarded any potent exercise of executive power as evidence of an American monarchy and insisted that the authority to make all domestic policy resided in the states. The clearest expression of their abiding political convictions came at the end of the decade in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), which located sovereignty in the state and limited federal authority to foreign policy.The chief Republican organ became the Philadelphia-based Aurora, which portrayed Washington as either a senile accomplice or a willing co-conspirator in the Hamiltonian plot to establish an American monarchy. The political atmosphere had become charged, utterly toxic, and thoroughly partisan.Foreign policy soon became a casualty of the party wars, despite Washington’s best efforts to remain above the conflict. The central issue was the government’s posture toward the French Revolution, which after a brief romantic phase was now spiraling toward the blood-soaked guillotine. Despite nostalgic memories of France’s invaluable assistance in winning American independence, Washington was a rock-ribbed realist immune to French attachments and ideals. In 1793 he issued the Proclamation of Neutrality, declaring the Franco-American alliance (1778) void and American isolation from Europe in the long-term American interest. Jefferson argued that American ideals were its interests and that France was now the European embodiment of those ideals. The Republican press followed Jefferson’s lead and urged mass demonstrations in Philadelphia to protest Washington’s severance of the French connection.Matters came to a head in the debate over Jay’s Treaty (1796), a hard-headed bargain with Great Britain designed to avoid war and tighten ties with America’s major trading partner. Such a diplomatic partnership with America’s implacable enemy struck most citizens as untenable, and Republican operatives had a field day denouncing the treaty as a pact with the Britannic Satan. But despite political machinations by Madison to have the decisive vote occur in the House rather than the Senate, the treaty passed by a slim majority (51-48), a tribute to Washington’s towering reputation.Perhaps out of frustration, the Aurora launched a smear campaign against the American icon, claiming to have discovered evidence that Washington had accepted a British bribe during the war and that he had been a British spy all along. This was an outrageous libel that only exposed how poisonous American politics had become. To top it off, when Washington announced his decision to retire after two terms, which should have put the lie to Republican charges of his monarchical intentions, the Aurora urged all Americans “to devoutly pray for his imminent death.”The election of 1796 pitted Jefferson against John Adams. The political etiquette of the era forbad campaigning, and Jefferson carried the preferred posture of indifference so far as to claim that he did not know he was a candidate. The election was extremely close (71-68) and sectional, Adams winning the North and Jefferson the South. In a quirk of the Constitution soon to be corrected, the runner-up Jefferson became vice president, making him a Trojan horse within the Adams presidency.Few presidents in American history began their terms with greater burdens than Adams. In addition to a hostile vice president, he faced “the shadow of Washington” problem: following the greatest hero of the Revolutionary era. He also inherited Washington’s Cabinet, a second-tier group whose loyalties belonged to Hamilton. (Adams misguidedly believed that he lacked the authority to choose his own team, and there were no precedents.) The Republican press could hardly wait to level its guns on this short, stout, bald, thin-skinned New Englander, known for emotional mood swings, which were interpreted as evidence of his mental imbalance, if not insanity. Finally, he entered office with a so-called “quasi-war” raging with France, whose frigates were scooping up American merchant ships in the Caribbean in retaliation for the British tilt embodied in Jay’s Treaty.On the positive side, Adams was perhaps the best-read student of history in the founding generation. He recognized that history’s shores were littered with the wreckage of emerging nations that foundered before they could reach maturity. He believed that Washington’s Farewell Address got it right: unity at home, neutrality abroad. He committed his presidency to ending the quasi-war with France and allowing the natural advantages of the United States to grow in splendid isolation from Europe.To that end, in 1797 he dispatched a three-man peace delegation to Paris to negotiate a French version of Jay’s Treaty. He coupled this diplomatic commitment with a buildup of the American Navy, which would enable the United States to fight a defensive war on the high seas if the negotiations in Paris broke down.They quickly did, and in quite spectacular fashion. Talleyrand, the famously unscrupulous French foreign minister, first refused to receive the American delegation, then sent three anonymous operatives, designated as X,Y,Z, to demand a bribe of $250,000 as a prerequisite for further negotiations. When word of this blatant skullduggery reached Philadelphia, Adams chose to keep it confidential, fearing it would provoke a popular surge in anti-French sentiment that would force the country into unnecessary war.That almost happened when the pro-French Republicans, enjoying a two-to-one majority in the House, and suspecting Adams himself of foul play, pushed through a resolution demanding to see all the dispatches. When they exposed in excruciating detail the insulting behavior of the French government, popular opinion shifted overnight. A mob estimated at 10,000 gathered outside the presidential mansion, cheering Adams and chanting the new battle cry, “Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute.” If Adams had requested a declaration of war at that moment his popularity would have soared and his re-election been assured.Instead, Adams made two decisions, one that placed a permanent stain on his presidency, and another that virtually assured his defeat in the next election.The first decision, which he came to regret in his retirement, was to sign the Alien and Sedition Acts in July of 1798. These infamous statutes were designed to deport or disenfranchise foreign-born residents who were disposed to support the Republican, pro-French agenda, and make it a crime to publish “any false, scandalous, malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United States.” The Sedition Act was clearly intended to silence the barrage of anti-Adams invective pouring out of Republican newspapers like the Aurora. It was also, just as clearly, a violation of the republican principles enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Its sole redeeming feature was to make truth a defense in all libel trials, a legal precedent of considerable significance.The second decision, made in February of 1799, was to send another peace delegation to France. The entire Federalist leadership in Congress claimed to be “thunderstruck” by the decision and began to circulate rumors that Adams had lost his mind. Adams, in fact, knew that he was committing political suicide, but when weighed in the balance against an expensive and unnecessary war with France, the decision was, as Jefferson might put it, self-evident. If virtue was the watchword of a truly republican government—and it was—Adams had committed the classic virtuous act.The result of the presidential election of 1800 was almost foreordained, given the chasm in the Federalist camp created by the Adams decision to avoid war with France. Then Aaron Burr’s behind-the-scenes shenanigans in New York essentially bought New York’s thirteen electoral votes for Jefferson in return for a place on the ticket. The final tally (73-65) was closer than even Adams had expected. Awkwardly, Jefferson and Burr had tied, and it required thirty-six contentious ballots in the House of Representatives to make Jefferson the president. Adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804 allowed electors to designate their choices for president and vice president separately, so this would not happen again.And so as the decade, indeed the century, drew to a close, the first chapter in America’s republican experiment was ending and a new one beginning, a transition symbolized by the shift of the capital to its Potomac location, soon to be named Washington. More importantly, power had been transferred from one political party to another, all done peacefully, even routinely, according to the dictates of the Constitution.Jefferson subsequently described his election as “The Revolution of 1800,” but in fact it was the non-revolutionary character of the transition that mattered most, suggesting as it did continuation of the ongoing experiment with republican government, an achievement that only a few developing countries over the next two centuries would be able to replicate. Jefferson gave rhetorical resonance to the abiding consensus in his inaugural address, declaring “We are all republicans – we are all federalists.” It had been a messy, bitterly partisan, highly improvisational process, but the center had held.Joseph J. Ellis, Ford Foundation Professor of History at Mount Holyoke, is the author of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, which received the Pulitzer Prize (2000); and American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies of the Republic (2007).Ellis, J. (2013). The Early Republic. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1What did the author mean when he stated “The opening words of the Constitution—“We the people of the United States”—expressed a fervent hope rather than a social reality”, according to the Constitution?According to the text, in which way was slavery the greatest threat to the American nation?In which ways, according to the text, did the interpretation of state and federal powers create tensions?What was the author referring to, in the text, when he states, “Foreign policy soon became a casualty of the party wars, despite Washington’s best efforts to remain above the conflict”?In which ways, were foreign policies in America ironic, after the Constitution, considering the Revolutionary War?Day 21.What did the author mean, according to the text, when he stated, “In a quirk of the Constitution soon to be corrected, the runner-up Jefferson became vice president, making him a Trojan horse within the Adams presidency”?2.Adams “believed that Washington’s Farewell Address got it right: unity at home, neutrality abroad”. What actions, according to the text, did he take to attempt to accomplish this?3.In which ways did the Alien and Sedition Acts in July of 1798, according to the text, stain Adam’s presidency?4.In which ways, according to the text, did Adams commit political suicide by sending a second peace delegation to France?Transcript of Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:At the Second Session,Begun and help at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.An Act Concerning Aliens.SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United Slates, within such time as shall be expressed in such order, which order shall be served on such alien by delivering him a copy thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within the United States after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein, or having obtained such license shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that if any alien so ordered to depart shall prove to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such person or persons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United Slates will arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the per- son authorized by the President to take the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the President may revoke, whenever he shall think proper .SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary (for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who mayor shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United Slates by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require.SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every master or commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port of the United States after the first day of July next, shall immediately on his arrival make report in writing to the collector or other chief officer of the customs of such port, of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation and a description of their persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof, and on failure, every such master and commander shall forfeit and pay three hundred dollars, for the payment whereof on default of such master or commander, such vessel shall also be holden, and may by such collector or other officer of the customs be detained. And it shall be the duty of such collector or other officer of the customs, forthwith to transmit to the office of the department of state true copies of all such returns.SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the circuit and district courts of the United States, shall respectively have cognizance of all crimes and offences against this act. And all marshals and other officers of the United States are required to execute all precepts and orders of the President of the United States issued in pursuance or by virtue of this act.SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find convenient; and all property left in the United States by any alien, who may be removed, as aforesaid, shall be, and re- main subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if this act had not been passed.SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force for and during the term of two years from the passing thereof.Jonathan Dayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives.TH. Jefferson, Vice President of the United States and President of the Sentate.I Certify that this Act did originate in the Sentate.Attest, Sam. A. Otis, SecretaryAPPROVED, June 25, 1798.John AdamsPresident of the United States.An Act Respecting Alien EnemiesSECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable, as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary in the premises and for the public safety: Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States, and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens or subjects: and where no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United States, or by order of any court, judge or justice, as aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.APPROVED, July 6, 1798.FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:At the Second Session,Begun and help at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States."SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.SEC. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.Jonathan Dayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives.Theodore Sedgwick, President of the Sentate pro tempore.I Certify that this Act did originate in the Sentate.Attest, Sam. A. Otis, SecretaryAPPROVED, July 14, 1798John AdamsPresident of the United States.Resources:Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. (2013). Our Documents. Retrieved from doc.php?doc=16&page=transcriptDay 11.In what ways do lines eighteen to forty four of the text solidify American foreign policy during 1798?2.According to the text, what was the major intention of the Alien and Sedition acts?3. In which way did foreign policy, at the time, influence the passing of the Alien and Sedition acts, according to the texts studied?4.Which Constitutional provisions opposed the implantations of these acts, according to the Constitution?5.According to the Constitution, which provisions supported the provisions of these acts?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)”Week 7Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which ways were Jefferson and Hamilton’s ideologies demonstrative of unresolved issues that led to the Civil War?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)EscheatParamountConstruedSusceptibleEnumeratedad libitumSolicitudeAxiomIncumbentElucidationNugatoryPalpableJurisprudenceSubvertedJefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.dRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 7 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore unresolved issues of state and national power, which inevitably led to the civil war. These issues are exemplified in the Jefferson and Hamilton debate over the creation of a national bank. Jefferson feared that the creation of a national bank would exceed the powers of the Constitution, which were given to the federal government. Essentially, Jefferson believed that it was not wise to overuse these powers, because these powers were granted to the states and states should have the authority to make decisions. Hamilton, however, believed that it was the duty of the federal government to establish a national bank, because these powers were implied by the Constitution. He believed in strong national power and that the states were the property of the federal government. Hamilton believed that the national bank was important in the preservation of the United States and that it would only benefit the states. Once again the issue of power, which led to the Revolutionary War, was leading to a Civil War. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how the struggle of power, which led to the Revolutionary War, was unresolved by the creation of the Constitution. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how federalist and anti-federalists ideals, which would lead to the Civil War, resembled power struggles that led to the Revolutionary War.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-123 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 302 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 302- 742 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which way does the Jefferson and Hamilton conflict over the creation of a national bank exemplify unresolved issues from the Revolutionary War?Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791 The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things: 1. To form the subscribers into a corporation. 2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain. HYPERLINK "" \l "1" (1) 3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage. 4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents. 5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat. 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution. 7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly. 8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed. I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. I They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution. 2. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please. 3. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `' productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations. II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following: 1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution. 2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase. If has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes, Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury, (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit.) Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may he made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid. Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the Constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power. Besides, the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption, therefore it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it. It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it. Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs ? The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection, It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President. Though the Constitution controls the laws of Mortmain so far as to permit Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit them to communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies.-T. Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank. (1791). Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved from 11.In your own words, what did Jefferson mean when he stated, “To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed”, according to the text?2.What did the author mean, according to the text, when he stated, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition”?3.The Constitution grants National power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes". What argument does Jefferson use to oppose the use of this statement in the Constitution for the creation of a national bank, according to the text?4.Jefferson states, “To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless”. According to lines forty two to ninety two of the text, what is he referring to?5.What does Jefferson mean when he states, “The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection”, according to the text?Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791 The Secretary of the Treasury having perused with attention the papers containing the opinions of the Secretary of State and Attorney General, concerning the constitutionality of the bill for establishing a National Bank, proceeds, according to the order of the President, to submit the reasons which have induced him to entertain a different opinion. It will naturally have been anticipated, that in performing this task, he would feel uncommon solicitude. Personal considerations alone, arising from the reflection that the measure originated with him, would be sufficient to produce it. The sense which he has manifested of the great importance of such an institution to the successful administration of the department under his particular care, and an expectation of serious ill consequences to result from a failure of the measure, do not permit him to be without anxiety on public accounts. But the chief solicitude arises from a firm persuasion, that principles of construction like those espoused by the Secretary of State and Attorney General, would be fatal to the just and indispensable authority of the United States. In entering upon the argument, it ought to be premised that the objections of the Secretary of State and Attorney General are founded on a general denial of the authority of the United States to erect corporations. The latter, indeed, expressly admits, that if there be anything in the bill which is not warranted by the Constitution, it is the clause of incorporation. Now it appears to the Secretary of the Treasury that this general principle is inherent in the very definition of government, and essential to every step of progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society. This principle, in its application to government in general, would be admitted as an axiom; and it will be incumbent upon those who may incline to deny it, to prove a distinction, and to show that a rule which, in the general system of things, is essential to the preservation of the social order, is inapplicable to the United States. The circumstance that the powers of sovereignty are in this country divided between the National and State governments, does not afford the distinction required. It does not follow from this, that each of the portion of powers delegated to the one or to the other, is not sovereign with regard to its proper objects. It will only follow from it, that each has sovereign power as to certain things, and not as to other things. To deny that the government of the United States has sovereign power, as to its declared purposes and trusts, because its power does not extend to all cases would be equally to deny that the State governments have sovereign power in any case, because their power does not extend to every case. The tenth section of the first article of the Constitution exhibits a long list of very important things which they may not do. And thus the United States would furnish the singular spectacle of a political society without sovereignty, or of a people governed, without government. If it would be necessary to bring proof to a proposition so clear, as that which affirms that the powers of the federal government, as to its objects, were sovereign, there is a clause of its Constitution which would be decisive. It is that which declares that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, shall be the serene law of the land. The power which can create the supreme law of the land in any case, is doubtless sovereign as to such case. This general and indisputable principle puts at once an end to the abstract question, whether the United States have power to erect a corporation; that is to say, to give a legal or artificial capacity to one or more persons, distinct from the natural. For it is unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations, and consequently to that of the United States, in relation to the objects intrusted to the management of the government. The difference is this: where the authority of the government is general, it can create corporations in ad cases, where it is confined to certain branches of legislation, it can create corporations only in those cases. Here then, as far as concerns the reasonings of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the affirmative of the constitutionality of the bill might be permitted to rest. It will occur to the President, that the principle here advanced has been untouched by either of them. For a more complete elucidation of the point, nevertheless, the arguments which they had used against the power of the government to erect corporations, however foreign they are to the great and fundamental rule which has been stated, shall be particularly examined. And after showing that they do not tend to impair its force, it shall also be shown that the power of incorporation, incident to the government in certain cases, does fairly extend to the particular case which is the object of the bill. The first of these arguments is, that the foundation of the Constitution is laid on this ground: " That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved for the States, or to the people." Whence it is meant to be inferred, that Congress can in no case exercise any power not Included in those not enumerated in the Constitution. And it is affirmed, that the power of erecting a corporation is not included in any of the enumerated powers. The main proposition here laid down, in its true signification is not to be questioned. It is nothing more than a consequence of this republican maxim, that all government is a delegation of power. But how much is delegated in each case, is a question of fact, to be made out by fair reasoning and construction, upon the particular provisions of the Constitution, taking as guides the general principles and general ends of governments. It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. And for the sake of accuracy it shall be mentioned, that there is another class of powers, which may be properly denominated resting powers. It will not be doubted, that if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbors, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would be rather a result, from the whole mass of the powers of the government, and from the nature of political society, than a consequence of either of the powers specially enumerated. But be this as it may, it furnishes a striking illustration of the general doctrine contended for; it shows an extensive case in which a power of erecting corporations is either implied in or would result from, some or all of the powers vested in the national government. The jurisdiction acquired over such conquered country would certainly be competent to any species of legislation. To return: It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones. Then it follows, that as a power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied as any other thing, it may as well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatever. The only question must be in this, as in every other case, whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of the acknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But one may be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States, or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage. A strange fallacy seems to have crept into the manner of thinking and reasoning upon the subject. Imagination appears to have been unusually busy concerning it. An incorporation seems to have been regarded as some great independent substantive thing; as a political end of peculiar magnitude and moment; whereas it is truly to be considered as a quality, capacity, or mean to an end. Thus a mercantile company is formed, with a certain capital, for the purpose of carrying on a particular branch of business. Here the business to be prosecuted is the end. The association, in order to form the requisite capital, is the primary mean. Suppose that an incorporation were added to this, it would only be to add a new quality to that association, to give it an artificial capacity, by which it would be enabled to prosecute the business with more safety and convenience. That the importance of the power of incorporation has been exaggerated, leading to erroneous conclusions, will further appear from tracing it to its origin. The Roman law is the source of it, according to which a voluntary association of individuals, at any tome, or for any purpose, was capable of producing it. In England, whence our notions of it are immediately borrowed, it forms part of the executive authority, and the exercise of it has been often delegated by that authority. Whence, therefore, the ground of the supposition that it lies beyond the reach of all those very important portions of sovereign power, legislative as well as executive, which belongs to the government of the United States. To this mode of reasoning respecting the right of employing all the means requisite to the execution of the specified powers of the government, it is objected, that none but necessary and proper means are to be employed; and the Secretary of State maintains, that no means are to be considered as necessary but those without which the grant of the power would be nugatory. Nay, so far does he go in his restrictive interpretation of the word, as even to make the case of necessity which shall warrant the constitutional exercise of the power to depend on casual and temporary circumstances; an idea which alone refutes the construction. The expediency of exercising a particular power, at a particular time, must, indeed depend on circumstances, but the constitutional right of exercising it must be uniform and invariable, the same to-day as to-morrow. All the arguments, therefore, against the constitutionality of the bill derived from the accidental existence of certain State banks, institutions which happen to exist to-day, and, for aught that concerns the government of the United States, may disappear tomorrow, must not only be rejected as fallacious, but must be viewed as demonstrative that there is a radical source of error in the reasoning. It is essential to the being of the national government, that so erroneous a conception of the meaning of the word necessary should be exploded. It is certain that neither the grammatical nor popular sense of the term requires that construction. According to both, necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to. It is a common mode of expression to say, that it is necessary for a government or a person to do this or that thing, when nothing more is intended or understood, than that the interests of the government or person require, or will be promoted by, the doing of this or that thing. The imagination can be at no loss for exemplifications of the use of the word in this sense. And it is the true one in which it is to be understood as used in the Constitution. The whole turn of the clause containing it indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers. The expressions have peculiar comprehensiveness. They are thought to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." To understand the word as the Secretary of State does, would be to depart from its obvious and popular sense, and to give it a restrictive operation, an idea never before entertained. It would be to give it the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensably had been prefixed to it. Such a construction would beget endless uncertainty and embarrassment. The cases must be palpable and extreme, in which it could be pronounced, with certainty, that a measure was absolutely necessary, or one, without which, the exercise of a given power would be nugatory. There are few measures of any government which would stand so severe a test. To insist upon it, would be to make the criterion of the exercise of any implied power, a case of extreme necessity; which is rather a rule to justify the overleaping of the bounds of constitutional authority, than to govern the ordinary exercise of it. It may be truly said of every government, as well as of that of the United States, that it has only a right to pass such laws as are necessary and proper to accomplish the objects intrusted to it. For no government has a right to do merely what it pleases. Hence, by a process of reasoning similar to that of the Secretary of State, it might be proved that neither of the State governments has a right to incorporate a bank. It might be shown that all the public business of the state could be performed without a bank, and inferring thence that it was unnecessary, it might be argued that it could not be done, because it is against the rule which has been just mentioned. A like mode of reasoning would prove that there was no power to incorporate the inhabitants of a town, with a view to a more perfect police. For it is certain that an incorporation may be dispensed with, though it is better to have one. It is to be remembered that there is no express power in any State constitution to erect corporations. The degree in which a measure is necessary, can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it; that must be a matter of opinion, and can only be a test of expediency. The relation between the measure and the end; between the nature of the mean employed toward the execution of a power, and the object of that power must be the criterion of constitutionality, not the more or less of necessity or utility. The practice of the government is against the rule of construction advocated by the Secretary of State. Of this, the Act concerning lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, is a decisive example. This, doubtless, must be referred to the powers of regulating trade, and is fairly relative to it. But it cannot be affirmed that the exercise of that power in this instance was strictly necessity or that the power itself would be nugatory, with out that of regulating establishments of this nature. This restrictive interpretation of the word necessary is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction, namely, that the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of a country, its finances, trade, defense, etc., ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good. This rule does not depend on the particular form of a government, or on the particular demarcation of the boundaries of its powers, but on the nature and object of government itself. The means by which national exigencies are to be provided for, national inconveniences obviated, national prosperity promoted, are of such infinite variety, extent, and complexity, that there must of necessity be great latitude of discretion in the selection and application of those means. Hence, consequently, the necessity and propriety of exercising the authorities intrusted to a government on principles of liberal construction. The Attorney General admits the rule, but takes a distinction between a State and the Federal Constitution. The latter, he thinks, ought to be construed with greater strictness, because there is more danger of error in defining partial than General powers. But the reason of the rule forbids such a distinction. This reason is, the variety and extent of public exigencies, a far greater proportion of which, and of a far more critical kind, are objects of National than of State administration. The greater danger of error, as far as it is supposable, may be a prudential reason for caution in practice, but it cannot be a rule of restrictive interpretation. In regard to the clause of the Constitution immediately under consideration, it is admitted by the Attorney General, that no restrictive effect can be ascribed to it. He defines the word necessary thus: ``To be necessary is to be incidental, and may be denominated the natural means of executing a power." But while on the one hand the construction of the Secretary of State is deemed inadmissible, it will not be contended, on the other, that the clause in question gives any new or independent power. But it gives an explicit sanction to the doctrine of implied powers, and is equivalent to an admission of the proposition that the government, as to its specified powers and objects, has plenary and sovereign authority, in some cases paramount to the States; in others, co-ordinate with it. For such is the plain import of the declaration, that it may pass all tams necessary and proper to carry into execution those powers. It is no valid objection to the doctrine to say, that it is calculated to extend the power of the government throughout the entire sphere of State legislation. The same thing has been said, and may be said, with regard to every exercise of power by implication or construction. The moment the literal meaning is departed from, there is a chance of error and abuse. And yet an adherence to the letter of its powers would at once arrest the motions of government. It is not only agreed, on all hands, that the exercise of constructive powers is indispensable, but every act which has been passed, is more or less an exemplification of it. One has been already mentioned that relating to lighthouses, etc. that which declares the power of the President to remove officers at pleasure, acknowledges the same truth in another and a signal instance. The truth is, that difficulties on this point are inherent in the nature of the Federal Constitution; they result inevitably from a division of the legislative power. The consequence of this division is, that there will be cases clearly within the power of the national government; others, clearly without its powers; and a third class, which will leave room for controversy and difference of opinion, and concerning which a reasonable latitude of judgment must be allowed. But the doctrine which is contended for is not chargeable with the consequences imputed to it. It does not affirm that the national government is sovereign in all respects, but that it is sovereign to a certain extent; that is, to the extent of the objects of its specified powers. It leaves, therefore, a criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so. This criterion is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion, which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State or of any individual ? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favor of its constitutionality, and slighter relations to any declared object of the Constitution may be permitted to turn the scale. The general objections, which are to be inferred from the reasonings of the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to the doctrine which has been advanced, have been stated, and it is hoped satisfactorily answered, Those of a more particular nature shall now be examined. The Secretary of State introduces his opinion with an observation, that the proposed incorporation undertakes to create certain capacities, properties, or attributes, which are against the laws of alienage, descents, escheat and forfeiture, distribution and monopoly, and to confer a power to make laws paramount to those of the States. And nothing, says he, in another place, but necessity, invincible by other means, can justify such a prostration of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence, and are the foundation laws of the State governments. If these are truly the foundation laws of the several States, then have most of them subverted their own foundations. For there is scarcely one of them which has not, since the establishment of its particular constitution, made material alterations in some of those branches of its jurisprudence, especially the law of descents. But it is not conceived how anything can be called the fundamental law of a State government which is not established in its constitution unalterable by the ordinary legislature. And, with regard to the question of necessity, it has been shown that this can only constitute a question of expediency, not of right. To erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial for a natural person, and where a number are concerned, to give them individuality. To that legal or artificial person, once created, the common law of every State, of itself, annexes all those incidents and attributes which are represented as a prostration of the main pillars of their jurisprudence. It is certainly not accurate to say, that the erection of a corporation is against those different head's of the State laws; because it is rather to create a kind of person or entity, to which they are inapplicable, and to which the general rule of those laws assign a different regimen. The laws of alienage cannot apply to an artificial person, because it can have no country; those of descent cannot apply to it, because it can have no heirs; those of escheat are foreign from it, for the same reason; those of forfeiture, because it cannot commit a crime; those of distribution, because, though it may be dissolved, it cannot die. As truly might it be said, that the exercise of the power of prescribing the rule by which foreigners shall be naturalized, is against the law of alienage, while it is, in fact, only to put them in a situation to cease to be the subject of that law. To do a thing which Is against a law, is to do something which it forbids, or which is a violation of it. But if it were even to be admitted that the erection of a corporation is a direct alteration of the state laws, in the enumerated particulars, it would do nothing toward proving that the measure was unconstitutional. If the government of the United States can do no act which amounts to an alteration of a State law, all its powers are nugatory; for almost every new law is an alteration, in same way or other, of an old law, either common or statute. There are laws concerning bankruptcy in some States. Some States have laws regulating the values of foreign coins. Congress are empowered to establish uniform laws concerning bankruptcy throughout the United States, and to regulate the values of foreign coins. The exercise of either of these powers by Congress, necessarily involves an alteration of the laws of those States. Again. Every person, by the common law of each State, may export his property to foreign countries, at pleasure.: But Congress, in pursuance of the power of regulating trade, may prohibit the exportation of commodities; in doing which, they would alter the common law of each State, in abridgment of individual right. It can therefore never be good reasoning to say this or that act is unconstitutional, because it alters this or that law of a State. It must be shown that the act which makes the alteration is unconstitutional on other accounts, not because it makes the alteration. There are two points in the suggestions of the Secretary of State, which have been noted, that are peculiarly incorrect. One is, that the proposed incorporation is against the laws of monopoly, because it stipulates an exclusive right of banking under the national authority; the other, that it gives power to the institution to make laws paramount to those of the States. But, with regard to the first: The bill neither prohibits any State from erecting as many banks as they please, nor any number of individuals from associating to carry on the business, and consequently, is free from the charge of establishing a monopoly; for monopoly implies a legal impediment to the carrying on of the trade by others than those to whom it is granted. And with regard to the second point, there is still less foundation. The by-laws of such an institution as a bank can operate only on its own members can only concern the disposition of its own property, and must essentially resemble the rules of a private mercantile partnership. They are expressly not to be contrary to law; and law must here mean the law of a State, as well as of the United States. There never can be a doubt, that a law of a corporation, if contrary to a law of a State, must be overruled as void unless the law of the State is contrary to that of the United States and then the question will not be between the law of the State and that of the corporation, but between the law of the State and that of the United States. Another argument made use of by the Secretary of State is, the rejection of a proposition by the Convention to empower Congress to make corporations, either generally, or for some special purpose. What was the precise nature or extent of this proposition, or what the reasons for refusing it, is not ascertained by any authentic document, or even by accurate recollection. As far as any such document exists, it specifies only canals. If this was the amount of it, it would, at most, only prove that it was thought inexpedient to give a power to incorporate for the purpose of opening canals, for which purpose a special power would have been necessary, except with regard to the western territory, there being nothing in any part of the Constitution respecting the regulation of canals. It must be confessed, however, that very different accounts are given of the import of the proposition, and of the motives for rejecting it. Some affirm, that it was confined to the opening of canals and obstructions in rivers, others, that it embraced banks; and others, that it extended to the power of incorporating generally. Some, again, allege, that it was disagreed to because it was thought improper to vest in Congress a power of erecting corporations. Others, because it was thought unnecessary to specify the power, and inexpedient to furnish an additional topic of objection to the Constitution. In this state of the matter, no inference whatever can be drawn from it. But whatever may have been the nature of the proposition, or the reasons for rejecting it, nothing is included by it, that is the proposition, in respect to the real merits of the question. The Secretary of State will not deny, that, whatever may have been the intention of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual and established rules of construction. Nothing is more common than for laws to express and elect more or less than was intended. If, then, a power to erect a corporation in any case be deducible, by fair inference, from the whole or any part of the numerous provisions of the Constitution of the United States arguments drawn from extrinsic circumstances regarding the in tension of the Convention must be rejected. Most of the arguments of the Secretary of State, which have not been considered in the foregoing remarks, are of a nature rather to apply to the expediency than to the constitutionality of the bill. They will, however, be noticed in the discussions which will be necessary in reference to the particular heads of the powers of the government which are involved in the question. Those of the Attorney General will now properly come under view. His first objection is, that the power of incorporation is not expressly given to Congress. This shall be conceded, but in this sense only, that it is not declared in express terms that Congress may erect a corporation. But this cannot mean, that there are not certain express powers which necessary include it. For instance Congress have express power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. Here, then, is express power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over certain Ices, that is to do, in respect to those places, all that any government whatsoever may do. For language does not afford a more complete designation of sovereign power than in those comprehensive terms. It is, in other words, a power to pass all laws whatsoever, and consequently, to pass laws for erecting corporations, as well as for any other purpose which is the proper object of law in a free govern meet. Surely it can never be believed that Congress, with exclusive powers of legislation in all cases whatsoever, cannot erect a corporation within the district which shall become the seat of government, for the better regulation of its police. And yet there is an unqualified denial of the power to erect corporations in every case on the part both of the Secretary of State and of the Attorney General; the former, indeed, speaks of that power in these emphatical terms: That it is a right remaining exclusively with the States. As far, then, as there is an express power to do any particular act of legislation, there is an express one to erect a corporation in the case above described. But, accurately speaking, no particular power is more than that implied in a, general one. Thus the power to lay a duty on a gallon of rum is only a particular implied in the general power to collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. This serves to explain in what sense it may be said that Congress have not an express power to make corporations. This may not be an improper place to take notice of an argument which was used in debate in the House of Representatives. It was there argued, that if the Constitution intended to confer so important a power as that of erecting corporations, it would have been expressly mentioned. But the case which has been noticed is clearly one in which such a power exists, and yet without any specification of express grant of it, further than as every particular implied in a general power can be said to be so granted. But the argument itself is founded upon an exaggerated and erroneous conception of the nature of the power. It has been shown that it is not of so transcendent a kind as the reasoning supposes, and that, viewed in a just light, it is a mean which ought to have been left to implication, rather than an end which ought to have been expressly granted. Having observed that the power of erecting corporations is not expressly granted to Congress, the Attorney General proceeds thus: " If it can be exercised by them, it must be "1. Because the nature of the federal government implies it. "2. Because it is involved in some of the specified powers of legislation. " 3. Because it is necessary and proper to carry into execution some of the specified powers." To be implied in the nature of the federal government, says he, would beget a doctrine so indefinite as to grasp every power. This proposition, it ought to be remarked, is not precisely, or even substantially, that which has been relied upon. The proposition relied upon is, that the specified powers of Congress are in their nature sovereign. That it is incident to sovereign power to erect corporations, and that therefore Congress have a right, within the sphere and in relation to the objects of their power, to erect corporations. It shall, however, be supposed that the Attorney General would consider the two propositions in the same light, and that the objection made to the one would be made to the other. To this objection an answer has been already given. It is this, that the doctrine is stated with this express qualification, that the right to erect corporations does only extend to cases and objects within the sphere of the specified powers of the government. A general legislative authority implies a power to erect corporations in all cases. A particular legislative power implies authority to erect corporations in relation to cases arising under that power only. Hence the affirming that, as incident to sovereign power, Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion; or than the maintaining that they have sovereign power as to taxation, would be to maintain that they have sovereign power as to everything else. The Attorney General undertakes in the next place to show, that the power of erecting corporations is not involved in any of the specified powers of legislation confided to the national government. In order to this, he has attempted an enumeration of the particulars which he supposes to be comprehended under the several heads of the Covers to lay and collect taxes, &c.; to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to regulate commerce with sovereign nations; between the States, and with the Indian tribes, to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of other property belonging to the United States. The design of which enumeration is to show, what is included under those different heads of power, and negatively, that the power of erecting corporations is not included. The truth of this inference or conclusion must depend on the accuracy of the enumeration. If it can be shown that the enumeration is defective, the inference is destroyed. To do this will be attended with no difficulty. The heads of the power to lay and collect taxes are stated to be: 1. To stipulate the sum to be lent. 2. An interest or no interest to be paid. 3. The time and manner of repaying, unless the loan be placed on an irredeemable fund. This enumeration is liable to a variety of objections. It omits in the first place, the pledging or mortgaging of a fund for the security of the money lent, an usual, and in most cases an essential ingredient. The idea of a stipulation of an interest or no interest is too confined. It should rather have been said, to stipulate the consideration of the loan. Individuals often borrow on considerations other than the payment of interest, so may governments, and so they often find it necessary to do. Everyone recollects the lottery tickets and other douceurs often given in Great Britain as collateral inducements to the lending of money to the government. There are also frequently collateral conditions, which the enumeration does not contemplate. Every contract which has been made for moneys borrowed in Holland, induces stipulations that the sum due shall bedded from taxes, and from sequestration in time of war, and mortgages all the land and property of the United States for the reimbursement. It is also known that a lottery is a common expedient for borrowing money, which certainly does not fall under either of the enumerated heads. The heads of the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, are stated to be: 1. To prohibit them or their commodities from our ports. 2. To impose duties on them, where none existed before, or to increase existing; duties on them. 3. To subject them to any species of custom-house regulation. 4. To grant them any exemptions or privileges which policy may suggest. This enumeration is far more exceptionable than either of the former. It omits everything that relates to the citizens' vessels, or commodities of the United States. The following palpable omissions occur at once: I Of the power to prohibit the exportation of commodities, which not only exists at all times, but which in time of war it would be necessary to exercise, particularly with relation to naval and warlike stores i. Of the power to prescribe rules concerning the characteristics and privileges of an American bottom, how she shall be navigated, or whether by citizens or foreigners, or by a proportion of each 3. Of the power of regulating the manner of contracting with seamen; the police of ships on their voyages, &c., of which the Act for the government and regulation of seamen, in the merchants' service, is a specimen. That the three preceding articles are omissions, will not be doubted there is a long list of items in addition, which admit of little, if any question, of which a few samples shall be given. 1. The granting of bounties to certain kinds of vessels, and certain species of merchandise; of this nature, is the allowance on dried and pickled fish and salted provisions 2. The prescribing of rules concerning the inspection of commodities to be exported. Though the States individually are competent to this regulation, yet there is no reason, in point of authority at least, why a general system might not be adopted by the United States. 3. The regulation of policies of insurance; of salvage upon goods found at sea, and the disposition of such goods. 4. The regulation of pilots. 5. The regulation of bills of exchange drawn by a merchant of one State upon a merchant of another State. This last rather belongs to the regulation of trade between the States, but is equally omitted in the specifications under that head The last enumeration relates to the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. The heads of this power are said to be: 1. To exert an ownership over the territory of the United States which may be properly called the property of the United States, as in the western territory, and to institute a government therein, or 2. To exert an ownership over the other property of the United States. The idea of exerting an ownership over the territory or other property of the United States, is particularly indefinite and vague. It does not at all satisfy the conception of what must have been intended by a power to make all needful rules and regulations, nor would there have been any use for a special clause, which authorized nothing more. For the right of exerting an ownership is implied in the very definition of property. It is admitted, that in regard to the western territory, something more is intended; even the institution of a government, that is, the creation of a body politic, or corporation of the highest nature; one which, in its maturity, will be able itself to create other corporations. Why, then, does not the same clause authorize the erection of a corporation, in respect to the regulation or disposal of any other of the property of the United States. This idea will be enlarged upon in another place. Hence it appears, that the enumerations which have been attempted by the Attorney General, are so imperfect, as to authorize no conclusion whatever; they, therefore, have no tendency to disprove that each and every of the powers, to which they relate, includes that of erecting corporations, which they certainly do, as the subsequent illustrations will snore and more evince. It is presumed to have been satisfactorily shown in the course of the preceding observations: 1. That the power of the government, as to the objects intrusted to its management, is, in its nature, sovereign. 2. That the right of erecting corporations is one inherent in, and inseparable from, the idea of sovereign power. 3. That the position, that the government of the United States can exercise no power, but such as is delegated to it by its Constitution, does not militate against this principle. 4. That the word necessary, in the general clause, can have no restrictive operation derogating from the force of this principle indeed' that the degree in which a measure is or is not necessary cannot be a test of constitutional right, but of expediency only. 5. That the power to erect corporations is not to be considered as an independent or substantive power, but as an incidental and auxiliary one, and was therefore more properly left to implication, than expressly granted. 6. That the principle in question does not extend the power of the government beyond the prescribed limits, because it only affirms a power to incorporate for purposes within the sphere of the specified powers. And lastly, that the right to exercise such a power in certain cases is unequivocally granted in the most positive and comprehensive terms. To all which it only remains to be added, that such a power has actually been exercised in two very eminent instances; namely, in the erection of two governments, one northwest of the River Ohio, and the other southwest the last independent of any antecedent compact. And these result in a full and complete demonstration that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General are mistaken when they deny generally the power of the national government to erect corporations. It shall now be endeavored to be shown that there is a power to erect one of the kind proposed by the bill. This will be done by tracing a natural and obvious relation between the institution of a bank and the objects of several of the enumerated powers of the government; and by showing that, politically speaking, it is necessary to the effectual execution of one or more of those powers. In the course of this investigation, various instances will be stated, by way of illustration of a right to erect corporations under those powers. Some preliminary observations may be proper. The proposed bank is to consist of an association of persons, for the purpose of creating a joint capital, to be employed chiefly and essentially in loans. So far the object is not only lawful, but it is the mere exercise of a right which the law allows to every individual. The Bank of New York, which is not incorporated, is an example of such an association. The bill proposed ill addition that the government shall become a joint proprietor in this undertaking, and that it shall permit the bills of the company, payable on demand, to be receivable in its revenues; and stipulates that it shall not grant privileges, similar to those which are to be allowed to this company, to any others. All this is incontrovertibly within the compass of the discretion of the government. The only question is, whether it has a right to incorporate this company, in order to enable it the more effectually to accomplish ends which are in themselves lawful. To establish such a right, it remains to show the relation of such an institution to one or more of the specified powers of the government. Accordingly it is affirmed that it has a relation, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes, to that of borrowing money, to that of regulating trade between the States, and to those of raising and maintaining fleets and armies. To the two former the relation Nay be said to be immediate; and in the last place it will be argued, that it is clearly within the provision which authorizes the making of all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the United States, as the same has been practiced upon by the government. A bank relates to the collection of taxes in two ways indirectly, by increasing the quantity of circulating medium and quickening circulation, which facilitates the means of paying directly, by creating a convenient! species of medium in which they are to be paid. To designate or appoint the money or thing in which taxes are to be paid, is not only a proper, but a necessary exercise of the power of collecting them. Accordingly Congress, in the lava concerning the collection of the duties on imposts and tonnage, have provided that they shall be paid in gold and silver. But while it was an indispensable part of the work to say in what they should be paid, the choice of the specific thing was mere matter of discretion. The payment might have been required in the commodities themselves. Taxes in kind, however ill-judged, are not without precedents, even in the United States; or it Night have been in the paper money of the several States, or in the bills of the Bank of North America, New York and Massachusetts, all or either of them; or it might have been in bills issued under the authority of the United States. No part of this can, it is presumed, be disputed. The appointment, then, of the money or thing in which the taxes are to be paid, is an incident to the power of collection. And among the expedients which may be adopted, is that of bills issued under the authority of the United States. Now, the manner of issuing these bills is again matter of discretion. The government might doubtless proceed in the following manner: It might provide that they should be issued under the direction of certain officers, payable on demand, and, in order to support their credit, and give them a ready circulation, it might, besides giving them a currency in its taxes, set apart, out of any moneys in its treasury, a given sum, and appropriate it, under the direction of those officers, as a fund for answering the bills, as presented for payment. The constitutionality of all this would not admit of a question, and yet it would amount to the institution of a bank, with a view to the more convenient collection of taxes, For the simplest and most precise idea of a bank is, a deposit of coin, or other property, as a fund for circulating credit upon it, which is to answer the purpose of money. That such an arrangement would be equivalent to the establishment of a bank, would become obvious if the place where the fund to be set apart was kept should be made a receptacle of the moneys of all other persons who should incline to deposit them there for safe-keeping; and would become still more so, if the officers charged with the direction of the fund were authorized to make discounts at the usual rate of interest, upon good security. To deny the power of the government to add these ingredients to the plan, would be to refine away all government. A further process will still more clearly illustrate the point. Suppose, when the species of bank which has been described was about to be instituted, it was to be urged that, in order to secure to it a due degree of confidence, the fund ought not only to be set apart and appropriated generally, but ought to be specifically vested in the officers who were to have the direction of it, and in their successors in office, to the end that it might acquire the character of private property, incapable of being resumed without a violation of the sanctions by which the rights of property are protected, and occasioning more serious and general alarm the apprehension of which might operate as a check upon the government. Such a proposition might be opposed by arguments against the expedience of it, or the solidity of the reason assigned for it, but it is not conceivable what could be urged against its constitutionality; and yet such a disposition of the thing would amount to the erection of a corporation; for the true definition of a corporation seems to be this: It is a legal person, or a person created by act of law, consisting of one or more natural persons authorized to hold property, or a franchise in succession, in a legal, as contradistinguished from natural, capacity. Let the illustration proceed a step further.. Suppose a bank of the mature which has been described, with or without incorporation, had been instituted, and that experience had evinced as it probably would, that, being wholly under a public direction, it possessed not the confidence requisite to the credit of the bills. Suppose, also, that, by some of those adverse conjunctures which occasionally attend nations, there had been a very great drain of the specie of the country, so as not only to cause general distress for want of an adequate medium of circulation, but to produce, in consequence of that circumstance, considerable defalcations in the public revenues. Suppose, also, that there was no bank instituted in any State; in such a posture of things, would it not be most manifest, that the incorporation of a bank like that proposed by the bill would be a measure immediately relative to the effectual collection of the taxes, and completely within the province of the sovereign power of providing, by all laws necessary and proper, for that collection ? If it be said, that such a state of things would render that necessary, and therefore constitutional, which is not so now, the answer to this, and a solid one it doubtless is, must still be that which has been already stated circumstances may affect the expediency of the measure, but they can neither add to nor diminish its constitutionality. A bank has a direct relation to the power of borrowing money, because it is an usual, and in sudden emergencies an essential, instrument in the obtaining of loans to government. A nation is threatened with a war, large sums are wanted on a sudden to make the requisite preparations. Taxes are laid for the purpose, but it requires tine to obtain the benefit of them. Anticipation is indispensable. If there be a bank the supply can at once be had. If there be none, loans from individuals must be sought. The progress of these is often too slow for the exigency ill some situations they are not practicable at all. Frequently when they are, it is of great consequence to be able to anticipate the product of them by advance from a bank. The essentiality of such an institution as an instrument of loans is exemplified at this very moment. An Indian expedition is to be prosecuted. The only fund, out of which the money can arise, consistently with the public engagements, is a tax, which only begins to be collected in July next. The preparations, however, are instantly to be made. The money must, therefore, be borrowed and of whom could it be borrowed if there were no public banks ? It happens that there are institutions of this kind, but if there were none, it would be indispensable to create one. Let it then be supposed that the necessity existed, (as but for a casualty would be the case,) that proposals were made for obtaining a loan; that a number of individuals came forward and said, we are willing to accommodate the government with the money; with what we have in hand, and the credit we can raise upon it, we doubt not of being able to furnish the sum required; but in order to this, it is indispensable that we should be incorporated as a bank. This is essential toward putting it in our power to do what is desired, and we are obliged on that account to make it the consideration or condition of the loan. Can it be believed that a compliance with this proposition would be unconstitutional ? Does not this alone evince the contrary ? It is a necessary part of a power to borrow, to be able to stipulate the consideration or conditions of a loan. It is efficient as has been remarked elsewhere, that this is not confined to the mere stipulation of a franchise. If it may, and it is not perceived why it may not, then the grant of a corporate capacity may be stipulated as a consideration of the loan. There seems to be nothing unfit or foreign from the nature of the thing in giving individuality, or a corporate capacity to a number of persons, who are willing to lend a sum of money to the government, the better to enable them to do it, and make them an ordinary instrument of loans in future emergencies of the state. But the more general view of the subject is still more satisfactory. The legislative power of borrowing money, and of making all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution that power, seems obviously competent to the appointment of the organ, through which the abilities and wills of individuals may be roost efficaciously exerted for the accommodation of the government by loans. The Attorney General opposes to this reasoning the following observation: "Borrowing money presupposes the accumulation of a fund to be lent, and is secondary to the creation of an ability to lend." This is plausible in theory, but is not true in fact. In a great number of cases, a previous accumulation of a fund equal to the whole sum required does not exist. And nothing more can be actually presupposed, than that there exist resources, which, put into activity to the greatest advantage by the nature of the operation with the government, will be equal to the effect desired to be produced. All the provisions and operations of government must be presumed to contemplate things as they really are. The institution of a bank has also a natural relation to the regulation of trade between the States, in so far as it is conducive to the creation of a convenient medium of exchange between them, and to the keeping up a full circulation, by preventing the frequent displacement of the metals in reciprocal remittances Money is the very hinge on which commerce turns. And this does not merely mean gold and silver; many other things have served the purpose, with different degrees of utility. Paper has been extensively employed. It cannot, therefore, be admitted, with the Attorney General, that the regulation of trade between the States, as it concerns the medium of circulation and exchange, ought to be considered as confined to coin. It is even supposable that the whole or the greatest part, of the coin of the country might be carried out of it. The Secretary of State objects to the relation here insisted upon by the following mode of reasoning: To erect a bank, says he, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who creates a bank, creates a subject of commerce, so does he who snakes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the Nines, yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. This making the regulation of commerce to consist in prescribing rules for buying and selling this, indeed, is a species of regulation of trade, hut is one which falls more aptly within the province of the local jurisdictions than within that of the general government, whose care they must be presumed to have been intended to be directed to those general political arrangements concerning trade on which its aggregated interests depend, rather than to the details of buying and selling. Accordingly, such only are the regulations to be found in the laws of the United States whose objects are to give encouragement to the enterprise of our own merchants, and to advance our navigation and manufactures. And it is in reference to these general relations of commerce, that an establishment which furnishes facilities to circulation, and a convenient medium of exchange and alienation, is to be regarded as a regulation of trade. The Secretary of State further argues, that if this was a regulation of commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State as to its external. But what regulation of commerce does not extend to the internal commerce of every State ? What are all the duties upon imported articles amounting to prohibitions, but so many bounties upon domestic manufactures, affecting the interests of different classes of citizens, in different ways? What are all the provisions in the Coasting Acts which relate to the trade between district and district of the same State? In short, what regulation of trade between the States but must affect the internal trade of each State? What can operate upon the whole, but must extend to every part ? The relation of a bank to the execution of the powers that concern the common defense has been anticipated. It has been noted, that, at this very moment, the aid of such an institution is essential to the measures to be pursued for the protection of our frontiers. It now remains to show, that the incorporation of a bank is within the operation of the provision which authorizes Congress to make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the United States. But it is previously necessary to advert to a distinction which has been taken by the Attorney General. He admits that the word property may signify personal property, however acquired, and yet asserts that it cannot signify money arising from the sources of revenue pointed out in the Constitution, " because," says he, " the disposal and regulation of money is the final cause for raising it by taxes." But it would be more accurate to say that the object to which money is intended to be applied is thermal cause for raising it, than that the disposal and regulation of it is such. The support of government - the support of troops for the common defense - the payment of the public debt, are the true final causes for raising money. The disposition and regulation of it, when raised, are the steps by which it is applied to tile ends for which it was raised, not the ends themselves. Hence, therefore, the money to be raised by taxes, as well as any other personal property, must be supposed to come within the meaning, as they certainly do within the letter, of authority to make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the United States. A case will make this plainer. Suppose the public debt discharged, and the funds now pledged for it liberated. In some instances it would be found expedient to repeal tile taxes; in others, the repeal might injure our own industry, our agriculture and manufactures. In these cases they would, of course, be retained. Here, then, would be moneys arising from the authorized sources of revenue, which would not fall within the rule by which the Attorney General endeavors to except them from other personal property, and from the operation of the clause in question. The moneys being in the coffers of government, what is to hinder such a disposition to be made of them as is contemplated in the bill; or what an incorporation of the parties concerned, under the clause which has been cited ? It is admitted that with regard to the western territory they give a power to erect a corporation that is, to institute a government; and by what rule of construction can it be maintained, that the same words in a constitution of government will not have the same effect when applied to one species of property as to another as far as the subject is capable of it ? Or that a legislative power to make all needful rules and regulations, or to pass all laws necessary and proper, concerning the public property, which is admitted to authorize an incorporation in one case, will not authorize it in another ? will justify the institution of a government over the western territory, and will not justify the incorporation of a bank for the more useful management of the moneys of the United States ? If it will do the last, as well as the first, then under this provision alone, the bill is constitutional, because it contemplates that the United States shall be joint proprietors of the stock of the bank. There is an observation of the Secretary of State to this effect which may require notice in this place:-Congress, says he, are not to lay taxes ad libitum, for any purpose they please, but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. Certainly no inference can be drawn from this against the power of applying their money for the institution of a bank. It is true that they cannot without breach of trust lay taxes for any other purpose than the general welfare; but so neither can any other government. The welfare of the community is the only legitimate end for which money can be raised on the community. Congress can be considered as under only one restriction which does not apply to other governments, they cannot rightfully apply the money they raise to any purpose merely or purely local. But, with this exception, they have as large a discretion in relation to the application of money as any legislature whatever. The constitutional test of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of general or local nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power. The quality of the object as how far it will really promote or not the welfare of the Union must be matter of conscientious discretion, and the arguments for or against a measure in this light must be arguments concerning expediency or inexpediency, not constitutional right. Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade, etc., being general objects, are constitutional ones for the Application of money. A bank, then, whose bills are to circulate in all the revenues of the country, is evidently a general object, and, for that very reason, a constitutional one, as far as regards the appropriation of money to it. Whether it will really be a beneficial one or not, is worthy of careful examination, but is no more a constitutional point, in the particular referred to, than the question, whether the western lands shall be sold for twenty or thirty cents per acre. A hope is entertained that it has, by this time, been made to appear, to the satisfaction of the President, that a bank has a natural relation to the power of collecting taxes-to that of regulating trade-to that of providing for the common defense and that, as the bill under consideration contemplates the government in the light of a joint proprietor of the stock of the bank, it brings the case within the provision of the clause of the Constitution which immediately respects the property of the United States. Under a conviction that such a relation subsists, the Secretary of the Treasury, with all deference, conceives that it will result as a necessary consequence from the position that all the special powers of government are sovereign, as to the proper objects that the incorporation of a bank is a constitutional measure, and that the objections taken to the bill, in this respect, are ill-founded. But, from an earnest desire to give the utmost possible satisfaction to the mind of the President, on so delicate and important a subject, the Secretary of the Treasury will ask his indulgence, while he gives some additional illustrations of cases in which a power of erecting corporations may be exercised, under some of those heads of the specified powers of the government, which are alleged to include the right of incorporating a bank. i. It does not appear susceptible of a doubt, that if Congress had thought proper to provide, in the collection laws, that the bonds to be given for the duties should be given to the collector of the district, A or B. as the case might require, to inure to him and his successors in office, in trust for the United States, that it would have been consistent with the Constitution to make such an arrangement; and yet this, it is conceived, would amount to an incorporation. i. It is not an unusual expedient of taxation to farm particular branches of revenue-that is, to mortgage or sell the product of them for certain definite sums, leaving the collection to the parties to whom they are mortgaged or sold. There are even examples of this in the United States. Suppose that there was any particular branch of revenue which it was manifestly expedient to place on this footing, and there were a number of persons willing to engage with the government, upon condition that they should be incorporated, and the sums invested in them, as well for their greater safety, as for the more convenient recovery and management of the taxes. Is it supposable that there could be any constitutional obstacle to the measure ? It is presumed that there could be none. It is certainly a mode of collection which it would be in the discretion of the government to adopt, though the circumstances must be very extraordinary that would induce the Secretary to think it expedient. 3. Suppose a new and unexplored branch of trade should present itself, with some foreign country. Suppose it was manifest that to undertake it with advantage required an union of the capitals of a number of individuals, and that those individuals would not be disposed to embark without an incorporation, as well to obviate that consequence of a private partnership which makes every individual liable in his whole estate for the debts of the company, to their utmost extent, as for the more convenient management of the business-what reason can there be to doubt that the national government would have a constitutional right to institute and incorporate such a company? None. They possess a general authority to regulate trade with foreign countries. This is a mean which has been practiced to that end, by all the principal commercial nations, who have trading companies to this day, which have subsisted for centuries. Why may not the United States, constitutionally, employ the means usual in other countries, for attaining the ends intrusted to them ? A power to make all needful rules and regulations concerning territory, has been construed to mean a power to erect a government. A power to regulate trade, is a power to make all needful rules and regulations concerning trade. Why may it not, then, include that of erecting a trading company, as well as, in other cases, to erect a government ? It is remarkable that the State conventions, who had proposed amendments in relation to this point, have most, if not all of them, expressed themselves nearly thus: Congress shall not grant monopolies, nor erect any company with exclusive advantages of commerce! Thus, at the same time, expressing their sense, that the power to erect trading companies or corporations was inherent in Congress, and objecting to it no further than as to the grant of exclusive privileges. The Secretary entertains all the doubts which prevail concerning the utility of such companies, but he cannot fashion to his own mind a reason, to induce a doubt, that there is a constitutional authority in the United States to establish them. If such a reason were demanded, none could be given, unless it were this: That Congress cannot erect a corporation. Which would be no better than to say, they cannot do it, because they cannot do it-first presuming an inability, without reason, and then assigning that inability as the cause of itself. Illustrations of this kind might be multiplied without end. They shall, however, be pursued no further. There is a sort of evidence on this point, arising from an aggregate view of the Constitution, which is of no inconsiderable weight: the very general power of laying and collecting taxes, and appropriating their proceeds--that of borrowing money indefinitely--that of coining money, and regulating foreign coins-that of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the property of the United States. These powers combined, as well as the reason and nature of the thing, speak strongly this language: that it is the manifest design and scope of the Constitution to vest in Congress all the powers requisite to the effectual administration of the finances of the United States. As far as concerns this object, there appears to be no parsimony of power. To suppose, then. that the government is precluded from the employment of so usual and so important an instrument for the administration of its finances as that of a bank, is to suppose what does not coincide with the general tenor and complexion of the constitution, and what is not agreeable to impressions that any new spectator would entertain concerning it. Little less than a prohibitory clause can destroy the strong presumptions which result from the general aspect of the government. Nothing but demonstration should exclude the idea that the power exists. In all questions of this nature, the practice of mankind ought to have great weight against the theories of individuals. The fact, for instance, that all the principal commercial nations have made use of trading corporations or companies, for the purpose of external commerce, is a satisfactory proof that the establishment of them is an incident to the regulation of the commerce. This other fact, that banks are an usual engine in the administration of national finances, and an ordinary and the most effectual instrument of loan, and one which, in this country, has been found essential, pleads strongly against (he supposition that a government, clothed with most of the most important prerogatives of sovereignty in relation to its revenues, its debts, its credits, its defense, its trade, its intercourse with foreign nations, is forbidden to make use of that instrument as an appendage to its own authority. It has been stated as an auxiliary test of constitutional authority to try whether it abridges any pre-existing right of any State, or any individual. The proposed investigation will stand the most severe examination on this point. Each State may still erect as many banks as it pleases. Every individual may still carry on the banking business to any extent he pleases. Another criterion may be this. Whether the institution or thing has a more direct relation, as to its uses, to the objects of the reserved powers of the State governments than to those of the powers delegated by the United States. This, rule, indeed, is less precise than the former, but it may still serve as some guide. Surely a bank has more reference to the objects intrusted to the national government than to those left to the care of the State governments. The common defense is decisive in this comparison. It is presumed that nothing of consequence in the observations of the Secretary of State, and Attorney General, has been left un-noticed. There are, indeed, a variety of observations of the Secretary of State designed to show that the utilities ascribed to a bank, in relation to the collection of taxes, and to trade, could be obtained without it; to analyze which, would prolong the discussion beyond all bounds. It shall be forborne for two reasons. First, because the report concerning the bank, may speak for itself in this respect and secondly, because all those observations are grounded on the erroneous idea that the quantum of necessity or utility is the test of a constitutional exercise of power. One or two remarks only shall be made. One is, that he has taken no notice of a very essential advantage to trade in general which is mentioned in the report, as peculiar to the existence of a bank circulation, equal in the public estimation to gold and silver. It is this that renders it unnecessary to lock up the money of the country, to accumulate for months successively, in order to the periodical payment of interest. The other is this: that his arguments to show that treasury orders and bills of exchange, from tint. course of trade, will prevent any considerable displacement of the metals, are founded on a particular view of the subject. A case will prove this. The sums collected in a State may be small in comparison with the debt due to it; the balance of its trade direct and circuitous with the seat of government, may be even, or nearly so; here, then, without bank bills, which in that State answer the purpose of coin, there must be a displacement of the coin, in proportion to the difference between the sum collected in the State, and that to be paid in it. With bank bills, no such displacement would take place, or as far as it did, it would be gradual and insensible. In many other ways, also, would there be at least a temporary and inconvenient displacement of the coin, even where the course of trade would eventually return it to its proper channel. The difference of the two situations in point of convenience to the treasury, can only be appreciated by one, who experiences the embarrassments of making provision for the payment of the interest on a stock, continually changing place in thirteen different places. One thing which has been omitted, just occurs, although it is not very material to the main argument. The Secretary of State affirms that the bill only contemplates a repayment, not a loan, to the government. But here he is certainly mistaken. It is true the government invests in the stock of the bank a sum equal to that which it receives on loan. But let it be remembered, that it does not, therefore, cease to be a proprietor of the stock, which would be the case, if the money received back were in the nature of a payment. It remains a proprietor still, and will share in the profit or loss of the institution, according as the dividend is more or less than the interest it is to pay on the sum borrowed. Hence that sum is manifestly, and in the strictest sense, a loan. Resource:Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States: 1791. (2013). Yale University of Law Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved from _century/bank-ah.aspDay 11.What was Hamilton referring to when he states, “That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society”, according to the text in lines nineteen to twenty three?2.What does Hamilton, according to the text, mean when he states, “To deny that the government of the United States has sovereign power, as to its declared purposes and trusts, because its power does not extend to all cases would be equally to deny that the State governments have sovereign power in any case, because their power does not extend to every case”?3.In your own words, what does the author mean when he states, “To insist upon it, would be to make the criterion of the exercise of any implied power, a case of extreme necessity; which is rather a rule to justify the overleaping of the bounds of constitutional authority, than to govern the ordinary exercise of it”, according to the text in lines 128 to 142?4.Hamilton states, “The truth is, that difficulties on this point are inherent in the nature of the Federal Constitution; they result inevitably from a division of the legislative power. The consequence of this division is, that there will be cases clearly within the power of the national government; others, clearly without its powers; and a third class, which will leave room for controversy and difference of opinion, and concerning which a reasonable latitude of judgment must be allowed.” In which ways does this statement depict unsolved issues from the Revolutionary War, according to the text?Day 21.According to the text, what examples of the use of federalist powers to exert control over the nation does Hamilton cite?2.Hamilton states, “To establish such a right, it remains to show the relation of such an institution to one or more of the specified powers of the government. Accordingly it is affirmed that it has a relation, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes, to that of borrowing money, to that of regulating trade between the States, and to those of raising and maintaining fleets and armies.” According to lines 446- 452 in the text text, in your own words, what did he mean by this?3.In which way does Hamilton, according to the text, refute allegations that creating a national bank would be unconstitutional and excess use of federal power?4.According to the text, what is the purpose of this text?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's) ” Week 8Summative AssessmentStudents will take an assessment analyzing primary and secondary source documents of the Revolution and New Nation Era and write an argument citing evidence from those source documents which they select and about whether the American Revolution was a radical revolution, in terms of addressing economical, ideological, and political issues which drove the Revolutionary War.Focus QuestionIn which ways, if at all, was the Revolution War a radical revolution, in terms of addressing economical, ideological, and political issues which drove the Revolutionary War?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791Joseph J. Ellis “The Early Republic” (2013)Transcript of Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)Gary B. Nash “Ordinary Americans and the Constitution” (2013)James O. Horton “Race and the American Constitution: A Struggle toward National Ideals James”“United States Constitution”“Bill of Rights”“Articles of Confederation” ( 1777)“George Washigton’s letter to Henry Knox” (1787)Martin, J. “No Way Out: Lord Cornwallis, the Siege of Yorktown, and America’s Victory in the War for Independence” (2013)Bernstein, R. “Inventing American Diplomacy” (2013)Declaration of Independence” (1776)David Armitage “The Declaration of Independence in Global Perspective” (2013)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.2.a, 6.1.12.A.2.b, 6.1.12.d, 6.1.12.A.2.e, 6.12.A.2.fRevolution and the New Nation (1754-1820's)Week 8 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to synthesize the readings of the past seven weeks.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summative AssessmentMany historians argue that the Revolutionary War failed to address issues described in the Declaration of Independence. Other historians argue that the Revolutionary War produced a significant impact nationally and internationally.Considerations:What is your evaluation of this? In which ways, if at all, was the Revolution War a radical revolution, in terms of addressing economical, ideological, and political issues which drove the Revolutionary War? Why? What other evidence would you need to strengthen your claim?Writing TaskCiting evidence from various texts read in this unit, defend a position about whether the American Revolution was a radical revolution, in terms of addressing economical, ideological, and political issues which drove the Revolutionary War.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States I Unit Overview“Unit 3-Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)”Summative AssessmentStudents will write an argument citing evidence from those documents in which they select and defend a position about what was the most important contributing factor to American disunity between 1801 and 1861.Essential QuestionsEnduring UnderstandingsWhat were the social and political factors that contributed to tensions in America, which contributed to division and secession? Reform was led by unfulfilled promises by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and created disunity in America.The abolitionist movement, led by religious leaders and women, was influential and was essential in pushing the end of slavery. Industrialization of the north and southern dependence of slavery, for agriculture, was one the contributing factors for southern secession. The northern belief in stronger federal power and southern belief in state sovereignty was one of the driving forces of secession.The Dred Scott decision had significant implications on whether slavery was abolished or allowed to continue.Lincoln’s election pushed the southerners to succeed the Union, because southerners believed that their way of life was being threatened. Focus QuestionsWeek 1:To what extent did the Revolutionary War create a social and political rupture, which created disunity in America?Week 2:In which way did Manifest Destiny provoke bitter dissent within the national polity?Week 3:In which way, primarily, did the acquisition of land aggravate disunity between the North and the South?Week 4:In which way did the issue of slavery, which was largely unaddressed directly by the Constitution, primarily, create tensions that would lead to the civil war?Week 5:How, primarily, did the Industrial Revolution aid in the division between the South and the North, which led to the Civil War?Week 6:To what extent did the Dred Scott decision create tensions, which contributed to succession?Week 7:What was the most important contributing factor to American disunity between 1801 and 1861 and why?Learning Targets-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Academic VocabularyConveyance Imperative DivisiveFlagrant Ominous endorsedElitist contentious raucousEradicated discursively plebianDisparagement drudgery ApaceDrudgery undulated proliferatingrepietized proselytizing HarkingAgitated Schemes EnflamingEquivocate Ameliorative fulcrum Entwined construed coalescedencumbrances depreciable indemnitygallantry belligerents aggrandizementencroachment concurrence deigningunquenchable encumbrances AssemblagesForborne Acquiescence RepugnanceDisapprobation Appropriations TranspiredScrupulously aggrandizement StrifeAcquiesce dissensions Endeavor Indispensable Demagogues SolicitousIncipient Apportionment Preponderanceirretrievably Consummated ascendancycountenance perilous asunderecclesiastical assemblage appertainedsubjugation Propriety CededImmemorial Injunction BrethrenCandor Conscientious AscertainedAcerbity Conspicuous ReprobationVehement Contemporaneous FlagranteCession Nomenclature AppellationRousing privy peonismExasperate disinclination injunctionAlacrity peremptorily emanateIgnominious epithets incendiaryBenevolence vernacular vitiatedDepraved reproachful arrondissementConciliatory melioration pigmiesInalienable Controverting PropoundedRequisite Treasonable debarredBlandishments Adornment EminentEmoluments Epitome AvariciousEnfeebling Reprehensible EnervateConjecture countenanced abased Obliged Valiantly GarblingAugmenting Ascendency LamentPerversion Extinction ImbroglioCovert Turmoil ExtraneousContent-Specific Vocabulary/TermsCompromise of 1850Texas AnnexationMissouri CompromiseMexican WarAbolitionistsAmerican Temperance societyAntebellum Manifest DestinyDred Scott DecisionStandards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.12.A.3.a, 6.12.a.3.b, 6.12.A.3.c, 6.1.12.A.3.e, 6.12.A.3.f6.1.12.A.3.h, 6.12.C.3.a, 6.1.12.D.3.eExpansion and Reform (1801-1861) Unit OverviewUnit Rationale: In this unit, students gain an understanding of the factors that led to southern succession. Students will investigate how state and federal power struggles, economic systems, the Dred Scott case, issues that were unresolved by the Constitution, and how social and political factors, which were created by the Revolutionary War, aided in the division of America. Students will explore ways in which the south and the north developed separate interests, which led to succession. First-person accounts, maps, speeches, and other primary and secondary source materials may be used to answer historical questions. Historical Thinking: The study of history rests on knowledge of facts, dates, names, places, events, and ideas. However, true historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and to marshal solid evidence in support of their answers; to go beyond the facts presented in their textbooks and examine the historical record for themselves; to consult documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites, works of art, quantitative data, and other evidence from the past, and to do so imaginatively--taking into account the historical context in which these records were created and comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time.“Facts are crucial to historical understanding, but there is only way for them to take root in memory: Facts are mastered by engaging students in historical questions that spark their curiosity and make them passionate about seeking answers.” (“Reading Like A Historian”, Wineburg, Martin, and Monte-Sano, Teachers College Press, New York, 2011.) Four main skills help to facilitate historical understanding: sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating. Sourcing-Historians begin reading a document at the end by sourcing it. They glance at the first couple of words but then go immediately to the document’s attribution. Who wrote this source and when? Is it a diary entry? A memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act? A leaked e-mail? Is the author in a position to know first-hand or this account based on hearsay? Sourcing transforms the act of reading from passive reception to engaged and active interrogation.Contextualizing-Contextualizing is the notion that events MUST be located in place and time to be properly understood. Close Reading-Primary and secondary sources provide students with an opportunity for close reading. They are the place to teach students to slow down and read closely, to think deeply about word choice and subtext. Corroborating-Corroborating is a strategy in which a reader asks questions about important details to determine points of agreement and disagreement. By comparing and contrasting multiple account, students can start to build a real understanding of what happened in the past and why.Discipline Specific Literacy: Research has shown that a key to literacy is exposing students to a rich diet of texts that mix genre and style “at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics.” Primary sources confront readers with varied styles and textures of language that push the boundaries of literacy.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)”Week 1Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent did the Revolutionary War create a social and political rupture, which created disunity in America?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)ConveyanceImperativeDivisiveFlagrantOminousendorsedelitistcontentiousraucouseradicateddiscursivelyplebiandisparagementdrudgeryApaceDrudgeryundulatedproliferatingre-pietizedproselytizingHarkingAgitatedSchemesEnflamingEquivocateAmeliorativefulcrum entwinedconstruedcoalescedabolitionistsAmerican Temperance SocietyAntebellum Joyce Appleby “National Expansion and Reform, 1815–1860” (2013)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.D.3.e, 6.12.A.3.fExpansion and Reform (1801-1861)Week 1 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore social and political factors that contributed to tensions in America, which contributed to division and secession. While the Revolutionary War united Americans for a common purpose, once it was completed, Americans lacked the central glue that united them. The South and the North, because of economical, industrial, and geographical reasons, became distinct entities with their own agendas. The slavery issue further divided the South and the North. Issues over power and human rights, which led many people to fight during the Revolutionary War, ironically became the reason for separation within America.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how disunity in America was aided by the communication of individual group agendas. Issues such as alcohol, slavery, women’s rights, and religion further added to disconnect between Americans after the Revolutionary War. In addition, the frustration with the failure of the Revolutionary War to address concerns, which prompted the Revolutionary War and making of a new government, led many Americans to press for changes, which selectively favored groups, as appose to the nation as a whole. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 104 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 105-220 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 221-317 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which ways did unresolved issued from the Revolutionary War, which were unaddressed in the Construction, lead to disunity in America prior to the Civil War?National Expansion and Reform, 1815–1860by Joyce ApplebyA good way to understand the men and women who created America’s reform tradition and carried it across the Mississippi in the years before the Civil War is to look at the political heritage their parents and grandparents left to them. The very idea of generations resonated with new meaning after independence. The conveyance of social responsibility from one generation to another is always a fascinating interplay of the inherited and the novel, but the American Revolution was a social and political rupture that clouded the future for young Americans. Together they faced a new way of life in a new nation.While this attachment within the generation that inherited the Revolution weakened traditional loyalties, it also held out the promise of creating a new political will that would extend across the continent. The Revolutionary leader Gouverneur Morris expressed this hope when he wrote that a “national spirit is the natural result of national existence; and although some of the present generation may feel colonial oppositions of opinion, that generation will die away, and give place to a race of Americans.”[1]Fighting a war for independence had not unified Americans. Rather it created the problem of unity—an imperative to hang together once the actual fighting ended and peace had been secured. The states were held together by a loose confederation. Much of the land Americans claimed still remained part of the ancestral domain of American Indians. The commonalities that did exist among the states—those of language, law, and institutional history—pointed in the wrong direction, back to the past when they were still part of the British Empire.The Declaration of Independence with its charged statements about equality and “certain unalienable rights” proved far more divisive than unifying. The flagrant contradiction between slavery and the principle of equality led to the first emancipation movement as one after another of the northern states abolished slavery in the waning years of the eighteenth century. With these remarkable acts, the Mason-Dixon boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania became the symbolic division between freedom and slavery, an ominous development at a time when Americans were working to strengthen their union.The Constitution created a national government along with the new responsibility of being an American citizen for white men. Most of those who George Washington invited to serve in his administration were social conservatives who believed that the world was divided between the talented few and the ordinary many. They endorsed individual freedom and equality before the law, but believed that members of the upper class should govern, restricting the common man to voting. Thomas Jefferson, chafing at this elitist doctrine, organized an opposition to the Federalists based on the contentious issues of popular participation, free speech, and equal opportunity. Two raucous presidential campaigns permanently disrupted the electoral decorum that the Federalists had hoped to impose with the new constitutional order. Jefferson’s presidential victory in 1800 opened the way for the next generation to fashion the world’s first liberal society.The embrace of personal liberty as a defining feature of American politics gave concrete grounds for the hope that slavery would end. The number of free blacks, swollen by northern emancipation, southern manumissions, and greater scope for self-liberation, led to the formation of African American communities. Their success gave the lie to slaveholders’ dismissive claims about the abilities of African Americans. After the Revolution, whites and blacks mingled in churches and shops, on the frontier and in the cities of the Upper South and the North, along with persistent racial prejudice. Despite the campaigns to abolish slavery in the northern states, African Americans figured on the margins of political life, and the existence of slavery in the “land of the free” continued to exacerbate sectional tensions.During this time a French countess planted the seeds of a powerful idea—American exceptionalism—in a letter to Jefferson on the eve of the French Revolution: “The characteristic difference between your revolution and ours,” she wrote, “is that having nothing to destroy, you had nothing to injure, and labouring for a people, few in number, incorrupted, and extended over a large tract of country, you have avoided all the inconvenience of a situation, contrary in every respect.” Then she added, “Every step in your revolution was perhaps the effect of virtue, while ours are often faults, and sometimes crimes.”[2]This view of the United States as exceptional was echoed among reform-minded Europeans. “They are the hope of the human race, they may well become its model,” Anne Robert Turgot told the pro-American English minister Richard Price. The famed editor of the Encyclopedie, Denis Diderot, proclaimed the new United States an asylum from fanaticism and tyranny “for all the peoples of Europe.”The new nation appeared exceptional to such Europeans because, in their view, its healthy, young, hard-working population had won a revolutionary prize—what was seen as an empty continent upon which to settle its free-born progeny. America was exceptional because the familiar predators of ordinary folk—the extorting tax collector, the overbearing nobleman, the persecuting priest, the extravagant ruler—had failed to make the voyage across the Atlantic. Natural abundance, tolerance, exemption from Old World social evils—these were among the materials from which the European reform imagination created the exceptional United States. This view ignored the new nation’s reliance on slavery and its displacement of Native peoples, who did not figure in the romanticized view of a New World, where the evils of the Old World could be eradicated.America’s ordinary citizens took up this view, celebrating what was distinctively American: its institutional innovations, its leveling spirit, above all, its expanded opportunities for common people. To them the idea of American exceptionalism had enormous appeal, for it played to their strengths. Taking up western land could become a movement for spreading democratic institutions across the continent. Being exceptional established a reciprocity between American abundance and high moral purposes. It infused the independence and hardiness of America’s farming families with civic value, generating patriotic images that could resonate widely without addressing the question of slavery.The Fourth of July rhetoric of the hoi polloi made clear that American exceptionalism freed them from the elite’s embrace of European gentility. To be genteel, one had to accept the cultural domination of Europe. For ordinary Americans the country’s greatness emerged in a lustier set of ideals—open opportunity, an unfettered spirit of inquiry, destruction of privilege, personal independence.During the nineteenth century, ordinary white Americans ignored the insignificance of their country on the world stage and propelled their republic discursively into the march of progress, a resonant new idea in Western culture. What might be construed elsewhere as uninterestingly plebian was elevated to a new goal for mankind. America was the only nation, Richard Hofstadter wryly commented, that began with perfection and aspired to progress. And American history was written to explain how this could be.[3]Three themes of American exceptionalism came into play: the clean slate with its implicit rejection of the past, the autonomy of the individual with its accompanying disparagement of dependency, and the commitment to natural rights with the corollary that democratic governance could best protect them. The metaphor of a clean slate helped create the illusion of a frontier emptied of human inhabitants—a virginal continent—an image that drew a veil over the violent encounters with the indigenous peoples that actually paced the westward trek of Americans. The autonomous man enjoyed the freedom to be the designer of his and his family’s life unaided or impeded by others, and the republic drew its worth from protecting individual rights. Democratic rhetoric likewise drew a veil over the severe limits that existed for those whose race or sex had already been assigned a value at birth.This idea of being exceptional didn’t really become the core of national identity until those who fought for independence and wrote the Constitution had retired from public life—as the Virginia dynasty of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, gave way to men such as John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Then a new generation of Americans took possession of their legacy and wrapped their imagination around the idea of a special role in world history for their nation. The tensions between the ideal and reality generated the reform movements that flourished in antebellum America. Activists became agents of change in an era of change, brought about by the convergence of political revolutions, intellectual ferment, and social turbulence.During these same years, America entered into a period of commercial expansion that promoted the construction of roads, the extension of postal services, and the founding of newspapers in country towns. A dense new communication network amplified the resonance of partisan disputes. The control over information and opinions once exercised exclusively by an elite had been wrested away by the articulate critics of that elite. A strong consensus quickly formed that American democracy required a broad base of educated people and literacy became widespread for both men and women, promoted by religious and commercial demands. Reading became a necessity, met by a thriving print culture. European visitors expressed astonishment that those who lived in the rural areas were as well informed as city dwellers.Land lured men and women westward. By 1810 a third of the American population lived in a new settlement. The conclusion of the War of 1812 added another push towards the frontier as soldiers got paid in land bounties. The fertile lands of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys beckoned, giving ordinary men a chance to capitalize their family’s labor. All this movement thrust the nation into sustained warfare against the native inhabitants.Urbanization grew apace; population in the older cities more than doubled, though three-quarters of Americans still lived on farms or rural towns on the eve of the Civil War. Within a decade, merchants, freed from British restrictions, sent ships across the Pacific and into the Indian Ocean. Baltimore became the fastest growing city in the United States, benefitting from its access to both the Atlantic and the hinterland for the raw materials and customers for its flourishing flour-milling industry. Yankee ingenuity displayed itself in manufacturing and retailing. In the rural Northeast where there were plenty of rivers, entrepreneurs tapped into waterpower. Both men and women sought liberation from the drudgery of farm work in the hundreds of factories that sprang up along the waterways of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Enterprise moved out to the countryside and down the social ladder as a market emerged that matched the nation’s geographic and public reach.Antebellum economic growth undulated through boom and bust cycles, the busts being remembered as the Panics of 1819, 1837, and 1857. The European demand for cotton created most of the booms—though the discovery of gold in the newly acquired California in 1848 was the most spectacular. Cotton, however, tied the American economy to slavery at the very time that the first emancipation movement created the portentous division between free and slave states. Profits from cotton coursed through the whole American economy. Southern specialization meant that plantation owners looked north for wood products, tools, and some foodstuffs, while they imported their luxury items from Europe.As northern states used their impressive communications network to spread their values, southerners—that is, the planter elite—began to perceive themselves standing against the nation, straining at the bonds of union as they drew closer to one another through shared political goals and intense sociability. Enslaved men and women, whose numbers ranged from 30 percent to 60 percent of each slave state’s population, formed ties with slaves on neighboring plantations, though they all lived in fear of being sent to the southern frontier of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Poorer whites clustered in the small communities of the hill country.The Bill of Rights and the steady, if slow, expansion of the suffrage for white men and a few free black men kept the democratic torch burning. Equally significant was the disestablishment of colonial churches. Between 1786 and 1833, Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts replaced their established churches with religious freedom, like those of the other states. Their leaders could have approved multiple established churches, but they opted to disentangle religious and political institutions, mirroring at the state level that “wall of separation between church and state” which Jefferson wrote about in 1802. This move particularly benefitted Baptists and Methodists, which were the fastest-growing denominations in the nation. Neither had enjoyed state support and both had suffered discrimination from the established churches.Although the majority of Americans were nominally Christians, many of them lived without places of worship, especially those who had moved to the frontier. Paying for clergy, church buildings, and seminaries now depended upon voluntary contributions, and without state support, many churches struggled to survive. Yet the separation of church and state paradoxically strengthened religion in America, for it permitted a hundred spiritual flowers to bloom, and bloom they did. Ministers began experimenting with new methods designed explicitly to revive Christianity in America.In the early 1800s revivals passed in waves over the country’s villages, towns, and cities. They could be scheduled or impromptu, held in church buildings or out in the open at great camp meetings lasting many days. Charismatic preachers exhorted men and women to confess their sins and accept the grace extended to them through Christ. Many achieved fame for their persuasive ability. The astute French visitor Alexis de Tocqueville commented wryly that every time he was told he was going to meet a priest, he met a politician.[4] To be born again became the core religious experience. While some churches continued to accept the doctrine of predestination associated with Calvin, an increasing number believed that good works contributed to a Christian’s claim on heaven.These revivals transformed American culture and the nature of Protestant Christianity in the United States. Ministers, responding to the “call to do the Lord’s work,” would pack their Bibles in their saddle bags and set off to find a field of souls to harvest. The Methodist Church organized circuits for their ministers to ride to extend their reach. The revivalists’ stress on personal salvation led to the neglect of other elements of Christian dogma and of the learned clergy to explicate them. They also encouraged personal commitments that went far beyond conventional service attendance. Critics within America’s older churches—Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Episcopal—found much to find fault with in this new movement. They considered its theology shallow and disliked what they saw as manipulative appeals to the emotions, but the evangelicals were astoundingly popular.[5]Reliance upon the Bible led to differing interpretations and new denominations. Every contested meaning had the potential of inspiring a new group of worshippers. Upstate New York was called “the burned over district” in reference to the intense passions aroused by the revivals as well as their frequency. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sprang from this soil, while the Disciples of Christ began as an effort to bring all the denominations together and ended by adding to the proliferating array. Without a formal hierarchy, the Baptists were particularly prone to splintering over doctrinal differences.After a long period during which many Christians had drifted toward a more rationalist understanding of divinity and others had been set adrift by the turmoil of two wars, the disestablishment campaigns, and westward movement, the revivals successfully re-pietized America. While Evangelicals may have constituted a minority, they successfully imposed their mores upon the public.The new denominations educated members in democratic practices as well. Forming new churches required volunteers to raise funds, build organizations, and participate in decision-making. Women, blacks, and the poor, often excluded from voting, learned about democratic governance in their churches. With a strong wind at their back, Evangelical Protestants sought to fill in the empty canvas of the American continent, assured by their success and their confidence in the fresh footings of the US Constitution.[6]The zeal generated by the revivals fueled an extensive missionary movement, at home among the American Indian tribes and abroad. In the early nineteenth century, the American Board of Commissions for Foreign Missionaries sent young missionary couples to Asia, a field opened up by American commerce to Ceylon and India.[7] Evangelical associations like the Bible Society, the Peace Society, and the Sunday School Union followed in quick succession.The General Union for Promoting the Observance of the Sabbath was organized to ensure the sanctity of Sundays. They exerted pressure on storekeepers to show respect for the day of rest and worship, but lost the battle to close post offices or stop the flow of water into the Erie Canal where rowdy boatman shattered Sabbath tranquility.[8] The network of Evangelical organizations became known as the Benevolent Empire, a term that captures their proponent’s aspiration to rise above denominational differences to join forces for proselytizing and educating, wherever needed. Scarcely a social ill escaped the attention of these men and women.In 1827 a perceptive observer was struck by the constant churning of people in the United States. He concluded that if “movement and the quick succession of sensations and ideas constitute life, here one lives a hundred fold more than elsewhere; here, all is circulation, motion, and boiling agitation.” He continued, “Experiment follows experiment; enterprise follows enterprise.”[9] A British naval officer more laconically commented that “the Americans are a restless, locomotive people: whether for business or pleasure, they are ever on the move in their own country, and they move in masses. .?.?. Wandering about seems engrafted in their Nature,” he added; they “forever imagine that the Lands further off are still better than those upon which they are already settled.”[10] These observers saw the novelty of a society directed almost entirely by the ambitious dreams that had been unleashed by their exceptional situation.In all this mobility lay the seeds of the many social problems Evangelicals addressed. The decline of traditional ordering mechanisms had led to deteriorating standards of personal behavior. Anyone who wasn’t a reformer usually needed reforming. In 1820, Americans fifteen years and older drank more liquor than ever before or since. Artisans in most shops took a whiskey break every morning and afternoon. Children could easily encounter alcoholic teachers; heavy drinking punctuated most public celebrations. Gambling and ritualized violence figured prominently in public life as well, and mobs formed easily. The lightly governed, newly settled communities in the West had their urban equivalent in the older cities where the decadal doubling of population created entirely new neighborhoods.Efforts to stop alcohol consumption were largely a top-down affair until Lyman Beecher, one of the stars of the revival movement, launched the American Temperance Society in 1826. He shifted the focus from the hopeless drunkard to the social drinker and made abstinence, not moderation, the goal. Fanning out to the West and the South, Beecher’s group swept up Methodists and Baptists who had long deplored the pervasive drinking. His temperance tracts reached 100,000 readers at a time when the biggest paper in the country had a circulation of 4,500. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn11" [11]In the 1840s, a new group, the Washington Temperance Society, garnered a membership of half a million in three years. Formed by working-class men in Baltimore, the Washingtonians campaigned to secure local-option prohibition laws. Harking back to the Revolutionary heritage, temperance workers claimed that they had liberated themselves from a tyranny worse than Britain’s. Changes in American drinking habits came swiftly; consumption was cut in half in the ten years between 1835 and 1845, but the campaign to make the sale of alcoholic beverages illegal persisted through the century. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn12" [12]Many Catholics immigrated to the United States during the Irish potato famines of the 1840s and 1850s. Less censorious about drinking—they picnicked with beer in public parks—Catholics drew the ire of temperance leaders. They also suffered persecution from nativist groups who feared and defamed their religion. Joined by emigrating Germans, the Catholics soon built their own churches, parochial schools, and seminaries. When John Hughes became Archbishop of New York in 1842, Catholics acquired a forceful champion who publicly exposed every insult and injury that Catholics sustained. Americans slowly came to realize that their respect for religious freedom meant more than tolerating diversity within the Protestant fold.The two most significant reform causes of the antebellum period called for the end of slavery and full citizenship for women. In the afterglow of the Revolution, anti-slavery societies agitated for cures for this poisonous thorn in the body politic. State legislatures, including Virginia’s, debated schemes for emancipation. Free African Americans were particularly active in keeping the issue alive with petitions to legislatures, legal suits, pamphlets, newspapers, and acts of self-liberation. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn13" [13] They were particularly eager to undermine colonization societies, which attempted to solve the problem of racial prejudice by sending freed slaves to Africa. The Quakers, first in the anti-slavery field, helped establish the so-called underground railroad to ease southern slaves’ flight from captivity. The fear of slave revolts, after the successful one in Haiti, haunted white southerners. The 1820 census showed that the slave population had almost doubled in twenty years. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn14" [14]The increasing profitability of cotton gradually stilled anti-slavery voices in the South, and it took some dramatic developments to stir much concern about southern slavery in the North. Missouri applied for admission to the Union as a slave state—the first state carved from the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. New York Congressman James Talmadge, railing against the extension of such “a monstrous scourge,” tried to tack on a gradual emancipation provision to the enabling act. Finally, under the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Missouri came in as a slave state with the promise of no further extension of slavery, in essence pushing the problem off to an uncertain future and energizing some new opponents to slavery.William Lloyd Garrison brought the full force of evangelical fervor to the abolition movement. A newspaperman by trade, he started the Liberator in 1831 and founded, with others, the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. His statement in the Liberator’s first issue gives a sense of his fierce determination: “I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD.” Abolitionists followed his lead by abandoning gradual and ameliorative measures and demanding “immediate and complete emancipation.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn15" [15] This position provoked the wrath of southerners and the scorn of many in Garrison’s native New England.Congress was intent on containing, not enflaming, the conflict over slavery. Despite the clear right of Americans to petition Congress, they adopted a gag rule to prevent anti-slavery petitions from being read. This issue rankled as no other, until abolitionists were able to persuade Congress to change it. Senator and former Vice-President John Calhoun said this repeal put the states on an irreversible path towards conflict over slavery. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn16" [16] Not until the new Republican Party in 1854 articulated its opposition to any extension of slavery into the western territories did anti-slavery northerners find a unifying, rallying position.Mobilizing people against slavery triggered a movement to secure greater political participation for women. Sarah and Angelina Grimke, who championed both abolition and women’s rights, were forceful advocates from the South. With Garrison, they proved to be the fulcrum for the entwined efforts. Propertied women had voted in New Jersey for thirty-three years after the Revolution, but they lost that right as citizenship became less defined by property and more by independence, which the law denied women. At the same time American popular culture defined woman’s role as the presiding domestic presence and nurturer of male citizens. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn17" [17] When the American Anti-Slavery Society encouraged women to take an active part in its outreach, some men broke away to form an anti-slavery society that did not admit women. This kind of response intensified the determination of a handful of pioneers—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan Anthony, Lucy Stone, and Lucretia Mott—to pursue the struggle for equal rights for women. It would be hard to exaggerate how radical this movement was in the 1840s and 1850s, yet the work these women had done in anti-slavery work and the temperance movement made it seem quite natural to them that women should be active in the public sphere.Stanton came from a prominent New York family. She not only received an excellent academy education, she also learned about the law from her father’s law clerks. Strong willed and talented, she studied and then rejected the legal system that so thoroughly subordinated women, especially wives, to men. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn18" [18] She and her abolitionist husband honeymooned in London, where they attended the Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840. Mott, a charismatic Quaker feminist, also attended. When the men voted to deny women participation in the conference, Stanton and Mott forged a bond. Mott, like two other women’s rights leaders, Lucy Stone and Susan Anthony, had awakened to the discrimination against women when she discovered that male colleagues where she was teaching earned four times more than she did.Stone was the first woman from Massachusetts to earn a college degree; she was also unique in refusing to take her husband’s name. Stanton said that Stone “was the first person by whom the heat of the American public was deeply stirred on the woman question.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn19" [19]Through temperance and abolitionist work, many women learned the organizational skills that were to stand them in good stead when they turned their heads and hearts toward eradicating the laws and mores subjugating women because of their sex. In 1848, Stanton and Mott threw themselves into organizing the Woman’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. Drawing 300 activists, among them forty men, the convention endorsed Stanton’s Declaration of Sentiments, which was based on the Declaration of Independence. Delegates at the convention passed a number of resolutions, including an audacious claim for the right to vote. Leading newspapers, in an attempt to ridicule the proceedings, published in full the Declaration of Sentiments with its description of an aristocracy of sex “exalting brute force above moral power, vice above virtue, ignorance above education, and the son above the mother who bore him.” The publicity was an attempt to scandalize the public, but Stanton shrewdly observed the widening of their of readership as a result.Learning about the Seneca Falls convention drew Susan Anthony to active participation in the women’s rights movement. Her Quaker father was both a cotton manufacturer and an abolitionist who undertook her education after he discovered that her primary school limited the subjects it would teach girls. In 1851, Anthony met Stanton, and the two of them founded the first women’s temperance society. After that they traveled together on speaking tours, which became forays into hostile territory punctuated by insults and battery. Stone, who was also an indefatigable speaker, reported occasions when she was hit by ice, rotten fruit, eggs, and a hymnal. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn20" [20]Many women were turned into agitators for women’s rights because of negative reactions to their participation in the reform movements that were sweeping the North in the antebellum period. They felt compelled to seek the liberty, equality, and independence that Americans extolled as a national legacy and overcame any personal timidity to do so. After the Civil War, they continued to campaign for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. But the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 giving newly freed African American men the voting privileges that the women had so long sought became a bitter pill to swallow. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn21" [21]Defending slavery through the decades placed the southern states in opposition to the experimental thrust of northern life. Increasingly northerners and southerners construed their differences as implicit challenges to one another. Emancipation had given those in the North a deceptive sense of their political convictions. The opening up of opportunities to move, to innovate, to express personal opinions defined for many what it meant to be an American. In making the ideal American a restless, ingenious, and accomplishment-centered person, northerners characterized the nation in a way that made southern differences ever more apparent. Over time southern states coalesced as the South, a separate society from that of the rest of the nation. Its leaders no longer apologized for slavery as they had in the Revolutionary area; instead they defended it as the basis of a truly genteel, American, civilization.Conflict became inevitable when northern voters rallied around Abraham Lincoln and supported the Republican Party’s adamant opposition to the extension of slavery in the presidential election of 1860. Lincoln’s victory drove southern leaders to secede rather than accept the containment of slavery. With the firing of cannon on Fort Sumter, the federal redoubt in Charleston harbor, on April 12, 1861, they took up arms to defend their way of a life.The ardent reform campaigns had given ordinary northerners a sense that their country was what Turgot had called the “hope of the human race.” HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn22" [22] As European countries retreated from democracy, the United States seemed more and more exceptional as a self-governing people dedicated to securing inalienable rights for all. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn23" [23] Northern soldiers fought to save the union as described in the Declaration of Independence. Halting the extension of slavery had unified them; abolishing slavery came about through fighting the war. Evangelical Christians with their intense reforming zeal supplied the energy for the reform movements of the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s. Fusing the social ideals of liberty and equality with the personal ones of seeking redemption, they had narrowed the scope for compromise. They had also fortified Northerners to fight for their values as keenly as those in the South fought for theirs.[1] Gouverneur Morris to John Jay, Jan. 10, 1784 in The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnson (New York: G.?P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), 3:104–105.[2] Les Amities Americaines de Madame d’Houdetot, d’apres sa correspondance inedite avec Benjamin Franklin et Thomas Jefferson, ed. Gilbert Chinard (Paris: Daupeley-Gouverneur, 1924), 56.[3] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), 15. I have borrowed Anderson’s phrase.[4] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. Phillips Bradley (New York: Vintage Books, 1954), 1:304–307.[5] Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 (New York: Oxford, 2007), 187.[6] Sidney Mead, “Denominationalism: The Shape of Protestantism in America,” Church History 23 (1954); Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 180-188.[7] Appleby, Inheriting the Revolution: The First Generation of Americans (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 13.[8] Richard R. John, “Taking Sabbatarianism Seriously: The Postal System, the Sabbath and the Transformation of American Political Culture,” Journal of the Early Republic 10 (Winter 1990): 538.[9] Michel Chevalier, Society, Manners, and Politics in the United States: Letters on North America, ed. John W. Ward (1839; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 299.[10] Frederick Marryat, A Diary in America, with Remarks on Its Institutions, ed. Sydney Jackman (New York: Knopf, 1962), 366. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref11" [11] Appleby, Inheriting the Revolution, 205-215. See also Merton M. Hyman et al, Drinkers, Drinking, and Alcohol-Related Mortality and Hospitalizations: A Statistical Compendium (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1980). HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref12" [12] W.J. Rorabaugh, The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 7-9, 40-46, 191-195; Joyce Appleby, “The Personal Roots of the First American Temperance Movement,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 14 (1997):141-159; Robert L. Hampel, Temperance and Prohibition in Massachusetts, 1813-1852 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1982), 2-4; 183-185 offers a historiographical survey of the subject. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref13" [13] Joseph Yannielli, “George Thompson among the Africans: Empathy, Authority, and Insanity in the Age of Abolition,” Journal of American History, 96 (March 2010):986ff. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref14" [14] Appleby, Inheriting the Revolution, 247 HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref15" [15] Henry Mayer, All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998), 225. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref16" [16] Corey Robin, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref17" [17] Robert Abzug, Cosmos Crumbling: American Reform and the Religious Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Barbara Leslie Epstein, The Politics of Domesticity: Women, Evangelism, and Temperance in Nineteenth-Century America (Middleton CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1981). HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref18" [18] Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years & More: Reminiscences, 1815–1897 (Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 1993), 1:5-6, 333, 48, 54. See also Ellen Carol Dubois, Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence of an Independent Women’s Movement in America, 1848-1869 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1999). HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref19" [19] Alice Stone Blackwell, Lucy Stone: Pioneer of Woman’s Rights (Charlottesville VA: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 94. See also Jean H. Baker, Votes for Women: The Struggle for Suffrage Revisited (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref20" [20] Elinor Rice Hays, Morning Star: A Biography of Lucy Stone, 1818–1893 (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1961), 72-73; Sally Gregory McMillen, Seneca Falls and the Origins of the Women’s Rights Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 81. See also Rebecca J. Mead, How the Vote Was Won: Woman Suffrage in the Western United States, 1868–1914. (New York: New York University Press, 2004). HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref21" [21] Ann D. Gordon, ed. The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001), 2:567. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref22" [22] Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, The Life and Writings of Turgot: Comptroller-General of France, 1774–6, ed. W. Walker Stephens (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1895), 303. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftnref23" [23] Gary W. Gallagher, The Union War, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011).?Joyce Appleby is professor of history emerita at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of Inheriting the Revolution: the First Generation of Americans (2000). Her most recent book is The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism (2010).Appleby, Joyce. (2013). National Expansion and Reform, 1815–1860 Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1According to lines fourteen to nineteen, which factors contributed to disunity between Americans, after the Revolutionary War?In which ways, according to the text, did the Declaration of Independence exemplify the disunity of America?According to the text, in which way does the Constitution highlight disunity between America?What was the author referring to when he wrote, “America was the only nation, Richard Hofstadter wryly commented, that began with perfection and aspired to progress”?In which ways did the spread of literacy and communication aid in disunity, according to the text?Day 2In which ways, according to the test, did geography and the need for goods further create disunity between the north and the south?What was the author referring to when he stated, “As northern states used their impressive communications network to spread their values, southerners—that is, the planter elite—began to perceive themselves standing against the nation, straining at the bonds of union as they drew closer to one another through shared political goals and intense sociability”, in lines 122 to 124?In which ways did the disestablishment of colonial churches create tension in America?The author states, “Harking back to the Revolutionary heritage, temperance workers claimed that they had liberated themselves from a tyranny worse than Britain’s”. In which way, according to the text, does this statement embody the turmoil in America after the Revolutionary War?The author states, “Americans slowly came to realize that their respect for religious freedom meant more than tolerating diversity within the Protestant fold”. According to the text, what does the author mean?Day 3The author stated, “The increasing profitability of cotton gradually stilled anti-slavery voices in the South, and it took some dramatic developments to stir much concern about southern slavery in the North”. To what extent does this statement demonstrated divergence between Southerners and Northerners?According to lines 250 to 261, in which ways did the anti-slavery movements further exhibit the divisions between Americans, which were unresolved by the Constitution?What does the author mean when he stated, “In making the ideal American a restless, ingenious, and accomplishment-centered person, northerners characterized the nation in a way that made southern differences ever more apparent”, according to the text?The author states, “Fusing the social ideals of liberty and equality with the personal ones of seeking redemption, they had narrowed the scope for compromise. They had also fortified Northerners to fight for their values as keenly as those in the South fought for theirs”. What does the author mean by this statement?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)”Week 2Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way did Manifest Destiny provoke bitter dissent within the national polity?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)AssemblagesForborneAcquiescenceRepugnanceDisapprobationAppropriationsTranspiredScrupulouslyaggrandizementencumbrances depreciableindemnitygallantrybelligerentsaggrandizementencroachmentconcurrence deigningunquenchableencumbrancesStrifeAcquiesceDissensionsManifest DestinyHenry Clay, “America Should Not Annex Texas” (1844)John L. O’ Sullivan, “America Should Annex Texas” (1845)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.6A.3.b, 6.1.12.A.3.a, 6,1.12.B.3.aExpansion and Reform (1801-1861)Week 2 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore ways in which Manifest Destiny provoked bitter dissent within the national polity. The debate over the annexation of Texas was not simply a debate over the addition of more land, but over slavery, southern and northern power, congressional power, and international policies. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how disunity in American polity was aided by the war with Mexico and the annexation of Texas. Issues that remained unresolved by the Revolutionary War and the Constitution continued to surface and would soon lead to a bitter civil war between the North and the South. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 173 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 174-253 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-83 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which ways did debates over the annexation of Texas raise underlying fears of division within America?Raleigh, April 17, 1844. To the Editors of the National Intelligencer Gentlemen: Subsequent to my departure from Ashland, in December last, I received various communications from popular assemblages and private individuals, requesting an expression of my opinion upon the question of the annexation of Texas to the United States. I have forborne to reply to them, because it was not very con- venient, during the progress of my journey, to do so, and for other reasons. I did not think it proper, unnecessarily, to introduce at present a new element among the other exciting subjects which agitate and engross the public mind. The rejection of the overture of Texas, some years ago, to become annexed to the United States, had met with general acquiescence. Nothing had since occurred materially to vary the question. I had seen no evidence of a desire being entertained, on the part of any considerable portion of the American people, that Texas should become an in- tegral part of the United States. During my sojourn in Now Orleans, I had, in- deed, been greatly surprised, by information which I received from Texas, that, in the course of last fall, a voluntary overture had proceeded from Executive of the United States to the authorities of Texas, to conclude a treaty of annexation; and that, in order to overcome the repugnance felt by any of them to a negotiation upon the subject, strong, and, as I believed, erroneous representations had been made to them of a state of opinion in the Senate of the United States favorable to the ratification of such a treaty. According to these representations, it had been ascertained that a number of Senators, varying from thirty-five to forty-two, were ready to sanction such a treaty. I was aware, too, that holders of Texas lands and Texas scrip, and speculators in them, were actively engaged in promoting the object of annexation. Still, 1 did not believe that any Executive of the United States would venture upon so grave and momentous a proceeding, not only without any general manifestation of public opinion in favor of it, but in direct opposition to rong and decided expressions of public disapprobation. But it appears that I was niiWken. To the astonishment of the whole nation, we are now informed that a treaty of annexation has been actually concluded, and is to be submitted to the Senate for its consideration. The motives for my silence, therefore, no longer remain, and I feel it to be duty to present an exposition of my views and opinions upon the question, for wSjtf they may be worth, to the public consideration. I adopt this method, as being convenient than several replies to the respective communications which I huvereceived, *I regret that I have not the advantage of a view of the treaty itself, so as to en- able me to adapt an expression of my opinion to the actual conditions and stipulations which it contains. Not possessing that opportunity, I am constrained to treat the question according to what I presume to be the terms of the treaty. If, with- out the loss of national character, without the hazard of foreign war, with the gen- eral concurrence of the nation, without any danger to the integrity of the Union and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas, the question of annexation were presented, it would appear in quite a different light from that in which, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded. The United States acquired a title to Texas, extending, as I believe, to the Rio del Norte, by the treaty of Louisiana. They ceded and relinquished that title to Spain by the treaty of 18J9, by which the Sabine was substituted for the Rio del Norte as our western boundary. This treaty was negotiated under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and with the concurrence of his Cabinet, of which Messrs. Crawford, Calhoun, and Wirt, being a majority, all Southern gentlemen, composed a part. When the treaty was laid before the House of Representatives, being a member of that body, I expressed the opinion, which I then entertained, and still hold, that Texas was sacrificed to the acquisition of Florida. We wanted Florida; but I thought it must, from its position, inevitably fall into our possession ; that the point of a few years, sooner or later, was of no sort of consequence, and that, in giving five millions dollars and Texas for it, we gave more than a just equivalent. But, if we made a great sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we ought to take care not to make too great a sacrifice in the attempt to reacquire it. My opinions of the inexpediency of the treaty of 1819 did not prevail. The country and Congress were satisfied with it, appropriations were made to carry it into effect, the line of the Sabine was recognized by us as our boundary, in negotiations both with Spain and Mexico, after Mexico became independent, and measures have been in actual progress to mark the line, from the Sabine to Red river, and thence to the Pacific ocean. We have thus fairly alienated our title to Texas, by solemn national compacts, to the fulfillment of which we stand bound by good faith and national honor. It is therefore perfectly idle and ridiculous, if not dis- honorable, to talk of resuming our title to Texas, as if we had never parted with it. We can no more do that than Spain can resume Florida, France Louisiana, or Great Britain the thirteen colonies now composing a part of the United States. During the administration of Mr. Adams, Mr. Poinsett, minister of the United States at Mexico, was instructed by me, with the President's authority, to propose a repurchase of Texas ; but he forbore even to make an overture for that purpose. Upon his return to the United States, he informed me, at New Orleans, that his reason for not making it was, that he knew the purchase was wholly impracticable, and that he was persuaded that, if he made the overture, it would have no other effect than to aggravate irritations, already existing, upon matters of difference between the two countries. The events which have since transpired in Texas are well known. She revolted against the Government of Mexico, flew to arms, and finally fought and won the memorable battle of San Jacinto, annihilating a Mexican army, and making a cap- tive of the Mexican President. The signal success of that Revolution was greatly aided, if not wholly achieved, by citizens of the United States who had migrated to Texas. These succors, if they could not always be prevented by the Government of the United States, were furnished in a manner and to an extent which brought upon some national reproach in the eyes of an impartial world. Aid, in my opinion, they impose on us the obligation of scrupulously avoiding the imputation of having instigated , aided the revolution with the ultimate view of territorial aggrandizement. After the battle of San Jacinto, the United States recognised the independence of Texas, in conformity with the principle and practice which have always prevailed in their councils of recognising the Government " de facto" without regarding the question de jure. That recognition did not affect or impair the rights of Mexico, or change the relations which existed between her and Texas. She, on the contrary, has preserved all her rights, and has continued to assert, and so far as I know yet asserts, her right to reduce Texas to obedience, as a part of the Republic of Mexico. According to late intelligence, it is probable that she has agreed upon a temporary suspension of hostilities; but, if that has been done, I presume it is with the purpose, upon the termination of the armistice, of renewing the war and enforcing her rights, as she considers them. This narrative shows the present actual condition of Texas, so far as I have in- formation about it. If it be correct, Mexico has not abandoned, but perseveres in the assertion of her rights by actual force of arms, which, if suspended, are intended to be renewed. Under these circumstances, if the Government of the United States were to acquire Texas, it would acquire along with it all the encumbrances which Texas is under, and among them the actual or suspended war between Mexico and Texas. Of that consequence there cannot be a doubt. Annexation and war with Mexico are identical. Now, for one, I certainly am not willing to involve this country in a foreign war for the object of acquiring Texas. I know there are those who regard such a war with indifference, and as a trifling affair, on account of the weakness of Mexico, and her inability to inflict serious injury upon this country. But I do not look upon it thus lightly. I regard all wars as great calamities, to be avoided, if possible, and honorable peace as the wisest and truest policy of this country. What the United States most need are, union, peace, and patience. Nor do I think that the weakness of a Power should form a motive, in any case, for inducing us to engage in or to depreciale the evils of war. Honor and good and justice are equally due from this country towards the weak as towards the strong, And if an act of injustice were to be perpetrated towards any Power, it would be more compatible with the dignity of the nation, and, in my judgment, less dishonorable, to inflict it upon a powerful instead of a weak foreign nation. But are we perfectly- sure that we should be free from injury in a state of war with Mexico? Have we any security that countless numbers of foreign vessels, under the authority and flag of Mexico, would not prey upon our defenceless commerce in the Mexican gulf, on the Pacific ocean, and on every other sea and ocean. What commerce, on the other hand, does Mexico offer, as an indemnity for our losses, to the gallantry and enterprise of our countrymen. This view of the subject supposes that the war would be confined to the United States and Mexico, as the only belligerents. But have we any certain guaranty that Mexico would obtain no allies among the great European Powers? Suppose any such Powers, jealous of our increasing greatness, and disposed to check our growth and cripple us, were to take part in behalf of Mexico in the war, how would the different belligerents present themselves to Christendom and the enlightened world. We have been seriously charged with an inordinate spirit of territorial aggrandizement; and, without admitting the jus- tice of the charge, it must be owned that we have made vast acquisitions of territory within the last forty years. Suppose Great Britain and France, or one of them, were to take part with Mexico, and, by a manifesto, were to proclaim that their objects were to assist a weak and helpless ally to check the spirit of encroachment and ambition of an already overgrown Republic, seeking still further acquisitions of territory, to maintain the independence of Texas, disconnected with the United States, and to prevent the further propagation of slavery from the United States, what would be the effect of such allegations upon the judgment of an impartial and enlightened worldAssuming that the annexation of Texas is war with Mexico, is it competent to the treaty-making power to plunge this country into war, not only without the concurrence of, but without deigning to consult Congress, to which, by the Constitution, belongs exclusively the power of declaring war? I have hitherto considered the question upon the supposition that the annexation attempted without the assent of Mexico. If she yields her consent, that would affect the foreign aspect of the question, if it did not remove all foreign. On the assumption of that assent, the question would be confined to the domestic considerations which belong to it, embracing the terms and conditions which annexation is proposed. I do not think that Texas ought to be received by the Union, as an integral part of it, in decided opposition to the wishes of a considerable and respectable portion of the Confederacy. I think it far more wise and important to compose and harmonize the present Confederacy, as it now exists, than to introduce a new element of discord and distraction into it. In my opinion, it should be the constant and earnest endeavor of American states to eradicate prejudices, to cultivate and foster concord, and to produce generate contentment among all parts of our Confederacy. And true wisdom, it seems, points to the duty of rendering its present members happy, prosperous, and satisfied with each other, rather than to attempt to introduce alien members, against the common consent and with the certainty of deep dissatisfaction. Mr. Jefferson expressed the opinion, and others believed, that it never was in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution to add foreign territory to the Confederacy, out of which new States were to be formed. The acquisitions of Louisiana aid Florida may be defended upon the peculiar ground of the relation which to the States of the Union. After they were admitted, we might well pause awhile, people our vast wastes, develop our resources, prepare the means of what we possess, and augment our strength, power, and greatness. If thereafter further territory should be wanted for an increased population, we need no apprehensions, but that it will be acquired by means, it is to be hoped, lair, honorable, and constitutional. It is useless to disguise that there are those who espouse and those who oppose tbe annexation of Texas upon the ground of the influence which it would exert, in the alliance of political power, between two great sections of the Union. I conceive that no motive for the acquisition of foreign territory would be more unfirming, or pregnant with more fatal consequences, than that of obtaining it for the purpose of strengthening one part against another part of the common Confederacy. Such a principle, put into practical operation, would menace the existence, if it not certainly sow the seeds of a dissolution of the Union. It would be to proclaim to the world an insatiable and unquenchable thirst for foreign conquest or acquisition of territory. For if today Texas be acquired to strengthen one part of the Confederacy, tomorrow Canada may be required to add strength to another. Still, after that might have been obtained, still other and further acquisitions would be necessary, to equalize and adjust the balance of political power. Finally, progress of this spirit of universal dominion, the part of the Confederacy that is now weakest would find itself still weaker from the impossibility of new theatres for those peculiar institutions which it is charged with being to extend. But would Texas, ultimately, really add strength to that which is now considered The weakest part of the Confederacy? If my information be correct, it would not. According to that, the territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be adapted to those peculiar institutions to which I have referred, and the other three, lying west and north Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes, from the nature, their soil, climate, and productions, would not admit of those institutions. Therefore, there would be two slave and three free States probably added to the Union. If this view of the soil and geography of Texas be correct, it might serve ta diminish the zeal both of those who oppose and those who are urging annexation. Should Texas be annexed to the Union, the United States will assume and be responsible for the debt of Texas, be its amount what it may. What it is, I do not know certainly; but the least I have seen it stated at is thirteen millions of dollars. And this responsibility will exist, whether there be a stipulation in the treaty or not expressly assuming the payment of the debt of Texas. For I suppose it to be undeniable, that, if one nation becomes incorporated in another, all that debts, and obligations, and encumbrances, and wars, of the incorporated nation, become the debris, and obligations, and encumbrances, and wars, of the common name created by the incorporation. If any European nation entertains any ambitious designs upon Texas, such as that of colonizing her, or in any way subjugating her, I should regard it as the imperative duty of the Government of the United States to oppose to such designs the most firm and determined resistance, to the extent, if necessary, of appearance* So arms to prevent the accomplishment of any such designs. The Executive of the United States ought to be informed as to the aims and views of foreign Powers with regard to Texas; and I presume that, if there be any of the exceptionable character which I have indicated, the Executive will disclose to the coordinate departments of the Government, if not to the public, the evidence of them. From what I have seen and heard, I believe that Great Britain has recently formally and solemnly disavowed any such aims or purposes — has declared that she is desirous only of the independence of Texas, and that she has no intention to interfere in her domestic institutions. If she has made such disavowal and declaration, I presume they are in the possession of the Executive. In the future progress of events, it is probable that there will be a voluntary or forcible separation of the British North American possessions from the parent country. I am strongly inclined to think that it will be best for the happiness of parties, that, in that event, they should be erected into a separate and independent Republic. With the Canadian Republic on one side, that of Texas on the other and the United States, the friend of both, between them, each could advance its. own happiness by such constitutions, laws, and measures, as were best adapted to its peculiar condition. They would be natural allies, ready, by co-operation, to repel any European or foreign attack upon either. Each would afford a secure- refuge to the persecuted and oppressed, driven into exile by either of the others. They would emulate each other in improvements, in free institutions, and in the science of self-government. Whilst Texas has adopted our Constitution as a model of hers, she has, in several important particulars, greatly improved upon.Although I have felt compelled, from the nature of the inquiries addressed to me, to extend this communication to a much greater length than I could have wished, I could not do justice to the subject, and fairly and fully expose my own opinions, in a shorter space. In conclusion, they may be stated in a few words to be, that I consider the annexation of Texas, at this time, without the assess ofMexico, as a measure compromising the national character, involving us certainly in war with Mexico, probably with other foreign Powers, dangerous to the integrity of the Union, inexpedient in the present financial condition of the country, and not called for by any general expression of public opinion. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, H. CLAYClay, H.(2013). Henry Clay Letter. Archives. Retrieved from lettersofmessrsc00clay/lettersofmessrsc00clay_djvu.txtDay 1The author states, “If, without the loss of national character, without the hazard of foreign war, with the general concurrence of the nation, without any danger to the integrity of the Union and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas, the question of annexation were presented, it would appear in quite a different light from that in which, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded”. What does the author, according to the text, mean by this?What is the author referring to when he states, “But, if we made a great sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we ought to take care not to make too great a sacrifice in the attempt to reacquire it”?According to the text, what was the author referring to when he stated, "under this circumstances, if the Government of the United States were to acquire Texas, it would acquire along with it all encumbrances which Texas is under, and among them the actual or suspended war between Mexico and Texas"?According to author, in which ways can the annexation of Texas be detrimental to America?Day 2 According to the text, what does the author mean when he states, "Assuming that the annexation of Texas is war with Mexico, is it competent to the treaty-making power to plunge this country into war, not only without the concurrence of, but without deigning to consult Congress, to which, by the Constitution, belongs exclusively the power of declaring war?The author states, "I think it far more wise and important to compose and harmonize the present Confederacy, as it now exists, than to introduce a new element of discord and distraction into it." According to the text, what did the author mean by this statement?According to text, in which way will the annexation of Texas promote political power, which would create tension between countries and between the Union and the Confederacy?In which way, economically, according to the text, would the United States be negatively affected by the annexation of Texas?America Should Annex Texas (1845) John L. SullivanIt is time now for opposition to the Annexation of Texas to cease, all further agitation of the waters of bitterness and strife, at least in connection with this question,—-even though it may perhaps be required of us as a necessary condition of the freedom of our institutions, that we must live on forever in a state of unpausing struggle and excitement upon some subject of party division or other. But, in regard to Texas, enough has now been given to Party. It is time for the common duty of Patriotism to the Country to succeed;—or if this claim will not be recognized, it is at least time for common sense to acquiesce with decent grace in the inevitable and the irrevocable.Texas is now ours. Already, before these words are written, her Convention has undoubtedly ratified the acceptance, by her Congress, of our proffered invitation into the Union; and made the requisite changes in her already republican form of constitution to adopt it to its future federal relations. Her star and her stripe may already be said to have taken their place in the glorious blazon of our common nationality; and the sweep of our eagle's wing already includes within its circuit the wide extent of her fair and fertile land. She is no longer to us a mere geographical space—a certain combination of coast, plain, mountain, valley, forest and stream. She is no longer to us a mere country on the map. She comes within the dear and sacred designation of Our Country....Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, fouled abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of oar yearly multiplying millions ....Nor is there any just foundation of the charge that Annexation is a great pro-slavery measure—calculated to increase and perpetuate that institution. Slavery had nothing to do with it.... The country which was the subject of Annexation in this case, from its geographical position and relations, happens to be—-or rather the portion of it now actually settled, happens to be—a slave country. But a similar process might have taken place in proximity to a different section of our Union; and indeed there is a great deal of Annexation yet to take place, within the life of the present generation, along the whole line of our northern border. Texas has been absorbed into the Union in the inevitable fulfillment of the general law which is rolling our population westward; the connection of which with that ratio of growth in population which is destined within a hundred years to swell our numbers to the enormous population of two hundred and fifty millions (if not more), is too evident to leave us in doubt of the manifest design of Providence in regard to the occupation of this continent. It was disintegrated from Mexico in the natural course of events, by a process perfectly legitimate on its own part, blameless on ours; and in which all the censures due to wrong, perfidy and folly, rest on Mexico alone. And possessed as it was by a population which was in truth but a colonial detachment from our own, and which was still bound by myriad ties of the very heartstrings to its old relations, domestic and political, their incorporation into the Union was not only inevitable, but the most natural, right and proper thing in the world—and it is only astonishing that there should be any among ourselves to say it nay....California will, probably, next fall away from the loose adhesion which, in such a country as Mexico, holds a remote province in a slight equivocal kind of dependence on the metropolis. Imbecile and distracted, Mexico never can exert any real governmental authority over such a country. The impotence of the one and the distance of the other, must make the relation one of virtual independence; unless, by stunting the province of all natural growth, and forbidding that immigration which can alone develop its capabilities and fulfill the purposes of its creation, tyranny may retain a military 'dominion which is no government in the legitimate sense of the term. In the case of California this is now impossible. The Anglo-Saxon foot is already on its borders. Already the advance guard of the irresistible army of Anglo-Saxon emigration has begun to pour down upon it, armed with the plough and the rifle, and marking its trail with schools and colleges, courts and representative hails, mills and meeting- houses. A population will soon be in actual occupation of California, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream of dominion.They will necessarily become independent. All this without agency of our government, without responsibility of our people—in the natural flow of events, the spontaneous working of principles, and the adaptation of the tendencies and wants of the human race to the elemental circumstances in the midst of which they find themselves placed. And they will have a right to independence—to selfgovernment—to the possession of the homes conquered from the wilderness by their own labors and dangers, sufferings and sacrifices—a better and a truer right than the artificial title of sovereignty in Mexico a thousand miles distant, inheriting from Spain a title good only against those who have none better. Their right independence will be the natural right of selfgovernment belonging to any community strong enough to maintain it—distinct in position, origin and character, and free from any mutual obligations of membership of a common political body, binding it to others by the duty of loyalty and compact of public faith. This will be their title to independence; and by this title, there can be no doubt that the population now fast streaming down upon California will both assert and maintain the independence. Whether they will then attach themselves to our Union or not, is not to be predicted with any certainty. Unless the projected railroad across the continent to the Pacific be carried into effect, perhaps they may not; though even in that case, the day is not distant when the Empires of the Atlantic and Pacific would again flow together into one, as soon as their inland border should approach each other. But that great work, colossal as appears the plan on its first suggestion, cannot remain long unbuilt. Its necessity for this very purpose of binding and holding together in its iron clasp our fast settling Pacific region with that of the Mississippi valley—the natural facility of the route—the ease with which any amount of labor for the construction can be drawn in from the overcrowded populations of Europe, to be paid in the lands made valuable by the progress of the work itself—and its immense utility to the commerce of the world with the whole eastern coast of Asia, alone almost sufficient for the support of such a road— these considerations give assurance that the day cannot be distant which shall witness the conveyance of the representatives from Oregon and California to Washington within less time than a few years ago was devoted to a similar journey by those from Ohio; while the magnetic telegraph will enable the editors of the "San Francisco Union," the "Astoria Evening Post," or the "Nootka Morning News" to set up in type the first half of the President's Inaugural, before the echoes of the latter half shall have died away beneath the lofty porch of the Capitol, as spoken from his lips.Away, then, with all idle French talk of balances of power on the American Continent. There is no growth in Spanish America! Whatever progress of population there may be in the British Canada as, is only for their own early severance of their present colonial relation to the little island three thousand miles across the Atlantic; soon to be followed by Annexation, and destined to swell the still accumulating momentum of our progress. And whatsoever may hold the balance, though they should cast into the opposite scale all the bayonets and cannon, not only of France and England, but of Europe entire, how would it kick the beam against the simple solid weight of the two hundred and fifty or three hundred millions—and American millions—destined to gather beneath the flutter of the stripes and stars, in the fast hastening year of the Lord 1845.Resource:Sullivan, J.(2013). US resources. Retrieved from 'Sullivan,%20On%20Manifest%20Destiny.pdf Day 1What is the author referring to, according to the text, when he states, “It is time now for opposition to the Annexation of Texas to cease, all further agitation of the waters of bitterness and strife, at least in connection with this question,—-even though it may perhaps be required of us as a necessary condition of the freedom of our institutions, that we must live on forever in a state of unpausing struggle and excitement upon some subject of party division or other”?The author states, “Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, fouled abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of oar yearly multiplying millions ....” . According to the text, what does the author mean by this? According to lines twenty three to thirty two, in which way does the author address the issue of the division of union, in regards to slavery?According to the text, what arguments does the author make regarding Mexico’s claim of Texas and their ability to govern Texas?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)”Week 3Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way, primarily, did the acquisition of land aggravate disunity between the North and the South?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Endeavor Indispensable DemagoguesSolicitousIncipientApportionmentPreponderanceIrretrievablyConsummated ascendancycountenanceperilousasunderecclesiasticalassemblageappertainedsubjugationSen. John C. Calhoun, “THE CAUSES BY WHICH THE UNION IS ENDANGERED”March 4, 1850Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.3.a, 6.1.12.A.4.bExpansion and Reform (1801-1861)Week 3 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore ways in which the addition of new territory further divided the south and the north. Although, the issue of slavery was one of the causes that aggravated the civil war, it was not the only cause. A political battle, over power, was fueled when the northerners dominated government and the equilibrium of power between the North and the South was compromised. Southerners felt crippled by northern suppression and felt underrepresented, politically. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how disunity between the north and the south was fueled by Southern fears of disenfranchisement. Issues that remained unresolved by the Revolutionary War and Constitution had once again come to the forefront. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 102 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 103-290 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 291-359 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which way, primarily, did the acquisition of new territories lead to further disunity, between the North and the South? THE CAUSES BY WHICH THE UNION IS ENDANGEREDSen. John C. CalhounMarch 4, 1850I 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 divide 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 the 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 produced 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?It is a great mistake to suppose, as it is by some, that it originated with demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians, who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section. Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation, and in favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficient to prevent the wide-spread discontent which now pervades the section. No; some cause, far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed, must exist, to account for discontent so wide and deep. The question then recurs --- What is the cause of this discontent? It will be found in the belief of the people of the Southern States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union. The next question to be considered is --- What has caused this belief?One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter in its proper place.There is another lying back of it --- with which this is intimately connected --- that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections, in the Government as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the Government put in action, has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the Government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression. To place this subject distinctly before you, I have, Senators, prepared a brief statistical statement, showing the relative weight of the two sections in the Government under the first census of 1790 and the last census of 1840.According to the former, the population of the United States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which then were in their incipient condition of becoming States; but were not actually admitted, amounted to 3,929,827. Of this number the Northern States had 1,997,899, and the Southern 1,952,072, making a difference of only 45,827 in favor of the former States. The number of States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, were sixteen; of which eight, including Vermont, belonged to the Northern section, and eight, including Kentucky and Tennessee, to the Southern, --- making an equal division of the States between the two sections under the first census. There was a small preponderance in the House of Representatives, and in the electoral college, in favor of the Northern, owing to the fact that, according to the provisions of the constitution, in estimating the federal numbers five slaves count but three; but it was too small to affect sensibly the perfect equilibrium which, with that exception, existed at the time. Such was the equality of the two sections when the States composing them agreed to enter into a Federal Union. Since then the equilibrium between them has been greatly disturbed.According to the last census the aggregate population of the United States amounted to 17,063,357, of which the Northern section contained 9,728,920, and the Southern 7,334,437, making a difference in round numbers, of 2,400,000. The number of States had increased from sixteen to twenty-six, making an addition of ten States. In the meantime the position of Delaware had become doubtful as to which section she properly belonged. Considering her as neutral, the Northern States will have thirteen and the Southern States twelve, making a difference in the Senate of two Senators in favor of the former. According to the apportionment under the census of 1840, there were two hundred and twenty-three members of the House of Representatives, of which the Northern States had one hundred and thirty-five, and the Southern States (considering Delaware as neutral) eighty-seven, making a difference in favor of the former in the House of Representatives of forty-eight. The difference in the Senate of two members, added to this, gives to the North, in the electoral college, a majority of fifty. Since the census of 1840, four States have been added to the Union --- Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas. They leave the difference in the Senate as it stood when the census was taken; but add two to the side of the North in the House, making the present majority in the House in its favor fifty, and in the electoral college fifty-two.The result of the whole is to give the Northern section a predominance in every department of the Government, and thereby concentrate in it the two elements which constitute the Federal Government, --- majority of States, and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. Whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses the control of the entire Government.But we are just at the close of the sixth decade, and the commencement of the seventh. The census is to be taken this year, which must add greatly to the decided preponderance of the North in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college. The prospect is, also, that a great increase will be added to its present preponderance in the Senate, during the period of the decade, by the addition of new States. Two territories, Oregon and Minnesota, are already in progress, and strenuous efforts are making to bring in three additional States from the territory recently conquered from Mexico; which, if successful, will add three other States in a short time to the Northern section, making five States; and increasing the present number of its States from fifteen to twenty, and of its Senators from thirty to forty. On the contrary, there is not a single territory in progress in the Southern section, and no certainty that any additional State will be added to it during the decade. The prospect then is, that the two sections in the Senate, should the efforts now made to exclude the South from the newly acquired territories succeed, will stand, before the end of the decade, twenty Northern States to fourteen Southern (considering Delaware as neutral), and forty Northern Senators to twenty-eight Southern. This great increase of Senators, added to the great increase of members of the House of Representatives and the electoral college on the part of the North, which must take place under the next decade, will effectually and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when the Government commenced.Had this destruction been the operation of time, without the interference of Government, the South would have had no reason to complain; but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this Government, which was appointed, as the common agent of all, and charged with the protection of the interests and security of all. The legislation by which it has been effected, may be classed under three heads. The first is, that series of acts by which the South has been excluded from the common territory belonging to all the States as members of the Federal Union --- which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting within narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North; and the last is a system of political measures, by which the original character of the Government has been radically changed. I propose to bestow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few remarks, with the view of showing that it is owing to the action of this Government, that the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed, and the whole powers of the of the system centered in a sectional majority.The first of the series of acts by which the South was deprived of its due share of the territories, originated with the confederacy which preceded the existence of this Government. It is to be found in the provision of the ordinance of 1787. Its effect was to exclude the South entirely from that vast and fertile region which lies between the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, now embracing five States and one territory. The next of the series is the Missouri compromise, which excluded the South from that large portion of Louisiana which lies north of 36" 30', excepting what is included in the State of Missouri. The last of the series excluded the South from the whole of the Oregon Territory. All these, in the slang of the day, were what are called slave territories, and not free soil; that is, territories belonging to slaveholding powers and open to the emigration of masters with their slaves. By these several acts, the South was excluded from 1,238,025 square miles - an extent of country considerably exceeding the entire valley of the Mississippi. To the South was left the portion of the Territory of Louisiana lying south of 36° 30', and the portion north of it included in the State of Missouri, with the portion lying south of 36° 30', including the States of Louisiana and Arkansas, and the territory lying west of the latter, and south of 36" 30', called the Indian country. These, with the Territory of Florida, now the State, make, in the whole, 253,503 square miles, To this must be added the territory acquired with Texas. If the whole should be added to the Southern section, it would make an increase of 325,520, which would make the whole left to the South, 609,023. But a large part of Texas is still in contest between the two sections, which leaves it uncertain what will be the real extent of the portion of territory that may be left to the South.I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty with Mexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriate the whole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot of it. If she should succeed, it will add to that from which the South has already been excluded, 526,078 square miles, and would increase the whole which the North has appropriated to herself, to 1,764,023, not including the portion that she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. To sum up the whole, the United States, since they declared their independence, have acquired 2,373,046 square miles of territory, from which the North will have excluded the South, if she should succeed in monopolizing the newly acquired territories, about three-fourths of the whole, leaving to the South but about one-fourth.Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections in the Government.The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the Government. It is well known that the Government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due portion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed at the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been, to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added, that many of the duties were imposed not for revenue but for protection, --- that is, intended to put money, not in the treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers, --- some conception may be formed of the immense amount which, in the long course of sixty years, has been transferred from South to North. There are no data by which it can be estimated with any certainty; but it is safe to say, that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the most moderate estimate, it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealth of the North, and thus greatly increase her population by attracting emigration from all quarters to that section.This, combined with the great primary cause, amply explains why 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 emigrants, 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 emigration 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 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.But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the Government was leading to a radical change in its character; by concentrating all the power of the system in itself. The occasion will not permit me to trace the measures by which this great change has been consummated. If it did, it would not be difficult to show that the process commenced at an early period of the Government; and that it proceeded, almost without interruption, step by step, until it absorbed virtually its entire powers; but without going through the whole process to establish the fact, it may be done satisfactorily by a very short statement.That the Government claims, and practically maintains the right to decide in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will scarcely be denied by any one conversant with the political history of the country. That it also claims the right to resort to force to maintain whatever power it claims, against all opposition, is equally certain. Indeed it is apparent, from what we daily hear, that this has become the prevailing and fixed opinion of a great majority of the community. Now, I ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a government claiming and exercising such rights? And, if none can be, how can the separate governments of the States main them by the constitution --- or the people of the several States maintain those which are reserved to them, and among others, the sovereign powers by which they ordained and established, not only their separate State Constitutions and Governments, but also the Constitution and Government of the United States? But, if they have no constitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by this Government, it necessarily follows, that they hold them at its pleasure and discretion, and that all the powers of the system are in reality concentrated in it. It also follows, that the character of the Government has been changed in consequence, from a federal republic, as it originally came from the hands of its framers, into a great national consolidated democracy. It has indeed, at present, all the characteristics of the latter, and not one of the former, although it still retains its outward form.The result of the whole of these causes combined is --- that the North has acquired a decided ascendency over every department of this Government, and through it a control over all the powers of the system. A single section governed by the will of the numerical majority, has now, in fact, the control of the Government and the entire powers of the system. what was once a constitutional federal republic, is now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia,and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed.As, then, the North has the absolute control over the Government, it is manifest, that on all questions between it and the South, where there is a diversity of interests, the interest of the latter will be sacrificed to the former, however oppressive the effects may be; as the South possesses no means by which it can resist, through the action of the Government. But if there was no question of vital importance to the South, in reference to which there was a diversity of views between the two sections, this state of things might be endured, without the hoard of destruction to the South. But such is not the fact. 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 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 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 offence against humanity, as they call it; and, although 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 situation regards the relation as one which cannot 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.This hostile feeling on the part of the North towards the social organization of South long lay dormant, but it only required some cause to act on those who felt most intensely that they were responsible for its continuance, to call it into action. The increasing power of this Government, and of the control of the Northern section over all its departments furnished the cause. It was this which made an impression on the minds of many, that there was little or no restraint to prevent the Government from doing whatever it might choose to do. This was sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical portion of the North in action, for the purpose of destroying the existing relation between the two races in the South.The first organized movement towards it commenced in 1835. Then, for the first time, societies were organized, presses established, lecturers sent forth to excite the people of the North, and incendiary publications scattered over the whole South, through the mail. The South was thoroughly aroused. Meetings were held everywhere, and resolutions adopted, calling upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest the threatened evil, and pledging themselves to adopt measures for their own protection, if it was not arrested. At the meeting of Congress, petitions poured in from the North, calling upon Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and to prohibit, what they called, the internal slave trade between the States - announcing at the same time, that their ultimate object was to abolish slavery, not only in the District, but in the States and throughout the Union. At this period, the number engaged in the agitation was small, and possessed little or no personal influence.Neither party in Congress had, at that time, any sympathy with them or their cause. The members of each party presented their petitions with great reluctance. Nevertheless, small and contemptible as the party then was, both of the great parties of the North dreaded them. They felt, that though small, they were organized in reference to a subject which had a great and a commanding influence over the Northern mind. Each party, on that account, feared to oppose their petitions, lest the opposite party should take advantage of the one who might do so, by favoring them. The effect was, that both united in insisting that the petitions should be received, and that Congress should take jurisdiction over the subject. To justify their course, they took the extraordinary ground, that Congress was bound to receive petitions on every subject, however objectionable they might be, and whether they had, or had not, jurisdiction over the subject. These views prevailed in the House of Representatives, and partially in the Senate; and thus the party succeeded in their first movements, in gaining what they pro-posed -a position in Congress, from which agitation could be extended over the whole Union. This was the commencement of the agitation, which has ever since continued, and which, as is now acknowledged, has endangered the Union itself.As for myself, I believed at that early period, if the party who got up the petitions should succeed in getting Congress to take jurisdiction, that agitation would follow, and that it would in the end, if not arrested, destroy the Union. I then so expressed myself in debate, and called upon both parties to take grounds against assuming jurisdiction; but in vain. Had my voice been heeded, and had Congress refused to take jurisdiction, by the united votes of all parties, the agitation which followed would have been prevented, and the fanatical zeal that gives impulse to the agitation, and which has brought us to our present perilous condition, would have become extinguished, from the want of fuel to feed the flame. That was the time for the North to have shown her devotion to the Union; but, unfortunately, both of the great parties of that section were so intent on obtaining or retaining party ascendency, that all other considerations were overlooked or forgotten.What has since followed are but natural consequences. With the success of their first movement, this small fanatical party began to acquire strength; and with that, to become an object of courtship to both the great parties. The necessary consequence was, a further increase of power, and a gradual tainting of the opinions of both of the other parties with their doctrines, until the infection has extended over both; and the great mass of the population of the North, who, whatever may be their opinion of the original abolition party, which still preserves its distinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when it comes to acting, to co-operate in carrying out their measures. With the increase of their influence, they extended the sphere of their action. In a short time after the commencement of their first movement, they had acquired sufficient influence to induce the legislatures of most of the Northern States to pass acts, which in effect abrogated the clause of the constitution that provides for the delivery up of fugitive slaves. Not long after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, magazines, and dock-yards, and all other places where Congress had exclusive power of legislation This was followed by petitions and resolutions of legislatures of the Northern States, and popular meetings, to exclude the Southern States from all territories. acquired, or to be acquired, and to prevent the admission of any State hereafter into the Union, which, by its constitution does not prohibit slavery. And Congress is invoked to do all this, expressly with the view to the final abolition of slavery in the States. That has been avowed to be the ultimate object from the beginning of the agitation until the present time; and yet the great body of both parties of the North, with the full knowledge of the fact, although disavowing the abolitionists, have cooperated with them in almost all their measures.Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has yet advanced. Now I ask, Senators, what is there to prevent its further progress, until it fulfills the ultimate end proposed, unless some decisive measure should be adopted to prevent it? Has any one of the causes, which has added to its increase from its original small and contemptible beginning until it has attained its present magnitude, diminished in force? Is the original cause of the movement - that slavery is a sin, and ought to be suppressed - weaker now than at the commencement? Or is the abolition party less numerous or influential, or have they less influence with, or control over the two great parties of the North in elections? Or has the South greater means of influencing or controlling the movements of this Government now, than it had when the agitation commenced? To all these questions but one answer can be given: No --- no --- no. The very reverse is true. Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor of agitation are stronger now than they were in 1835, when it first commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part of the South are weaker. 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 bound 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, as I shall proceed to show.The cords that bind the States together are not only many, but various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical; some political; others social. Some appertain to the benefit conferred by the Union, and others to the feeling of duty and obligation.The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all of which originally embraced the whole Union. All these denominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much upon the principle of our political institutions. Beginning with smaller meetings, corresponding with the political divisions of the country, their organization terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with the character of Congress. At these meetings the principal clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations, from all parts of the Union, met to transact business relating to their common concerns. It was not confined to what appertained to the doctrines and discipline of the respective denominations, but extended to plans for disseminating the Bible --- establishing missions, distributing tracts --- and of establishing presses for the publication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a view of diffusing religious information --- and for the support of their respective doctrines and creeds. All this combined contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The ties which held each denomination together formed a strong cord to hold the whole Union together; but, powerful as they were, they have not been able to resist the explosive effect of slavery agitation.The first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive force, was that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church. The numerous and strong ties which held it together, are all broken, and its unity gone. They now form separate churches; and, instead of that feeling of attachment and devotion to the interests of the whole church which was formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their common property.The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists --- one of the largest and most respectable of the denominations. That of the Presbyterian is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. That of the Episcopal Church is the only one of the four great Protestant denominations which remains unbroken and entire.The strongest cord, of a political character, consists of the many and powerful ties that have held together the two great parties which have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the Government. They both extended to every portion of the Union, and strongly contributed to hold all its parts together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than the spiritual. It resisted, for a long time, the explosive tendency of the agitation, but has finally snapped under its force - if not entirely, in a great measure. Nor is there one of the remaining cords which has not been greatly weakened. To this extent the Union has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way it can be, by sundering and weakening the cords which bind it together.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.Calhoun. J. (2013). South May be forced to Leave the Union. Civil War Causes. Retrieved from: 1The author states, “The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?The author states, “There is another lying back of it --- with which this is intimately connected --- that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections, in the Government as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the Government put in action, has been destroyed.” According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?According to lines 53 to 81 of the text, how has the addition of new states contributed to disunity between the North and the South?The author states, “The result of the whole is to give the Northern section predominance in every department of the Government, and thereby concentrate in it the two elements which constitute the Federal Government, --- majority of States, and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. Whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses the control of the entire Government”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?Day 2The author states, “The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North; and the last is a system of political measures, by which the original character of the Government has been radically changed”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?According to the text, in lines 162-176, how did the South suffer from northern overrepresentation, the ordinance of 1787, and the Missouri compromise? The author states, "Now, I ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of the States main them by the constitution-- or the people of thee several States maintain those which are reserved to them, and among others, the sovereign powers by which they ordained and established, not only their separate State Constitutions and Governments, but also the Constitution and Government of the United States". According to the text, in which way is this statement demonstrative of deep rooted issues that led to the Civil War?The author states, " The necessary consequence was, a further increase of power, and a gradual tainting of the opinions of both of the other parties with their doctrines, until the infection has extended over both; and the great mass of the population of the North, who, whatever may be their opinion of the original abolition party, which still preserves its distinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when it comes to acting, to co-operate in carrying out their measures". According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?Day 3According to the text, what idea is the author attempting to convey, in lines 292 to 307, in reference to northern motivations? The author makes a powerful statement, “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”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?Conferring to the text, in which way has slavery agitation caused further division within great religious denominations in America and contributed to a division within America?According to the text, what was the main purpose of the text?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)”Week 4Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way did the issue of slavery, which was largely unaddressed by the Constitution, primarily, create tensions that would lead to the civil war?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)ProprietyCededImmemorialInjunctionBrethrenCandorConscientiousAscertainedAcerbityConspicuousReprobationVehementContemporaneousCessionNomenclatureAppellationFlagranterousingprivypeonismexasperatedisinclinationinjunctionalacrityperemptorilyemanateignominiousepithetsincendiarybenevolencevernacularvitiateddepravedreproachfularrondissementconciliatorymeliorationpigmiesWebster, D. “The Union Must be preserved” (1850)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.4.aExpansion and Reform (1801-1861)Week 4 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore ways in which tensions between the North and the South were caused by failure of the Constitution to adequately address the issue of slavery. The truth is that the Constitution neither directly supported or banned slavery in America and in doing this, ultimately, gave the states authority to decide for themselves. As the South turns to slavery, as a means to support their economy, their livelihood is threatened by a northern push to abolish slavery. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how the acquisition of new territories created a battle to maintain power in congress. Everyone knew that America, as it was divided, could not survive without addressing the issue of slavery. Slavery in America was a necessary economic evil that was allowed to grow, but could not be trimmed, as the Constitution failed to provide that power to the federal government and it was now, legally, in the hands of the states. Ultimately, the issue of state verses federal power became a power force in the road to the Civil War.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 311 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 312- 600 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 601-951 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which way did the failure of the Constitution to fully address the issue of slavery, further create tensions between the North and the South? The Union Must be preserved (1850)Mr. President: I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the United States. It is fortunate that there is a Senate of the United States; a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels. It is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions and government. The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East, the North, and the stormy South combine to throw the whole ocean into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. I do not affect to regard myself, Mr. President, as holding, or as fit to hold, the helm in this combat with the political elements; but I have a duty to perform, and I mean to perform it with fidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers, but not without hope. I have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for I am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the preservation of all; and there is that which will keep me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear, or shall not appear for many days. I speak to-day for the preservation of the Union. "Hear me for my cause." I speak, to-day, out of a solicitous and anxious heart for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make the blessings of this Union so rich and so dear to us all. These are the topics that I propose to myself to discuss; these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the wish to communicate my opinions to the Senate and the country; and if I can do anything, however little, for the promotion of these ends, I shall have accomplished all that I expect. Mr. President, it may not be amiss to recur very briefly to the events which, equally sudden and extraordinary, have brought the political condition of the country to what it now is. In May, 1846, the United States declared war against Mexico. Our armies, then on the frontiers, entered the provinces of that republic, met and defeated all her troops, penetrated her mountain passes, and occupied her capital. The marine force of the United States took possession of her forts and her towns, on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. In less than two years a treaty was negotiated, by which Mexico ceded to the United States a vast territory, extending seven or eight hundred miles along the shores of the Pacific, and reaching back over the mountains, and across the desert, until it joins the frontier of the State of Texas. It so happened, in the distracted and feeble condition of the Mexican government, that, before the declaration of war by the United States against Mexico had become known in California, the people of California, under the lead of American officers, overthrew the existing provincial government of California, the Mexican authorities, and ran up an independent flag. When the news arrived at San Francisco that war had been declared by the United States against Mexico, this independent flag was pulled down, and the stars and stripes of this Union hoisted in its stead. So, Sir, before the war was over, the forces of the United States, military and naval, had possession of San Francisco and Upper California, and a great rush of emigrants from various parts of the world took place into California in 1846 and 1847. But now, behold another wonder. In January of 1848, the Mormons, or some of them, made a discovery of an extraordinarily rich mine of gold, or, rather, of a very great quantity of gold, hardly fit to be called a mine, for it was spread near the surface, on the lower part of the south, or American, branch of the Sacramento. They seem to have attempted to conceal their discovery for some time; but soon another discovery, perhaps of greater importance, was made of gold, in another part of the American branch of the Sacramento, and near Sutter's Fort, as it is called. The fame of these discoveries spread far and wide. They inflamed more and more the spirit of emigration towards California, which had already been excited; and persons crowded in hundreds, and flocked towards the Bay of San Francisco. This, as I have said, took place in the winter and spring of 1848. The digging commenced in the spring of that year, and from that time to this the work of searching for gold has been prosecuted with a success not heretofore known in the history of this globe. We all know, Sir, how incredulous the American public was at the accounts, which reached us, at first, of these discoveries; but we all know, now, that these accounts received, and continue to receive, daily confirmation, and down to the present moment I suppose the assurances are as strong, after the experience of these several months, of mines of gold apparently inexhaustible in the regions near San Francisco, in California, as they were at any period of the earlier dates of the accounts. It so happened, Sir, that, although, after the return of peace, it became a very important subject for legislative consideration and legislative decision, to provide a proper territorial government for California, yet differences of opinion in the counsels of the Government prevented the establishment of any such territorial government, at the last session of Congress. Under this state of things, the inhabitants of San Francisco and California, then amounting to a great number of people, in the summer of last year, thought it to be their duty to establish a local government. Under the proclamation of General Riley, the people chose delegates to a convention; that convention met at Monterey. They formed a constitution for the State of California, and it was adopted by the people of California in their primary assemblages. Desirous of immediate connection with the United States, its Senators were appointed and Representatives chosen, who have come hither, bringing with them the authentic Constitution of the State of California; and they now present themselves, asking, in behalf of their State, that it may be admitted into this Union as one of the United States. This constitution, Sir, contains an express prohibition against slavery, or involuntary servitude, in the State of California. It is said, and I suppose truly, that of the members who composed that Convention, some sixteen were natives of, and had been residents in, the slaveholding States, about twenty-two were from the non-slaveholding States, and the remaining ten members were either native Californians or old settlers in that country. This prohibition against slavery, it is said, was inserted with entire unanimity. And it is this circumstance, Sir, the prohibition of slavery by that Convention, which has contributed to raise, I do not say it has wholly raised, the dispute as to the propriety of the admission of California into the Union under this constitution. It is not to be denied, Mr. President, nobody thinks of denying that, whatever reasons were assigned at the commencement of the late war with Mexico, it was prosecuted for the purpose of the acquisition of territory, and under the alleged argument that the cession of territory was the only form in which proper compensation could be made to the United States by Mexico, for the various claims and demands which the people of this country had against that government. At any rate, it will be found that President Polk's message, at the commencement of the session of December, 1847, avowed that the war was to be prosecuted until some acquisition of territory should be made. And, as the acquisition was to be south of the line of the United States, in warm climates and countries, it was naturally, I suppose, expected by the South, that whatever acquisitions were made in that region would be added to the slaveholding portion of the United States. Very little of accurate information was possessed of the real physical character, either of California or New Mexico; and events have turned out as was not expected. Both California and New Mexico are likely to come in as free; and therefore some degree of disappointment and surprise has resulted. In other words, it is obvious that the question which has so long harassed the country, and at some times very seriously alarmed the minds of wise and good men, has come upon us for a fresh discussion; the question of slavery in these United States. Now, Sir, I propose, perhaps at the expense of some detail and consequent detention of the Senate, to review historically this question, which, partly in consequence of its own importance, and partly, perhaps mostly, in consequence of the manner in which it has been discussed in one and the other portion of the country, has been a source of so much alienation and unkind feeling. We all know, Sir, that slavery has existed in the world from time immemorial. There was slavery, in the earliest periods of history, in the Oriental nations. There was slavery among the Jews; the theocratic government of that people ordained no injunction against it. There was slavery among the Greeks; and the ingenious philosophy of the Greeks found, or sought to find, a justification for it exactly upon the grounds which have been assumed for such a justification in this country; that is, a natural and original difference among the races of mankind, and the inferiority of the black or colored race to the white. The Greeks justified their system of slavery upon that idea, precisely. They held the African, and in some parts the Asiatic, tribes to be inferior to the white race; but they did not show, I think, by any close process of logic, that, if this were true, the more intelligent and the stronger had therefore a right to subjugate the weaker. The more manly philosophy and jurisprudence of the Romans placed the justification of slavery on entirely different grounds. The Roman jurists, from the first and down to the fall of the empire, admitted that slavery was against the natural law, by which, as they maintained, all men, of whatsoever clime, color, or capacity were equal; but they justified slavery, first, upon the ground and authority of the law of nations, arguing, and arguing truly, that at that day the conventional law of nations admitted that captives in war, whose lives, according to the notions of the times, were at the absolute disposal of the captors, might, in exchange for exemption from death, be made slaves for life, and that such servitude might descend to their posterity. The jurists of Rome also maintained that by the civil law, there might be servitude or slavery, personal and hereditary; first, by the voluntary act of an individual, who might sell himself into slavery; secondly, by his being reduced into a state of slavery by his creditors in satisfaction of his debts; and, thirdly, by being placed in a state of servitude or slavery for crime. At the introduction of Christianity, the Roman world was full of slaves, and I suppose there is to be found no injunction against that relation between man and man, in the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or of any of his Apostles. The object of the instruction imparted to mankind by the founder of Christianity was to touch the heart, purify the soul, and improve the lives of individual men. That object went directly to the first fountain of all political and all social relations of the human race, as well as of all true religious feelings, the individual heart and mind of man. Now, Sir, upon the general nature, and character, and influence of slavery, there exists a wide difference of opinion between the Northern portion of this country and the Southern. It is said on the one side that, if not the subject of any injunction or direct prohibition in the New Testament, slavery is a wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest; and that it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts by which a mighty nation subjects a weaker nation to its will; and that slavery, in its nature, whatever may be said of it in the modifications which have taken place, is not in fact according to the meek spirit of the Gospel. It is not "kindly affectioned"; it does not "seek another's, and not its own"; it does not "let the oppressed go free." These are sentiments that are cherished, and recently with greatly augmented force, among the people of the Northern States. They have taken hold of the religious sentiment of that part of the country, as they have more or less taken hold of the religious feelings of a considerable portion of mankind. The South, upon the other side, having been accustomed to this relation between the two races all their lives, from their birth, having been taught, in general, to treat the subjects of this bondage with care and kindness, and I believe, in general, feeling for them great care and kindness, have not taken the view of the subject which I have mentioned. There are thousands of religious men, with consciences as tender as any of their brethren at the North, who do not see the unlawfulness of slavery; and there are more thousands, perhaps, that, whatsoever they may think of it in its origin, and as a matter depending upon natural right, yet take things as they are, and, finding slavery to be an established relation of the society in which they live, can see no way in which, let their opinions on the abstract question be what they may, it is in the power of the present generation to relieve themselves from this relation. And, in this respect, candor obliges me to say, that I believe they are just as conscientious, many of them, and the religious people, all of them, as they are in the North who hold different opinions. Why, Sir, the honorable Senator from South Carolina, the other day, alluded to the separation of that great religious community, the Methodist Episcopal Church. That separation was brought about by differences of opinion upon this particular subject of slavery. I felt great concern, as that dispute went on, about the result; and I was in hopes that the difference of opinion might be adjusted, because I looked upon that religious denomination as one of the great props of religion and morals, throughout the whole country, from Maine to Georgia, and westward, to our utmost western boundary. The result was against my wishes and against my hopes. I have read all their proceedings and all their arguments; but I have never yet been able to come to the conclusion that there was any real ground for that separation; in other words, that any good could be produced by that separation. I must say I think there was some want of candor and charity. Sir, when a question of this kind seizes on the religious sentiments of mankind, and comes to be discussed in religious assemblies of the clergy and laity, there is always to be expected, or always to be feared, a great degree of excitement. It is in the nature of man, manifested by his whole history, that religious disputes are apt to become warm, as men's strength of conviction is proportionate to their views of the magnitude of the questions. In all such disputes, there will sometimes men be found with whom every thing is absolute, absolutely wrong, or absolutely right. They see the right clearly; they think others ought so to see it, and they are disposed to establish a broad line of distinction between what is right, and what is wrong. And they are not seldom willing to establish that line upon their own convictions of truth and justice; and are ready to mark and guard it, by placing along it a series of dogmas, as lines of boundary on the earth's surface are marked by posts and stones. There are men who, with clear perceptions, as they think, of their own duty, do not see how too hot a pursuit of one duty may involve them in the violation of others, or how too warm an embracement of one truth may lead to a disregard of other truths equally important. As I heard it stated strongly, not many days ago, these persons are disposed to mount upon some particular duty as upon a war-horse, and to drive, furiously on and upon, and over, all other duties that may stand in the way. There are men who, in times of that sort, and in disputes of that sort, are of opinion that human duties may be ascertained with the exactness of mathematics. They deal with morals as with mathematics; and they think what is right may be distinguished from what is wrong, with the precision of an algebraic equation. They have, therefore, none too much charity towards others who differ from them. They are apt, too, to think that nothing is good but what is perfect, and that there are no compromises or modifications to be made in consideration of difference of opinion, or in deference to other men's judgment. If their perspicacious vision enables them to detect a spot on the face of the sun, they think that a good reason why the sun should be struck down from heaven. They prefer the chance of running into utter darkness, to living in heavenly light, if that heavenly light be not absolutely without any imperfection. There are impatient men; too impatient always to give heed to the admonition of St. Paul, "that we are not to do evil that good may come"; too impatient to wait for the slow progress of moral causes in the improvement of mankind. They do not remember that the doctrines and the miracles of Jesus Christ have, in eighteen hundred years, converted only a small portion of the human race; and among the nations that are converted to Christianity, they forget how many vices and crimes, public and private, still prevail, and that many of them, public crimes especially, which are so clearly offenses against the Christian religion, pass without exciting particular indignation. Thus wars are waged, and unjust wars. I do not deny that there may be just wars. There certainly are; but it was the remark of an eminent person, not many years ago, on the other side of the Atlantic, that it was one of the greatest reproaches to human nature, that wars are sometimes just. The defence of nations sometimes causes a just war against the injustice of other nations. Now, Sir, in this state of sentiment upon the general nature of slavery lies the cause of a great part of those unhappy divisions, exasperations, and reproaches, which find vent and support in different parts of the Union. Slavery does exist in the United States. It did exist in the States before the adoption of this Constitution, and at that time. And now let us consider, Sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery, at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since; but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country think of slavery, then? In what estimation did they hold it at the time when this Constitution was adopted? Now, it will be found, Sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and South, upon the subject of slavery. And it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found that, either at the North or at the South, there was much, though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society became less strong and labor less productive; and, therefore, we find from all the eminent men of the time the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery is an evil. And they ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the Colonies. I need hardly refer, Sir, particularly to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments; that slavery was an evil, a blight, a blast, a mildew, a scourge, and a curse. There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South; and the reason is, I suppose, because there was much less of it at the North, and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, Sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the Convention viewed it. The Convention reflected the judgment and sentiments of the great men of the South. A member of the other House, whom I have not the honor to know, in a recent speech, has collected extracts from these public documents. They prove the truth of what I am saying, and the question then was, how to deal with it, and how to deal with it as an evil. Well, they came to this general result. They thought that slavery could not be continued in the country, if the importation of slaves were made to cease, and therefore they provided that after a certain period the importation might be prevented, by the act of the new government. Twenty years was proposed by some gentleman, a Northern gentleman, I think, and many of the Southern gentlemen opposed it as being too long. Mr. Madison, especially, was something warm against it. He said it would bring too much of this mischief into the country to allow the importation of slaves for such a period. Because we must take along with us, in the whole of this discussion, when we are considering the sentiments and opinions in which the constitutional provision originated, that the conviction of all men was, that if the importation of slaves ceased, the white race would multiply faster than the black race, and that slavery would therefore gradually wear out and expire. It may not be improper here to allude to that, I had almost said, celebrated opinion of Mr. Madison. You observe, Sir, that the term slave, or slavery, is not used in the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that "fugitive slaves" shall be delivered up. It requires that "persons held to service in one State, and escaping into another, shall be delivered up." Mr. Madison opposed the introduction of the term slave, or slavery, into the Constitution; for he said that he did not wish to see it recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America, that there could be property in men. Now, Sir, all this took place at the Convention in 1787; but, connected with this, concurrent and contemporaneous, is another important transaction, not sufficiently attended to. The Convention for framing this Constitution assembled in Philadelphia in May, and sat until September, 1787. During all that time, the Congress of the United States was in session at New York. It was a matter of design, as we know, that the Convention should not assemble in the same city where Congress was holding its sessions. Almost all the public men of the country, therefore, of distinction and eminence, were in one or the other of these two assemblies; and I think it happened, in some instances, that the same gentlemen were members of both. If I mistake not, such was the case of Mr. Rufus King, then a member of Congress from Massachusetts, and at the same time a member of the Convention to frame the Constitution. Now, it was in the summer of 1787, the very time when the Convention in Philadelphia was framing this Constitution, that the Congress in New York was framing the Ordinance of 1787. They passed that Ordinance on the 13th of July, 1787, at New York, the very month, perhaps the very day, on which these questions, about the importation of slaves and the character of slavery, were debated in the Convention at Philadelphia. And so far as we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence of opinion between these respective bodies; and it resulted in this Ordinance of 1787, excluding slavery as to all the territory over which the Congress of the United States had jurisdiction, and that was, all the territory northwest of the Ohio. Three years before, Virginia and other States had made a cession of that great territory to the United States. And a most magnificent act it was. I never reflect upon it without a disposition to do honor and justice, and justice would be the highest honor, to Virginia, for the cession of her northwestern territory. I will say, Sir, it is one of her fairest claims to the respect and gratitude of the United States, and that, perhaps, it is only second to that other claim which attaches to her; that from her counsels, and from the intelligence and patriotism of her leading statesmen, proceeded the first idea put into practice of the formation of a general constitution of the United States. Now. Sir, the Ordinance of 1787 was applied thus to the whole territory over which the Congress of the United States had jurisdiction. It was adopted two years before the Constitution of the United States went into operation; because the Ordinance took effect immediately on its passage, while the Constitution of the United States, having been framed, was to be sent to the States to be adopted by their Conventions; and then a government was to be organized under it. This Ordinance, then, was in operation and force when the Constitution was adopted and the Government put in motion, in April, 1789. Mr. President, three things are quite clear as historical truths. One is, that there was an expectation that, on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out here. That was hoped and expected. Another is, that, as far as there was any power in Congress to prevent the spread of slavery in the United States, that power was executed in the most absolute manner, and to the fullest extent. . . .The honorable member [Mr. Calhoun] said, the other day, that he considered this Ordinance as the first, in the series of measures, calculated to enfeeble the South, and deprive them of their just participation in the benefits and privileges of this government. He says, very properly, that it was enacted under the old Confederation and before this Constitution went into effect; but, my present purpose is only to say, Mr. President, that it was established with the entire and unanimous concurrence of the whole South. Why, there it stands! The vote of every State in the Union was unanimous in favor of the Ordinance, with the exception of a single individual vote, and that individual vote was given by a Northern man. But, Sir, the Ordinance abolishing, or rather prohibiting, slavery northwest of the Ohio, has the hand and seal of every Southern member in Congress. So this ordinance was no aggression of the North on the South. The other and third clear historical truth is, that the Convention meant to leave slavery, in the States, as they found it, entirely under the authority and control of the States themselves. This was the state of things, Sir, and this the state of opinion, under which those very important matters were arranged, and those three important things done; that is, the establishment of the Constitution with a recognition of slavery as it existed in the States; the establishment of the ordinance prohibiting, to the full extent of all territory owned by the United States, the introduction of slavery into that territory, while leaving to the States all power over slavery in their own limits; and creating a power, in the new government, to put an end to the importation of slaves, after a limited period. And here, Sir, we may pause. We may reflect for a moment upon the entire coincidence and concurrence of sentiment, between the North and the South, upon all these questions, at the period of the adoption of the Constitution. But opinions, Sir, have changed, greatly changed, changed North, and changed South. Slavery is not regarded in the South now as it was then. ...[Here Webster digressed to acknowledge the attention of Mr. Mason, and paid a tribute to his distinguished grandfather.] Here we may pause. There was, if not an entire unanimity, a general concurrence of sentiment, running through the whole community, and especially entertained by the eminent men of all parts of the country. But soon a change began, at the North and the South, and a severance of opinion showed itself; the North growing much more warm and strong against slavery, and the South growing much more warm and strong in its support. Sir, there is no generation of mankind whose opinions are not subject to be influenced by what appear to them to be their present, emergent, and exigent interests. I impute to the South no particularly selfish view in the change which has come over her. I impute to her certainly no dishonest view. All that has happened has been natural. It has followed those causes which always influence the human mind and operate upon it. What, then, have been the causes which have created so new a feeling in favor of slavery in the South, which have changed the whole nomenclature of the South on that subject, so that, from being thought and described in the terms I have mentioned and will not repeat, it has now become an institution, a cherished institution in that quarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moral blessing, as I think I have heard it latterly spoken of? I suppose this, Sir, is owing to the sudden uprising and rapid growth of the COTTON plantations of the South. So far as any motive consistent with honor, justice, and general judgment could act, it was the COTTON interest that gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread it, and to use its labor. I again say that that was produced by causes which we must always expect to produce like effects; the whole interest of the South became connected, more or less, with it. If we look back to the history of the commerce of this country at the early years of this government, what were our exports? Cotton was hardly, or but to a very limited extent, known. The tables will show that the exports of cotton for the years 1790 and 1791 were not more than forty or fifty thousand dollars a year. It has gone on increasing rapidly, until it may now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices, amount to a hundred millions of dollars. In the years I have mentioned, there was more of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost every article of export from the South, than of cotton. I think it is true when Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty of 1794 with England, that he did not know that cotton was exported at all from the United States; and I have heard it said, also, that the custom-house in London refused to admit cotton, upon an allegation that it could not be an American production, there being, as they supposed, no cotton raised in America. They could hardly think so now! Well, Sir, we know what followed. The age of cotton became the golden age of our Southern brethren. It gratified their desire for improvement and accumulation, at the same time that it excited it. The desire grew by what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eagerness for other territory, a new area or new areas, for the cultivation of the cotton crop; and measures leading to this result were brought about rapidly, one after another, under the lead of Southern men at the head of the Government, they having a majority in both branches to accomplish their ends. The honorable member from South Carolina observed that there has been a majority all along in favor of the North. If that be true, Sir, the North has acted either very liberally and kindly, or very weakly; for they never exercised that majority efficiently five times in the history of the Government, when a division, or trial of strength, arose. Never. Whether they were out-generalled, or whether it was owing to other causes, I shall not stop to consider; but no man acquainted with the history of the country can deny, that the general lead in the politics of the country, for three fourths of the period that has elapsed since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a Southern lead. In 1802, in pursuit of the idea of opening a new cotton region, the United States obtained a cession from Georgia of the whole of her western territory, now embracing the rich and growing State of Alabama. In 1803, Louisiana was purchased from France, out of which the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, have been framed, as slaveholding States. In 1819 the cession of Florida was made, bringing in another region of slaveholding property and territory. Sir, the honorable member from South Carolina thought he saw in certain operations of the Government, such as the manner of collecting the revenue, and the tendency of measures calculated to promote emigration into the country, what accounts for the more rapid growth of the North than the South. He ascribes that more rapid growth, not to the operation of time, but to the system of government, and administration, established under this Constitution. That is matter of opinion. To a certain extent it may be true; but it does seem to me that if any operation of the Government could be shown in any degree to have promoted the population, and growth, and wealth of the North, it is much more sure that there are sundry important and distinct operations of the Government, about which no man can doubt, tending to promote, and which absolutely have promoted, the increase of the slave interest and the slave territory of the South. Allow me to say that it was not time that brought in Louisiana; it was the act of men. It was not time that brought in Florida; it was the act of men. And lastly, Sir, to complete these acts of men which have contributed so much to enlarge the area and the sphere of the institution of slavery, Texas, great and vast and illimitable Texas, was added to the Union as a slave State in 1845; and that, Sir, pretty much closed the whole chapter, and settled the whole account. That closed the whole chapter, that settled the whole account, because the annexation of Texas, upon the conditions and under the guaranties upon which she was admitted, did not leave within the control of this Government an acre of land, capable of being cultivated by slave labor, between this Capitol and the Rio Grande or the Nueces, or whatever is the proper boundary of Texas, not an acre. From that moment, the whole country, from this place to the western boundary of Texas, was fixed, pledged, fastened, decided, to be slave territory forever, by the solemn guaranties of law. And I now say, Sir, as the proposition upon which I stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which I intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at this moment within the United States, or any territory of the United States, a single foot of land, the character of which, in regard to its being free-soil territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action of the Government. Now, is it not so with respect to Texas? Why it is most manifestly so. The honorable member from South Carolina, at the time of the admission of Texas, held an important post in the Executive Department of the Government; he was Secretary of State. Another eminent person of great activity and adroitness in affairs, I mean the late Secretary of the Treasury [Mr. Walker], was a conspicuous member of this body, and took the lead in the business of annexation, in cooperation with the Secretary of State; and I must say that they did their business faithfully and thoroughly; there was no botch left in it. They rounded it off, and made as close joiner-work as ever was exhibited. Resolutions of annexation were brought into Congress, fitly joined together, compact, firm, efficient, conclusive upon the great object which they had in view, and those resolutions passed. Allow me to read a part of these resolutions. It is the third clause of the second section of the resolution of the 1st of March, 1845, for the admission of Texas, which applies to this part of the case. That clause reads in these words:-- "New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited." Now, what is here stipulated, enacted, and secured? It is, that all Texas south of 36o 30', which is nearly the whole of it, shall be admitted into the Union as a slave State. It was a slave State, and therefore came in as a slave State; and the guaranty is, that new States shall be made out of it, to the number of four, in addition to the State then in existence and admitted at that time by these resolutions, and that such States as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying south of 36o 30', may come in as slave States. I know no form of legislation which can strengthen this. I know no mode of recognition that can add a tittle of weight to it. I listened respectfully to the resolutions of my honorable friend from Tennessee [Mr. Bell]. He proposed to recognize that stipulation with Texas. But any additional recognition would weaken the force of it; because it stands here on the ground of a contract, a thing done for a consideration. It is a law founded on a contract with Texas, and designed to carry that contract into effect. A recognition, now, founded not on any consideration or any contract, would not be so strong as it now stands on the face of the resolution. Now, I know no way, I candidly confess, in which this government, acting in good faith, as I trust it always will, can relieve itself from that stipulation and pledge, by any honest course of legislation whatever. And therefore I say again, that, so far as Texas is concerned, in the whole of that State south of 36o 30', which, I suppose, embraces all the territory capable of slave cultivation, there is no land, not an acre, the character of which is not established by law; a law which cannot be repealed without the violation of a contract, and plain disregard of the public faith. I hope, Sir, it is now apparent that my proposition, so far as it respects Texas, has been maintained, and that the provision in this article is clear and absolute; and it has been well suggested by my friend from Rhode Island, that that part of Texas which lies north of 36o 30' of north latitude, and which may be formed into free States, is dependent, in like manner, upon the consent of Texas, herself a slave State. Now, Sir, how came this? How came it to pass that within these walls, where it is said by the honorable member from South Carolina that the free States have always had a majority, this resolution of annexation, such as I have described it, obtained a majority in both houses of Congress? Sir, it obtained that majority by the great number of Northern votes added to the entire Southern vote, or at least nearly the whole of the Southern votes. The aggregate was made up of Northern and Southern votes. In the House of Representatives it stood, I think, about eighty Southern votes for the admission of Texas, and about fifty Northern votes for the admission of Texas. In the Senate the vote stood for the admission of Texas twenty-seven, and twenty-five against it; and of those twenty-seven votes, constituting the majority, no less than thirteen came from the free States, and four of them were from New England. The whole of these thirteen Senators, constituting within a fraction, you see, one half of all the votes in this body for the admission of this immeasurable extent of slave territory, were sent here by free States. Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our history of political events, political parties, and political men, as is afforded by this admission of a new slave-holding territory, so vast that a bird cannot fly over it in a week. New England, as I have said, with some of her own votes, supported this measure. Three fourths of the votes of the liberty-loving Connecticut were given for it in the other house, and one half here. There was one vote for it from Maine, but I am happy to say not the vote of the honorable member who addressed the Senate the day before yesterday (Mr. Hamlin), and who was then a Representative from Maine in the House of Representatives: but there was a vote or two from Maine, aye, and there was one vote for it from Massachusetts, given by a gentleman then representing, and now living in, the district in which the prevalence of Free Soil sentiment for a couple of years or so has defeated the choice of any member to represent it in Congress. Sir, that body of Northern and Eastern men who gave those votes at that time are now seen taking upon themselves, in the nomenclature of politics, the appellation of the Northern Democracy. They undertook to wield the destinies of this empire, if I may give that name to a republic, and their policy was, and they persisted in it, to bring into this country and under this government all the territory they could. They did it, in the case of Texas, under pledges, absolute pledges, to the slave interests, and they afterwards lent their aid in bringing in these new conquests, to take their chances for slavery or freedom. My honorable friend from Georgia, in March, 1847, moved the Senate to declare that the war ought not to be prosecuted for the conquest of territory, or for the dismemberment of Mexico. The whole of the Northern Democracy voted against it. He did not get a vote from them. It suited the patriotic and elevated sentiments of the Northern Democracy to bring in a world from among the mountains and valleys of California and New Mexico, or any other part of Mexico, and then quarrel about it; to bring it in, and then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the Wilmot Proviso. There were two eminent and highly respectable gentlemen from the North and East, then leading gentlemen in the Senate--I refer, and I do so with entire respect, for I entertain for both of those gentlemen, in general, high regard to Mr. Dix of New York and Mr. Niles of Connecticut--who both voted for the admission of Texas. They would not have that vote any other way than as it stood; and they would have it as it did stand. I speak of the vote upon the annexation of Texas. Those two gentlemen would have the resolution of annexation just as it is, without amendment; and they voted for it just as it is, and their eyes were all open to its true character. The honorable member from South Carolina who addressed us the other day was then Secretary of State. His correspondence with Mr. Murphy, the Charge d'Affaires of the United States in Texas, had been published. That correspondence was all before those gentlemen, and the Secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence, that the great object sought by the annexation of Texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the South. Why, Sir, he said so in so many words - [Mr. Calhoun. Will the honorable Senator permit me to interrupt him for a moment?] Certainly. [Mr. Calhoun: I am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable gentleman; but, upon a point of so much importance, I deem it right to put myself rectus in curia. I did not put it upon the ground assumed by the Senator. I put it upon this ground: that Great Britain had announced to this country, in so many words, that her object was to abolish slavery in Texas, and, through Texas, to accomplish the abolition of slavery in the United States and the world. The ground I put it on was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and, if Great Britain succeeded in her object, it would be impossible that that frontier could be secured against the aggressions of the Abolitionists; and that this government was bound, under the guaranties of the Constitution, to protect us against such a state of things.] That comes, I suppose, Sir, to exactly the same thing. It was, that Texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the South. [Mr. Calhoun: Another view is very distinctly given.] That was the object set forth in the correspondence of a worthy gentleman not now living, who preceded the honorable member from South Carolina in the Department of State. There repose on the files of the Department, as I have occasion to know, strong letters from Mr. Upshur to the United States minister in England, and I believe there are some to the same minister from the honorable Senator himself, asserting to this effect the sentiments of this government; namely, that Great Britain was expected not to interfere to take Texas out of the hands of its then existing government and make it a free country. But my argument, my suggestion, is this; that those gentlemen who composed the Northern Democracy when Texas was brought into the Union saw clearly that it was brought in as a slave country, and brought in for the purpose of being maintained as slave territory, to the Greek Kalends. I rather think the honorable gentleman who was then Secretary of State might, in some of his correspondence with Mr. Murphy, have suggested that it was not expedient to say too much about this object, lest it should create some alarm. At any rate, Mr. Murphy wrote to him that England was anxious to get rid of the constitution of Texas, because it was a constitution establishing slavery; and that what the United States had to do was to aid the people of Texas in upholding their constitution; but that nothing should be said which should offend the fanatical men of the North. But, Sir, the honorable member did avow this object himself, openly, boldly, and manfully; he did not disguise his conduct or his motives. [Mr. Calhoun: Never, never.] What he means he is very apt to say. [Mr. Calhoun: Always, always.] And I honor him for it. This admission of Texas was in 1845. Then, in 1847, flagrante bello between the United States and Mexico, the proposition I have mentioned was brought forward by my friend from Georgia, and the Northern Democracy voted steadily against it. Their remedy was to apply to the acquisitions, after they should come in, the Wilmot Proviso. What follows? These two gentlemen, worthy and honorable and influential men, and if they had not been they could not have carried the measure, these two gentlemen, members of this body, brought in Texas, and by their votes they also prevented the passage of the resolution of the honorable member from Georgia, and then they went home and took the lead in the Free Soil party. And there they stand, Sir! They leave us here, bound in honor and conscience by the resolutions of annexation; they leave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the obligations in favor of slavery which they voted us into, or else the greater odium of violating those obligations, while they are at home making capital and rousing speeches for free soil and no slavery. And therefore I say, Sir, that there is not a chapter in our history, respecting public measures and public men, more full of what would create surprise, more full of what does create, in my mind, extreme mortification, than that of the conduct of the Northern Democracy on this subject. Mr. President, sometimes, when a man is found in a new relation to things around him and to other men, he says the world has changed, and that he has not changed. I believe, Sir, that our self-respect leads us often to make this declaration in regard to ourselves when it is not exactly true. An individual is more apt to change, perhaps, than all the world around him. But, under the present circumstances, and under the responsibility which I know I incur by what I am now stating here, I feel at liberty to recur to the various expressions and statements, made at various times, of my own opinions and resolutions respecting the admission of Texas, and all that has followed. Sir, as early as 1836, or in the early part of 1837, there was conversation and correspondence between myself and some private friends on this project of annexing Texas to the United States; and an honorable gentleman with whom I have had a long acquaintance, a friend of mine, now perhaps in this chamber, I mean General Hamilton, of South Carolina, was privy to that correspondence. I had voted for the recognition of Texan independence, because I believed it to be an existing fact, surprising and astonishing as it was, and I wished well to the new republic; but I manifested from the first utter opposition to bringing her, with her slave territory, into the Union. I happened, in 1837, to make a public address to political friends in New York, and I then stated my sentiments upon the subject. It was the first time that I had occasion to advert to it; and I will ask a friend near me to have the kindness to read an extract from the speech made by me on that occasion. It was delivered in Niblo's Garden, in 1837. [Mr. Greene read this extract from the speech to which Senator Webster referred: "Gentlemen, we all see that, by whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave-holding country; and I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do any thing which shall extend the slavery of the African race on this continent, or add other slave-holding States to the Union. "When I say that I regard slavery in itself as a great moral, social, and political evil, I only use language which has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of slave-holding States. "I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension. We have slavery already amongst us. The Constitution found it in the Union; it recognized it, and gave it solemn guaranties. "To the full extent of those guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in favor of the slave-holding States which are already in the Union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and beyond the reach of Congress. It is a concern of the States themselves; they have never submitted it to Congress, and Congress has no rightful power over it. "I shall concur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no indication of purpose, which shall interfere or threaten to interfere with the exclusive authority of the several States over the subject of slavery as it exists within their respective limits. All this appears to me to be matter of plain and imperative duty. "But when we come to speak of admitting new States, the subject assumes an entirely different aspect. Our rights and our duties are then both different. *** "I see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of Texas to the Union; no advantage to be derived from it; and objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment, decisive character."] I have nothing, Sir, to add to, or to take from, those sentiments. That speech, the Senate will perceive, was made in 1837. The purpose of immediately annexing Texas at that time was abandoned or postponed; and it was not revived with any vigor for some years. In the mean time it happened that I had become a member of the executive administration, and was for a short period in the Department of State. The annexation of Texas was a subject of conversation, not confidential, with the President and heads of departments, as well as with other public men. No serious attempt was then made, however, to bring it about. I left the Department of State in May, 1843, and shortly after I learned, though by means which were no way connected with official information, that a design had been taken up of bringing Texas, with her slave territory and population, into this Union. I was in Washington at the time, and persons are now here who will remember that we had an arranged meeting for conversation upon it. I went home to Massachusetts and proclaimed the existence of that purpose, but I could get no audience and but little attention. Some did not believe it, and some were too much engaged in their own pursuits to give it any heed. They had gone to their farms or to their merchandise, and it was impossible to arouse any feeling in New England, or in Massachusetts, that should combine the two great political parties against this annexation; and, indeed, there was no hope of bringing the Northern Democracy into that view, for their leaning was all the other way. But, Sir, even with Whigs, and leading Whigs, I am ashamed to say, there was a great indifference towards the admission of Texas, with slave territory, into this Union. The project went on. I was then out of Congress. The annexation resolutions passed on the 1st of March, 1845; the legislature of Texas complied with the conditions and accepted the guaranties; for the language of the resolution is, that Texas is to come in "upon the conditions and under the guaranties herein prescribed." I was returned to the Senate in March, 1845, and was here in December following, when the acceptance by Texas of the conditions proposed by Congress was communicated to us by the President, and an act for the consummation of the union was laid before the two houses. The connection was then not completed. A final law, doing the deed of annexation ultimately, had not been passed; and when it was put upon its final passage here, I expressed my opposition to it, and recorded my vote in the negative; and there that vote stands, with the observations that I made upon that occasion. It has happened that, between 1837 and this time, on various occasions, I have expressed my entire opposition to the admission of slave States, or the acquisition of new slave territories, to be added to the United States. I know, Sir, no change in my own sentiments, or my own purposes, in that respect. I will now ask my friend from Rhode Island to read another extract from a speech of mine made at a Whig Convention in Springfield, Massachusetts, in the month of September, 1847. [Mr. Greene: "We hear much just now of a panacea for the dangers and evils of slavery and slave annexation, which they call the 'Wilmot Proviso.' That certainly is a just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to found any new party upon. It is not a sentiment on which Massachusetts Whigs differ. There is not a man in this hall who holds to it more firmly than I do, nor one who adheres to it more than another. "I feel some little interest in this matter, Sir. Did not I commit myself in 1837 to the whole doctrine, fully, entirely? And I must be permitted to say that I cannot quite consent that more recent discoverers should claim the merit and take out a patent. "I deny the priority of their invention. Allow me to say, Sir, it is not their thunder. *** "We are to use the first and last and every occasion which offers to oppose the extension of slave power. "But I speak of it here, as in Congress, as a political question, a question for statesmen to act upon. We must so regard it. I certainly do not mean to say that it is less important in a moral point of view, that it is not more important in many other points of view; but as a legislator, or in any official capacity, I must look at it, consider it, and decide it as a matter of political action."] On other occasions, in debates here, I have expressed my determination to vote for no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, north or south, east or west. My opinion has been, that we have territory enough, and that we should follow the Spartan maxim, "Improve, adorn what you have," seek no further. I think it was in some observations that I made on the three-million loan bill that I avowed this sentiment. In short, Sir, it has been avowed quite as often, in as many places, and before as many assemblies, as any humble opinions of mine ought to be avowed. But now that, under certain conditions, Texas is in the Union, with all her territory, as a slave State, with a solemn pledge, also, that, if she shall be divided into many States, those States may come in as slave States south of 36o 30', how are we to deal with this subject? I know no way of honest legislation, when the proper time comes for the enactment, but to carry into effect all that we have stipulated to do. I do not entirely agree with my honorable friend from Tennessee (Mr. Bell), that, as soon as the time comes when she is entitled to another representative, we should create a new State. On former occasions, in creating new States out of Territories, we have generally gone upon the idea that, when the population of the territory amounts to about sixty thousand, we would consent to its admission as a State. But it is quite a different thing when a State is divided, and two or more States made out of it. It does not follow in such a case that the same rule of apportionment should be applied. That, however, is a matter for the consideration of Congress, when the proper time arrives. I may not then be here; I may have no vote to give on the occasion; but I wish it to be distinctly understood, that, according to my view of the matter, this government is solemnly pledged, by law and contract, to create new States out of Texas, with her consent, when such States are formed out of Texan territory lying south of 36o 30', to let them come in as slave States. That is the meaning of the resolution which our friends, the Northern Democracy, have left us to fulfill; and I, for one, mean to fulfill it, because I will not violate the faith of the Government. What I mean to say is, that the time for the admission of new States formed out of Texas, the number of such States, their boundaries, the requisite amount of population, and all other things connected with the admission, are in the free discretion of Congress except this; to wit, that, when new States formed out of Texas are to be admitted, they have a right, by legal stipulation and contract, to come in as slave States. Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from these territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth. That law settles for ever, with a strength beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist in California or New Mexico. Understand me, Sir; I mean slavery as we regard it; slaves in gross, of the colored race, transferable by sale and delivery, like other property. I shall not discuss the point, but leave it to the learned gentlemen who have undertaken to discuss it; but I suppose there is no slave of that description in California now. I understand that peonism, a sort of penal servitude, exists there, or rather a sort of voluntary sale of a man and his offspring for debt, as it is arranged and exists in some parts of California and some provinces of Mexico. But what I mean to say is, that African slavery, as we see it among us, is as utterly impossible to find itself, or to be found in California and New Mexico, as any other natural impossibility. California and New Mexico are Asiatic in their formation and scenery. They are composed of vast ridges of mountains, of great height, with broken ridges and deep valleys. The sides of these mountains are entirely barren; their tops capped by perennial snow. There may be in California, now made free by its constitution, and no doubt there are, some tracts of valuable land. But it is not so in New Mexico. Pray, what is the evidence which every gentleman must have obtained on this subject, from information sought by himself or communicated by others? I have inquired and read all I could find., in order to acquire information on this important question. What is there in New Mexico that could, by any possibility, induce any body to go there with slaves? There are some narrow strips of tillable land on the borders of the rivers; but the rivers themselves dry up before midsummer is gone. All that the people can do in that region, is to raise some little articles, some little wheat for their tortillas, and that by irrigation. And who expects to see a hundred black men cultivating tobacco, corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else, on lands in New Mexico, made fertile only by irrigation? I look upon it, therefore, as a fixed fact, to use an expression current at this day, that both California and New Mexico are destined to be free, so far as they are settled at all, which I believe, in regard to New Mexico, will be very little for a great length of time; free by the arrangement of things by the Power above us. I have therefore to say, in this respect also, that this country is fixed for freedom, to as many persons as shall ever live in it, by as irrepealable and more irrepealable a law, than the law that attaches to the right of holding slaves in Texas; and I will say further, that if a resolution, or a law, were now before us to provide a territorial Government for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into it whatever. The use of such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would have upon the territory; and I would not take pains to reaffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to reenact the will of God. I would put in no Wilmot Proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt or a reproach. I would put into it no evidence of the votes of superior power; for no purpose but to wound the pride, even whether a just pride, a rational pride, or an irrational pride, to wound the pride of the gentlemen who belong to Southern States. I have no such object, no such purpose. They would think it a taunt, an indignity; they would think it to be an act taking away from them what they regard as a proper equality of privilege; and whether they expect to realize any benefit from it or not, they would think it at least a plain theoretic wrong; that something more or less derogatory to their character and their rights had taken place. I propose to inflict no such wound upon any body, unless something essentially important to the country, and efficient to the preservation of liberty and freedom, is to be effected. Therefore, I repeat, Sir, and I repeat it because I wish it to be understood, that I do not propose to address the Senate often on this subject. I desire to pour out all my heart in as plain a manner as possible; and I say, again, therefore, that if a proposition were now here for a Government for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert a provision for the prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it. Now, Mr. President, I have established, so far as I proposed to go into any line of observation to establish, the proposition with which I set out, and upon which I propose the stand or fall; and that is, that the whole territory of the States in the United States, or in the newly acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed; in the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and by no human power in regard to California or New Mexico; that, therefore, under one or other of these laws, every foot of land in the States or in the Territories has already received a fixed and decided character. Sir, if we were now making a Government for New Mexico, and any body should propose a Wilmot Proviso, I should treat it exactly as Mr. Polk treated that provision for excluding slavery from Oregon. Mr. Polk was known to be in opinion decidedly averse to the Wilmot Proviso; but he felt the necessity of establishing a Government for the Territory of Oregon; and, though the proviso was in it, he knew it would be entirely nugatory; and, since it must be entirely nugatory, since it took away no right, no describable, no estimable, no weighable or tangible right of the South, he said he would sign the bill for the sake of enacting a law to form a government in that Territory, and let that entirely useless, and, in that connection, entirely senseless, proviso remain. Sir, we hear much of the annexation of Canada; and if there be any man, any of the Northern Democracy, or any one of the Free Soil party, who supposes it necessary to insert a Wilmot Proviso in a territorial government of New Mexico, that man would of course be of opinion that it is necessary to protect the everlasting snows of Canada from the foot of slavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of Congress. Sir, wherever there is a substantive good to be done, wherever there is a foot of land to be staid back from becoming slave territory, I am ready to assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged to it from the year 1837; I have been pledged to it again and again; and I will perform those pledges; but I will not do a thing unnecessarily that wounds the feelings of others, or that does discredit to my own understanding. Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of grievances produced by each; and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I shall bestow a little attention, Sir, upon these various grievances existing on the one side and on the other. I begin with complaints of the South. I will not answer, further than I have, the general statements of the honorable Senator from South Carolina, that the North has grown upon the South in consequence of the manner of administering this government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth. These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter into them. But I will state these complaints, especially one complaint of the South, which has in my opinion just foundation; and that is, that there has been found at the North, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully, their constitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free States. In that respect, it is my judgment that the South is right, and the North is wrong. Every member of every Northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the Constitution of the United States; and this article of the Constitution, which says to these States, that they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man fulfills his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. I have always thought that the Constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the States or to the States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to other States "shall be delivered up," and I confess I have always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into another State, and becoming therefore within the jurisdiction of that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the Constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, and I entertain it now. But when the subject, some years ago, was before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of the judges held, that the power to cause fugitives from service to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of this Government. I do not know, on the whole, that it may not have been a fortunate decision. My habit is to respect the result of judicial deliberations, and the solemnity of judicial decisions. But, as it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the national judicature, and my friend at the head of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now before the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men, of all conscientious men, in the North, of all men who are not carried away by any fanatical idea or by any false idea whatever, to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober and sound minds at the North as a question of morals, and a question of conscience. What right have they, in their legislative capacity, or any other capacity, to endeavor to get round this Constitution, to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose slaves escape from them? None at all; none at all. Neither in the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the Constitution, are they justified, in my opinion. Of course it is a matter for their consideration. They probably, in the turmoil of the times, have not stopped to consider of this. They have followed what seemed to be the current of thought and of motives, as the occasion arose, and they neglected to investigate fully the real question, and to consider their constitutional obligations; as, I am sure, if they did consider, they would fulfill them with alacrity. Therefore, I repeat, Sir, that here is a ground of complaint against the North well founded, which ought to be removed, which it is now in the power of the different departments of this Government to remove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the judicature of this Government, in the several States, to do all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves, and for the restoration of them to those who claim them. Wherever I go, and whenever I speak on the subject, and when I speak here I desire to speak to the whole North, I say that the South has been injured in this respect, and has a right to complain; and the North has been too careless of what I think the Constitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon her as a duty. Complaint has been made against certain resolutions that emanate from Legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only on the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes recommending Congress to consider the means of abolishing slavery in the States. I should be sorry to be called upon to present any resolutions here which could not be referable to any committee or any power in Congress; and, therefore, I should be unwilling to receive from the Legislature of Massachusetts any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at the present moment in the States, for two reasons: because, first, I do not consider that the Legislature of Massachusetts has any thing to do with it; and next, I do not consider that I, as her representative here, have any thing to do with it. Sir, it has become, in my opinion, quite too common; and if the Legislatures of the States do not like that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down than I have to uphold it; it has become, in my opinion, quite too common a practice for the State Legislatures to present resolutions here on all subjects, and to instruct us on all subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it come in too imperative a shape. I took notice, with pleasure, of some remarks upon this subject made the other day in the Senate of Massachusetts, by a young man of talent and character, of whom the best hopes may be entertained. I mean Mr. Hillard. He told the Senate of Massachusetts that he would vote for no instructions, whatever, to be forwarded to members of Congress, nor for any resolutions to be offered, expressive of the sense of Massachusetts, as to what her members of Congress ought to do. He said, that he saw no propriety in one set of public servants giving instructions and reading lectures to another set of public servants. To their own master all of them must stand or fall, and that master is their constituents. I wish these sentiments could become more common, a great deal more common. I have never entered into the question, and never shall, about the binding force of instructions. I will, however, simply say this: if there be any matter pending in this body, while I am a member of it, in which Massachusetts has an interest of her own not adverse to the general interests of the country, I shall pursue her instructions with gladness of heart and with all the efficiency which I can bring to the occasion. But if the question be one which affects her interest, and at the same time equally affects the interest of all the other States, I shall no more regard her particular wishes or instructions than I should regard the wishes of a man who might appoint me an arbitrator, or referee, to decide some question of important private right between him and his neighbor, and then instruct me to decide in his favor. If ever there was a Government upon earth it is this Government; if ever there was a body upon earth it is this body, which should consider itself as composed by agreement of all, each member appointed by some, but organized by the general consent of all, sitting here, under the solemn obligations of oath and conscience, to do that which they think to be best for the good of the whole. Then, Sir, there are the abolition societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I know thousands of their members to be honest and good men; perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of liberty; and in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do, than to contribute to an abolition press, or an abolition society, or to pay an abolition lecturer. I do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their interference with the South has produced. And is it not plain to every man? Let any gentleman who doubts of that, recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. Every one spoke of slavery as he thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read by every colored man who could read, and to those who could not read, those debates were read by others. At that time Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as much of the discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorable member from South Carolina, these abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other words, they created great agitation in the North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up n its castle. I wish to know whether any body in Virginia can, now, talk as Mr. Randolph, Governor McDowell, and others talked openly, and sent their remarks to the press, in 1832? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and every thing that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, the slave population of the South. That is my judgment. Sir, as I have said, I know many abolitionists in my own neighborhood, very honest, good people, misled, as I think, by strange enthusiasm; but they wish to do something, and they are called on to contribute, and they do contribute; and it is my firm opinion this day, that within the last twenty years as much money has been collected and paid to the abolition societies, abolition presses, and abolition lecturers, as would purchase the freedom of every slave, man, woman and child, in the State of Maryland, and send them all to Liberia. I have no doubt of it. But I have yet to learn that the benevolence of these abolition societies has at any time taken that particular turn. [Laughter.] Again, Sir, the violence of the press is complained of. The press violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent everywhere. There are outrageous reproaches in the North against the South, and there are reproaches no better in the South against the North. Sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are violent; they mistake loud and violent talk for eloquence and for reason. They think that he who talks loudest reasons best. And this we must expect, when the press is free, as it is here, and I trust always will be; for, with all its licentiousness and all its evil, the entire and absolute freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of government on the basis of a free constitution. Wherever it exists there will be foolish paragraphs and violent paragraphs in the press, as there are, I am sorry to say, foolish speeches and violent speeches in both houses of Congress. In truth, Sir, I must say that, in my opinion, the vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our Congressional debates. [Laughter.] And if it were possible for those debates to vitiate the principles of the people as much as they have depraved their tastes, I should cry out, "God save the Republic!" Well, in all this I see no solid grievance, no grievance presented by the South, within the redress of the government, but the single one to which I have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves. There are also complaints of the North against the South. I need not go over them particularly. The first and gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution, recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that, by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to acquire territory and extend her slave population, the North finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the South and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compact of the Constitution. They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the South as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and extended; an institution which the South has already extended to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new territory. Well, then passing from that, every body in the North reads; and every body reads whatsoever the newspapers contain; and the newspapers, some of them, especially those presses to which I have alluded, are careful to spread about among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any Southern man bearing at all against the North; every thing that is calculated to exasperate, to alienate; and there are many such things, as every body will admit, from the South, or some portion of it, which are disseminated among the reading people, and they do exasperate, and alienate, and produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the North. Sir, I would not notice things of this sort appearing in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member from Louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. I suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give offense to anybody, and he did not mean in his remarks to give offense. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took pains to run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the laboring people of the North, giving the preference, in all points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves of the South. The honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose that he gave any offense, or did any injustice. He was merely expressing his opinion. But does he know how remarks of that sort will be received by the laboring people of the North? Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are the North. They are the people who cultivate their own farms with their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men. Let me say, Sir, that five-sixths of the whole property of the North is in the hands of the laborers of the North; they cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they provide the means of independence. If they are not freeholders, they earn wages; these wages accumulate, are turned into capital, into new freeholds, and small capitalists are created. That is the case, and such the course of things among the industrious and frugal. And what can these people think when so respectable and worthy a gentleman as the member from Louisiana undertakes to prove that the absolute ignorance and the abject slavery of the South are more in conformity with the high purposes and destiny of immortal, rational, human beings, than the educated, the independent, free labor of the North? There is a more tangible and irritating cause of grievance at the North. Free blacks are constantly employed in the vessels of the North, generally as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a Southern port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison, till the vessel is again ready to sail. This is not only irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr. Hoar's mission, some time ago, to South Carolina, was a well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. The North thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional; and as the cases occur constantly, and frequently, they regard it as a great grievance. Now, Sir, so far as any of these grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the South and the North. Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody that, in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear with pain, and anguish, and distress, the word "secession," especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg everybody's pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the crush of the universe. There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country; is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountains melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven, what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its twofold character. Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreement of all members of this great republic to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist? with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other House of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle still to tower? Or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we, of this generation, should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the Government and the harmony of that Union, which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. What is to become of the army? What is to become of the navy? What is to become of the public lands? How is each of the thirty States to defend itself? I know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that there should be, a Southern Confederacy. I do not mean, when I allude to this statement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things. I do not mean to say that it is true, but I have heard it suggested elsewhere, that that idea has originated a design to separate. I am sorry, Sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights of human imagination. But the idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation, assigning the slave States to one side, and the free States to the other. Sir, there is not, I may express myself too strongly, perhaps, but some things, some moral things, are almost as impossible as other natural or physical things; and I hold the idea of a separation of these States, those that are free to form one government, and those that are slaveholding to form another, as a moral impossibility. We could not separate the States by any such line, if we were to draw it. We could not sit down here to-day and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country. There are natural causes that would keep and tie us together, and there are social and domestic relations which we could not break if we would, and which we should not if we could. Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the present moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that ere long America will be in the valley of the Mississippi. Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free States at its source, and its branches, and slave States down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? Pray, Sir, pray, sir, let me say to the people of this country that these things are worthy of their pondering and of their consideration. Here, Sir, are five millions of freemen in the free States north of the river Ohio: Can any body suppose that this population can be severed, by a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign and an alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows where, upon the lower banks of the Mississippi? What would become of Missouri? Will she join the arrondissement of the slave States? Shall the man from the Yellow Stone and the Platte be connected, in the new Republic, with the man who lives on the southern extremity of the Cape of Florida? Sir, I am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. I dislike it, I have an utter disgust for it. I would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up! To break up this great Government, to dismember this glorious country, to astonish Europe with an act of folly such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any Government or any People! No, Sir; no, sir! There will be no secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession. Sir, I hear there is to be a convention held at Nashville. I am bound to believe that if worthy gentlemen meet at Nashville in convention their object will be to adopt counsels conciliatory; to advise the South to forbearance and moderation, and to advise the North to forbearance and moderation; and to inculcate principles of brotherly love and affection, and attachment to the Constitution of the country as it now is. I believe, if the convention meet at all, it will be for this purpose; for certainly, if they meet for any purpose hostile to the Union, they have been singularly inappropriate in their selection of a place. I remember, Sir, that, when the treaty was concluded between France and England, at the peace of Amiens, a stern old Englishman and an orator, who regarded the conditions of the peace as ignominious to England, said in the House of Commons, that if King William could know the terms of that treaty, he would turn in his coffin! Let me commend this saying of Mr. Windham, in all its emphasis and in all its force, to any persons, who shall meet at Nashville for the purpose of concerting measures for the overthrow of this Union, over the bones of Andrew Jackson! Sir, I wish now to make two remarks, and hasten to a conclusion. I wish to say, in regard to Texas, that if it should be, hereafter, at any time, the pleasure of the Government of Texas to cede to the United States a portion, larger or smaller, of her territory which lies adjacent to New Mexico, and north of 36o 30' of north latitude, to be formed into free States, for a fair equivalent in money or in the payment of her debt, I think it an object well worthy the consideration of Congress, and I shall be happy to concur in it myself, if I should be in the public counsels of the country at that time. I have one other remark to make. In my observations upon slavery as it has existed in the country, and as it now exists, I have expressed no opinion of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will say, however, though I have nothing to propose, because I do not deem myself so competent as other gentlemen to take any lead, that if any gentleman from the South shall propose a scheme of colonization, to be carried on by this government upon a large scale, for the transportation of free colored people to any colony or any place in the world, I should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that object. Nay, Sir, following an example set more than twenty years ago by a great man, then a Senator from New York, I would return to Virginia, and through her for the benefit of the whole South, the money received from the lands and territories ceded by her to this Government, for any such purpose as to relieve, in whole or in part, or in any way to diminish or deal beneficially with, the free colored population of the Southern States. I have said that I honor Virginia for her cession of this territory. There have been received into the treasury of the United States eighty millions of dollars, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands ceded by her. If the residue should be sold at the same rate, the whole aggregate will exceed two hundred millions of dollars. If Virginia and the South see fit to adopt any proposition to relieve themselves from the free people of color among them, or such as may be made free, they have my free consent that the Government shall pay them any sum of money out of its proceeds, which may be adequate to the purpose. And now, Mr. President, I draw these observations to a close. I have spoken freely, and I meant to do so. I have sought to make no display; I have sought to enliven the occasion by no animated discussion, nor have I attempted any train of elaborate argument. I have wished only to speak my sentiments, fully and at large, being desirous, once and for all, to let the Senate know, and to let the country know, the opinions and sentiments which I entertain on all these subjects. These opinions are not likely to be suddenly changed. If there be any future service that I can render to the country, consistently with these sentiments and opinions, I shall cheerfully render it. If there be not, I shall still be glad to have had the opportunity to disburden my conscience from the bottom of my heart, and to make known every political sentiment that therein exists. And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in these caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men. Never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this Constitution, and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain, which is destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages to come. We have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded by law, and by judicature, and defended by the whole affections of the people. No monarchical throne presses these States together; no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last for ever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man's liberty; it has crushed no State. Its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. Large before, the country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger. This republic now extends, with a vast breadth, across the whole continent. The two great seas of the world wash the one and the other shore. We realize, on a mighty scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental border of the buckler of Achilles: - "Now, the broad shield complete, the artist crown'd With his last band, and poured the ocean round; In living silver seem'd the waves to roll, And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole."Webster, D. (2013). The Union Must be Preserved. Truth Based Logic. Retrieved from: 1According to the text, what is the author’s objective in lines 1 to 146?The author states, “Now, Sir, in this state of sentiment upon the general nature of slavery lies the cause of a great part of those unhappy divisions, exasperations, and reproaches, which find vent and support in different parts of the Union. Slavery does exist in the United States. It did exist in the States before the adoption of this Constitution, and at that time”. What is the author, according to the text, referring to when he makes this statement?The author states, “The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society became less strong and labor less productive; and, therefore, we find from all the eminent men of the time the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery is an evil”. According to the text, what does he mean by this?According to the text, what evidence does the author provide for the abolition of slavery, as the author states was intended by the founding fathers?What does the author mean, according to the text, when he states, “So far as any motive consistent with honor, justice, and general judgment could act, it was the COTTON interest that gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread it, and to use its labor. I again say that that was produced by causes which we must always expect to produce like effects; the whole interest of the South became connected, more or less, with it”?The author states, “The age of cotton became the golden age of our Southern brethren. It gratified their desire for improvement and accumulation, at the same time that it excited it. The desire grew by what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eagerness for other territory, a new area or new areas, for the cultivation of the cotton crop; and measures leading to this result were brought about rapidly, one after another, under the lead of Southern men at the head of the Government, they having a majority in both branches to accomplish their ends”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?Day 2The author states, “To a certain extent it may be true; but it does seem to me that if any operation of the Government could be shown in any degree to have promoted the population, and growth, and wealth of the North, it is much more sure that there are sundry important and distinct operations of the Government, about which no man can doubt, tending to promote, and which absolutely have promoted, the increase of the slave interest and the slave territory of the South”. According to the text, what does the author referring to in this statement?According to the text, what is the author referring to when he states, “They leave us here, bound in honor and conscience by the resolutions of annexation; they leave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the obligations in favor of slavery which they voted us into, or else the greater odium of violating those obligations, while they are at home making capital and rousing speeches for free soil and no slavery”?The author states, “To the full extent of those guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations contained in the Constitution in favor of the slave-holding States which are already in the Union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and beyond the reach of Congress. It is a concern of the States themselves; they have never submitted it to Congress, and Congress has no rightful power over it.” According to the text, what does he mean by this?The author states, “But now that, under certain conditions, Texas is in the Union, with all her territory, as a slave State, with a solemn pledge, also, that, if she shall be divided into many States, those States may come in as slave States south of 36o 30', how are we to deal with this subject? I know no way of honest legislation, when the proper time comes for the enactment, but to carry into effect all that we have stipulated to do”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this and what is the author implying?Day 3According to the text, who is the author addressing in lines 657 to 664 and what is the author’s position regarding these issues?According to the author, in lines 676 to 692, in which way does the slave issue address deeper rooted issues of state and federal powers?According to the text, in lines 700 to 707, what is the author’s position for a proposition to abolish slavery in the states?The author states, “The first and gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution, recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that, by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to acquire territory and extend her slave population, the North finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the South and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compact of the Constitution”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this powerful statement? Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)”Week 5Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionHow, primarily, did the Industrial Revolution aide in the division between the South and the North, which led to the Civil War?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)InalienableControvertingPropoundedRequisiteTreasonabledebarred,blandishmentsAdornmentEminentEmolumentsEpitomeAvariciousEnfeeblingReprehensibleEnervateconjecturecountenancedabasedStephen A. Douglas, “Popular Sovereignty Should Settle the Slavery Question” (1858) Helper, H. “The Impending Crisis of the South” (1857)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A4.aExpansion and Reform (1801-1861)Week 5 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore ways in which the diverse economies of the North and South led to the civil war. The North, which was mostly industrial, relied less on the institution of slavery. The Southern economy, however, was mostly based on agriculture and was fueled by slavery. Essentially, if slavery were outlawed, by Northern forces in congress, southerners would no longer benefit from the institution of slavery and the Southern economy would be viable to collapse. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how the industrial revolution, which spread like wildfire in the North and was slow to catch on in the South, created disunity in America. The Northerners, which no longer relied on the economic system of slavery, condemned slavery, but to the Southerners slavery was essential to preserve their economy, which was largely agricultural. By forcing abolition, Northerners were also forcing the industrialization of the South. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 158 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 159- 381 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-100 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what degree did the diverse economies of the North and South contribute to conflicts, which led to the civil war? Popular Sovereignty should settle the slavery question Stephen Douglas (1858)LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It is now nearly four months since the canvass between Mr. Lincoln and myself commenced. On the 16th of June the Republican Convention assembled at Springfield and nominated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he laid down what he understood to be the Republican creed and the platform on which he proposed to stand during the contest. The principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln's were: First, that this government could not endure permanently divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it; that they must all become free or all become slave; all become one thing or all become the other, otherwise this Union could not continue to exist. I give you his opinions almost in the identical language he used. His second proposition was a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision; urging as an especial reason for his opposition to that decision that it deprived the negroes of the rights and benefits of that clause in the Constitution of the United States which guarantees to the citizens of each State, all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the several States. On the 10th of July I returned home, and delivered a speech to the people of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my purpose to appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain the course I had pursued in Congress. In that speech I joined issue with Mr. Lincoln on the points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue clear and distinct made up between us on these two propositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the 11th of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some length, and re-affirming the positions which he had taken in his Springfield speech. In that Chicago speech he even went further than he had before, and uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on an equality with the white man. (That's so.) He adopted in support of this position the argument which Lovejoy and Codding, and other Abolition lecturers had made familiar in the northern and central portions of the State, to wit: that the Declaration of Independence having?[4] declared all men free and equal, by Divine law, also that negro equality was an inalienable right, of which they could not be deprived. He insisted, in that speech, that the Declaration of Independence included the negro in the clause asserting that all men were created equal, and went so far as to say that if one man was allowed to take the position, that it did not include the negro, others might take the position that it did not include other men. He said that all these distinctions between this man and that man, this race and the other race, must be discarded, and we must all stand by the Declaration of Independence, declaring that all men were created equal.The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lincoln and myself on three points, we went before the people of the State. During the following seven weeks, between the Chicago speeches and our first meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large assemblages of the people in many of the central counties. In my speeches I confined myself closely to those three positions which he had taken controverting his proposition that this Union could not exist as our fathers made it, divided into free and slave States, controverting his proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision, and controverting his proposition that the Declaration of Independence included and meant the negroes as well as the white men, when it declared all men to be created equal. (Cheers for Douglas.) I supposed at that time that these propositions constituted a distinct issue between us, and that the opposite positions we had taken upon them we would be willing to be held to in every part of the State. I never intended to waver one hair's breadth from that issue either in the north or the south, or wherever I should address the people of Illinois. I hold that when the time arrives that I cannot proclaim my political creed in the same terms not only in the northern but the southern part of Illinois, not only in the northern but the southern States, and wherever the American flag waves over American soil, that then there must be something wrong in that creed. (``Good, good,'' and cheers.) So long as we live under a common constitution, so long as we live in a confederacy of sovereign and equal States, joined together as one for certain purposes, that any political creed is radically wrong which cannot be proclaimed in every State, and every section of that Union alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my several speeches, analyzed them, and pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine that this government was in violation of the law of God which says, that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slander upon the immortal framers of our constitution. I then said, have often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion this government can endure forever, (good) divided into free and slave States as our fathers made it,---each State having the right to prohibit, abolish or sustain slavery just as it pleases. (``Good,'' ``right,'' and cheers.) This government was made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself, and that right was conferred with understanding and expectation that inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct local and domestic institutions, corresponding to its wants and interests. Our fathers knew when they made the government, that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the green mountains of Vermont, were unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as we know now, that the laws and institutions which would be well adapted to the beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to the mining regions of California. They knew that in a Republic as broad as this, having such a variety of soil, climate and interest, there must necessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws---the policy and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For this reason this Union was established on the right of each State to do as it pleased on the question of slavery, and every other question; and the various States were not allowed to complain of, much less interfere, with the policy of their neighbors. (``That's good doctrine,'' ``that's the doctrine,'' and cheers.)Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln and the abolitionists of this day had prevailed when the Constitution was made, what would have been the result? Imagine for a moment that Mr. Lincoln had been a member of the convention that framed the Constitution of the United States, and that when its members were about to sign that wonderful document, he had arisen in that convention as he did at Springfield this summer, and addressing himself to the President, had said ``a house divided against itself cannot stand; (laughter) this government divided into free and slave States cannot endure, they must all be free or all be slave, they must all be one thing or all be the other, otherwise, it is a violation of the law of God, and cannot continue to exist;''---suppose Mr. Lincoln had convinced that body of sages, that that doctrine was sound, what would have been the result? Remember that the Union was then composed of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding and one free. Do you think that the one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have secured the abolition of slavery? (No, no.) On the other hand, would not the twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one free State, and thus have fastened slavery, by a Constitutional provision, on every foot of the American Republic forever? You see that if this abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln had prevailed when the government was made, it would have established slavery as a permanent institution, in all the States whether they wanted it or not, and the question for us to determine in Illinois now as one of the free States is, whether or not we are willing, having become the majority section, to enforce a doctrine on the minority, which we would have resisted with our heart's blood had it been attempted on us when we were in a minority. (``We never will,'' ``good, good,'' and cheers.) How has the South lost her power as the majority section in this Union, and how have the free States gained it, except under the operation of that principle which declares the right of the people of each State and each territory to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. It was under that principle that slavery was abolished in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it was under that principle that one half of the slaveholding States became free; it was under that principle that the number of free States increased until from being one out of twelve States, we have grown to be the majority of States of the whole Union, with the power to control the House of Representatives and Senate, and the power, consequently, to elect a President by Northern votes without the aid of a Southern State. Having obtained this power under the operation of that great principle, are you now prepared to abandon the principle and declare that merely because we have the power you will wage a war against the Southern States and their institutions until you force them to abolish slavery everywhere. (No, never, and great applause.)After having pressed these arguments home on Mr. Lincoln for seven weeks, publishing a number of my speeches, we met at Ottawa in joint discussion, and he then began to crawfish a little, and let himself down. (Immense applause.) I there propounded certain questions to him. Amongst others, I asked him whether he would vote for the admission of any more slave States in the event the people wanted them. He would not answer. (Applause and laughter.) I then told him that if he did not answer the question there I would renew it at Freeport, and would then trot him down into Egypt and again put it to him. (Cheers.) Well, at Freeport, knowing that the next joint discussion took place in Egypt, and being in dread of it, he did answer my question in regard to no more slave States in a mode which he hoped would be satisfactory to me, and accomplish the object he had in view. I will show you what his answer was. After saying that he was not pledged to the Republican doctrine of ``no more slave States,'' he declared.I state to you freely, frankly, that I should be exceedingly sorry to ever be put in the position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there never would be another slave State admitted into this Union.Here, permit me to remark, that I do not think the people will ever force him into a position against his will. (Great laughter and applause.) He went on to say:But I must add in regard to this, that if slavery shall be kept out of the territory during the territorial existence of any one given territory and then the people should, having a fair chance and clear field when they come to adopt a constitution, if they should do the extraordinary thing of adopting a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative if we own the country, but we must admit it into the Union.That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed would satisfy the old-line Whigs, composed of Kentuckians and Virginians, down in the southern part of the State. Now, what does it amount to? I desired to know whether he would vote to allow Kansas to come into the Union with slavery or not as her people desired. He would not answer; but in a round about way said that if slavery should be kept out of a territory during the whole of its territorial existence, and then the people, when they adopted a State constitution, asked admission as a slave State, he supposed he would have to let the State come in. The case I put to him was an entirely different one. I desired to know whether he would vote to admit a State if Congress had not prohibited slavery in it during its territorial existence, as Congress never pretended to do under Clay's compromise measures of 1850. He would not answer, and I have not yet been able to get an answer from him. (Laughter, ``he'll answer this time,'' ``he's afraid to answer,'' etc.) I have asked him whether he would vote to admit Nebraska if her people asked to come in as a State with a constitution recognizing slavery, and he refused to answer. (``Put him through,'' ``give it to him,'' and cheers.) I have put the question to him with reference to New Mexico, and he has not uttered a word in answer. I have enumerated the territories, one after another, putting the same question to him with reference to each, and he has not said, and will not say, whether, if elected to Congress, he will vote to admit any territory now in existence with such a constitution as her people may adopt. He invents a case which does not exist, and cannot exist under this government, and answers it; but he will not answer the question I put to him in connection with any of the territories now in existence. (``Hurrah for Douglas,'' ``three cheers for Douglas.'') The contract we entered into with Texas when she entered the Union obliges us to allow four States to be formed out of the old State, and admitted with or without slavery as the respective inhabitants of each may determine. I have asked Mr. Lincoln three times in our joint discussions whether he would vote to redeem that pledge, and he has never yet answered. He is as silent as the grave on the subject. (Laughter, ``Lincoln must answer,'' ``he will,'' &c.) He would rather answer as to a state of the case which will never arise than commit himself by telling what he would do in a case which would come up for his action soon after his election to Congress. (``He'll never have to act on any question,'' and laughter.) Why can he not say whether he is willing to allow the people of each State to have slavery or not as they please, and to come into the Union when they have the requisite population as a slave or a free State as they decide? I have no trouble in answering the question. I have said everywhere, and now repeat it to you, that if the people of Kansas want a slave State they have a right, under the constitution of the United States, to form such a State, and I will let them come into the Union with slavery or without, as they determine. (``That's right,'' ``good,'' ``hurrah for Douglas all the time,'' and cheers.) If the people of any other territory desire slavery let them have it. If they do not want it let them prohibit it. It is their business not mine. (``That's the doctrine.'') It is none of your business in Missouri whether Kansas shall adopt slavery or reject it. It is the business of her people and none of yours. The people of Kansas has as much right to decide that question for themselves as you have in Missouri to decide it for yourselves, or we in Illinois to decide it for ourselves. (``That's what we believe,'' ``We stand by that,'' and cheers.)And here I may repeat what I have said in every speech I have made in Illinois, that I fought the Lecompton constitution to its death, not because of the slavery clause in it, but because it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas. I said then in Congress, and I say now, that if the people of Kansas want a slave State, they have a right to have it. If they wanted the Lecompton constitution, they had a right to have it. I was opposed to that constitution because I did not believe that it was the act and deed of the people, but on the contrary, the act of a small, pitiful minority acting in the name of the majority. When at last it was determined to send that constitution back to the people, and accordingly, in August last, the question of admission under it was submitted to a popular vote, the citizens rejected it by nearly ten to one, thus showing conclusively, that I was right when I said that the Lecompton constitution was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. (Cheers.)I hold that there is no power on earth, under our system of government, which has the right to force a constitution upon an unwilling people. (That's so.) Suppose there had been a majority of ten to one in favor of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there had been an abolition President, and an abolition administration, and by some means the abolitionists succeeded in forcing an abolition constitution on those slaveholding people, would the people of the South have submitted to that act for one instant. (No, no.) Well, if you of the South would not have submitted to it a day, how can you, as fair, honorable and honest men insist on putting a slave constitution on a people who desire a free State. (``That's so,'' and cheers.) Your safety and ours depend upon both of us acting in good faith, and living up to that great principle which asserts the right of every people to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. (``That's the doctrine,'' and immense applause.)Most of the men who denounced my course on the Lecompton question, objected to it not because I was not right, but because they thought it expedient at that time, for the sake of keeping the party together, to do wrong. (Cheers.) I never knew the Democratic party to violate any one of its principles out of policy or expediency, that it did not pay the debt with sorrow. There is no safety or success for our party unless we always to right, and trust the consequences to God and the people. I chose not to depart from principle for the sake of expediency in the Lecompton question, and I never intend to do it on that or any other question. (Good.)But I am told that I would have been all right if I had only voted for the English bill after Lecompton was killed. (Laughter and cheers.) You know a general pardon was granted to all political offenders on the Lecompton question, provided they would only vote for the English bill. I did not accept the benefits of that pardon, for the reason that I had been right in the course I had pursued, and hence did not require any forgiveness. Let us see how the result has been worked out. English brought in his bill referring the Lecompton Constitution back to the people, with the provision that if it was rejected Kansas should be kept out of the Union until she had the full ratio of population required for a member of Congress, thus in effect declaring that if the people of Kansas would only consent to come into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution, and have a slave State when they did not want it, they should be admitted with a population of 35,000, but that if they were so obstinate as to insist upon having just such a constitution as they thought best, and to desire admission as a free State, then they should be kept out until they had 93,420 inhabitants. I then said, and I now repeat to you, that whenever Kansas has people enough for a slave State she has people enough for a free State. (``That's the doctrine all over,'' ``Hurrah for Douglas.'') I was and am willing to adopt the rule that no State shall ever come into the Union until she has the full ratio of population for a member of Congress, provided that rule is made uniform. I made that proposition in the Senate last winter, but a majority of the Senators would not agree to it; and I then said to them if you will not adopt the general rule I will not consent to make an exception of Kansas.I hold that it is a violation of the fundamental principles of this government to throw the weight of federal power into the scale, either in favor of the free or the slave States. Equality among all the States of this Union is a fundamental principle in our political system. We have no more right to throw the weight of the federal government into the scale in favor of the slaveholding than the free States, and last of all should our friends in the South consent for a moment that Congress should withhold its powers either way when they know that there is a majority against them in both Houses of Congress.Fellow citizens, how have the supporters of the English bill stood up to their pledges not to admit Kansas until she obtained a population of 93,420 in the event she rejected the Lecompton constitution? How? The newspapers inform us that English himself, whilst conducting his canvass for re-election, and in order to secure it, pledged himself to his constituents that if returned he would disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into the Union with such population as she might have when she made application. (Laughter and applause.) We are informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress in all the States where elections have recently been held, was pledged against the English bill, with perhaps one or two exceptions. Now, if I had only done as these Anti-Lecompton men who voted for the English bill in Congress, pledging themselves to refuse to admit Kansas if she refused to become a slave State until she had a population of 93,420, and then returned to their people, forfeited their pledge, and made a new pledge to admit Kansas at any time she applied, without regard to population, I would have had no trouble. You saw the whole power and patronage of the federal government wielded in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to re-elect Anti-Lecompton men to Congress who voted against Lecompton, then voted for the English bill, and then denounced the English bill, and pledged themselves to their people to disregard it. (Good.) My sin consists in not having given a pledge, and then in not having afterwards forfeited it. For that reason, in this State, every postmaster, every route agent, every collector of the ports, and every federal office holder, forfeits his head the moment he expresses a preference for the Democratic candidates against Lincoln and his abolition associates. (That's so, and cheers.) A Democratic Administration which we helped to bring into power, deems it consistent with its fidelity to principle and its regard to duty, to wield its power in this State in behalf of the Republican abolition candidates in every country and every Congressional district against the Democratic party. All I have to say in reference to the matter is, that if that administration have not regard enough for principle, if they are not sufficiently attached to the creed of the Democratic party to bury forever their personal hostilities in order to succeed in carrying out our glorious principles, I have. (Good, good and cheers.) I have no personal difficulties with Mr. Buchanan or his cabinet. He chose to make certain recommendations to Congress as he had a right to do on the Lecompton question. I could not vote in favor of them. I had as much right to judge for myself how I should vote as he had how he should recommend. He undertook to say to me, if you do not vote as I tell you, I will take off the heads of your friends. (Laughter.) I replied to him, ``you did not elect me, I represent Illinois and I am accountable to Illinois, as my constituency, and to God, but not to the President or to any other power on earth.'' (Good, good, and vociferous applause.)And now this warfare is made on me because I would not surrender my connections of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and receive the orders of the executive authorities how I should vote in the Senate of the United States. (``Never do it,'' ``three cheers,'' &c.) I hold that an attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is subversive of the principles of our constitution. (``That's right.'') The Executive department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is independent of the President. In matters of legislation the President has a veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and treaties the Senate has a veto on the President. He has no more right to tell me how I shall vote on his appointments than I have to tell him whether he shall veto or approve a bill that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recognize the right of the Executive to say to a Senator, ``do this, or I will take off the heads of your friends,'' you convert this government from a republic into a despotism. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Whenever you recognize the right of a President to say to a member of Congress, ``vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against you at home which will crush you,'' you destroy the independence of the representative, and convert him into a tool of Executive power. (``That's so,'' and applause.) I resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of a Senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak, or a vote to give. Yet, Mr. Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota of Democratic principles out of revenge or hostility to his course. (``Good, good, three cheers for Douglas.'') I stand by the platform of the Democratic party, and by its organization, and support its nominees. If there are any who choose to bolt, the fact only shows that they are not as good Democrats as I am. (``That's so,'' ``good,'' and applause.)My friends, there never was a time when it was as important for the Democratic party, for all national men, to rally and stand together as it is to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past differences and continuing the one question of slavery, and when we find sectional men thus uniting, we should unite to resist them and their treasonable designs. Such was the case in 1850, when Clay left the quiet and peace of his home, and again entered upon public life to quell agitation and restore peace to a distracted Union. Then we Democrats, with Cass at our head, welcomed Henry Clay, whom the whole nation regarded as having been preserved by God for the times. He became our leader in that great fight, and we rallied around him the same as the Whigs rallied around old Hickory in 1832, to put down nullification. (Cheers.) Thus you see that whilst Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times about banks, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, all united as a band of brothers when the peace, harmony, or integrity of the Union was imperiled. (Tremendous applause.) It was so in 1850, when abolitionism had even so far divided this country, North and South, as to endanger the peace of the Union; Whigs and Democrats united in establishing the compromise measures of that year, and restoring tranquillity and good feeling. These measures passed on the joint action of the two parties. They rested on the great principle that the people of each State and each territory should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. You Whigs and we Democrats justified them in that principle. In 1854, when it became necessary to organize the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, I brought forward the bill on the same principle. In the Kansas-Nebraska bill you find it declared to be the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into any State or territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. (``That's so,'' and cheers.) I stand on that same platform in 1858 that I did in 1850, 1854, and 1856. The Washington Union, pretending to be the organ of the Administration, in the number of the 5th of this month, devotes three columns and a half to establish these propositions: First, that Douglas, in his Freeport speech, held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska bill in 1854; second, that in 1854 Douglas justified the Nebraska bill upon the ground that it was based upon the same principle as Clay's compromise measures of 1850. The Union thus proved that Douglas was the same in 1858 that he was in 1856, 1854, and 1850, and consequently argued that he was never a Democrat. (Great laughter.) Is it not funny that I was never a Democrat? (Renewed laughter.) There is no pretence that I have changed a hair's breadth. The Union proves by my speeches that I explained the compromise measures of 1850 just as I do now, and that I explained the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, and yet says that I am not a Democrat, and cannot be trusted, because I have not changed during the whole of that time. It has occurred to me that in 1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska bill was considered a pretty good Democrat. (Cheers.) It has occurred to me that in 1856, when I was exerting every nerve and every energy for James Buchanan, standing on the same platform then that I do now, that I was a pretty good Democrat. (Renewed applause.) They now tell me that I am not a Democrat, because I assert that the people of a territory, as well as those of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery can or can not exist in such territory. Let me read what James Buchanan said on that point when he accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 1856. In his letter of acceptance, he used the following language:The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived as it has been from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a territory like those of a state, shall decide for themselves WHETHER SLAVERY SHALL OR SHALL NOT EXIST WITHIN THEIR LIMITS.Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question he propounded to me before I commenced speaking. (Vociferous shouts of applause.) Of course no man will consider it an answer, who is outside of the Democratic organization, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put abolitionists into power over Democrats. But whether Dr. Hope considers it an answer or not, every fair minded man will see that James Buchanan has answered the question, and has asserted that the people of a territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. I answer specifically if you want a further answer, and say that while under the decision of the Supreme Court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, slaves are property like all other property and can be carried into territory of the United States the same as any other description of property, yet when you get them there they are subject to the local law of the territory just like all other property. You will find in a recent speech delivered by that able and eloquent statesman, Hon. Jefferson Davis, at Bangor, Maine, that he took the same view of this subject that I did in my Freeport speech. He there said:If the inhabitants of any territory should refuse to enact such laws and police regulations as would give security to their property or to his, it would be rendered more or less valueless in proportion to the difficulties of holding it without such protection. In the case of property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave property, the insecurity would be so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. Therefore, though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it would follow that the owner would be practically debarred, by the circumstances of the case, from taking slave property into a territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much for the oft repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon any community.You will also find that the distinguished Speaker of the present House of Representatives, Hon. Jas. L. Orr, construed the Kansas and Nebraska bill in this same way in 1856, and also that great intellect of the South, Alex. H. Stephens, put the same construction upon it in Congress that I did in my Freeport speech. The whole South are rallying to the support of the doctrine that if the people of a Territory want slavery they have a right to have it, and if they do not want it that no power on earth can force it upon them. I hold that there is no principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of freedom than that which says that no institution, no law, no constitution, should be forced on an unwilling people contrary to their wishes; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska bill contains that principle. It is the great principle contained in that bill. It is the principle on which James Buchanan was made President. Without that principle he never would have been made President of the United States. I will never violate or abandon that doctrine if I have to stand alone. (Hurrah for Douglas.) I have resisted the blandishments and threats of power on the one side, and seduction on the other, and have stood immovably for that principle, fighting for it when assailed by Northern mobs, or threatened by Southern hostility. (``That's the truth,'' and cheers.) I have defended it against the North and the South, and I will defend it against whoever assails it, and I will follow it wherever its logical conclusions lead me. (``So will we all,'' ``hurrah for Douglas.'') I say to you that there is but one hope, one safety for this country, and that is to stand immovably by that principle which declares the right of each State and each territory to decide these questions for themselves. (Hear him, hear him.) This government was founded on that principle, and must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded.But the Abolition party really think that under the Declaration of Independence the negro is equal to the white man, and that negro equality is an inalienable right conferred by the Almighty, and hence, that all human laws in violation of it are null and void. With such men it is no use for me to argue. I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to negroes at all when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians, nor the Fejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. (``It's so,'' ``it's so,'' and cheers.) They alluded to men of European birth and European descent---to white men, and to none others, when they declared that doctrine. (``That's the truth.'') I hold that this government was established on the white basis. It was established by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others. But it does not follow, by any means, that merely because the negro is not a citizen, and merely because he is not our equal, that, therefore, he should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow, that we ought to extend to the negro race, and to all other dependent races all the rights, all the privileges, and all the immunities which they can exercise consistently with the safety of society. Humanity requires that we should give them all these privileges; christianity commands that we should extend those privileges to them. The question then arises what are those privileges, and what is the nature and extent of them. My answer is that that is a question which each State must answer for itself. We in Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried slavery, kept it up for twelve years, and finding that it was not profitable we abolished it for that reason, and became a free State. We adopted in its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall not be a slave and shall not be a citizen. We have a right to adopt that policy. For my part I think it is a wise and sound policy for us. You in Missouri must judge for yourselves whether it is a wise policy for you. If you choose to follow our example, very good; if you reject it, still well, it is your business, not ours. So with Kentucky. Let Kentucky adopt a policy to suit herself. If we do not like it we will keep away from it, and if she does not like ours let her stay at home, mind her own business and let us alone. If the people of all the States will act on that great principle, and each State mind its own business, attend to its own affairs, take care of its own negroes and not meddle with its neighbors, then there will be peace between the North and the South, the East and the West, throughout the whole Union. (Cheers.) Why can we not thus have peace? Why should we thus allow a sectional party to agitate this country, to array the North against the South, and convert us into enemies instead of friends, merely that a few ambitious men may ride into power on a sectional hobby? How long is it since these ambitious Northern men wished for a sectional organization? Did any one of them dream of a sectional party as long as the North was the weaker section and the South the stronger? Then all were opposed to sectional parties; but the moment the North obtained the majority in the House and Senate by the admission of California, and could elect a President without the aid of Southern votes, that moment ambitious Northern men formed a scheme to excite the North against the South, and make the people be governed in their votes by geographical lines, thinking that the North, being the stronger section, would outvote the South, and consequently they, the leaders, would ride into office on a sectional hobby. I am told that my hour is out. It was very short.Douglas, S. (2013). Slavery Should Not Be Allowed to Spread. The Seventh Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Retrieved from 1The author states, “So long as we live under a common constitution, so long as we live in a confederacy of sovereign and equal States, joined together as one for certain purposes, that any political creed is radically wrong which cannot be proclaimed in every State, and every section of that Union alike”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?The author states, “This government was made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself, and that right was conferred with understanding and expectation that inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct local and domestic institutions, corresponding to its wants and interests”. According to the text, what is the author referring to when he states this?The author states, “Having obtained this power under the operation of that great principle, are you now prepared to abandon the principle and declare that merely because we have the power you will wage a war against the Southern States and their institutions until you force them to abolish slavery everywhere.” In which way, according to the text, does the abolition of slavery affect Southern states and their institutions?According to the text, what is the author’s main argument regarding the issue of slavery?Day 2The author states, “I hold that it is a violation of the fundamental principles of this government to throw the weight of federal power into the scale, either in favor of the free or the slave States. Equality among all the States of this Union is a fundamental principle in our political system”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?According to lines 270 to 272, who does the author blame for the disunity between the North and the South?According to the author, in which way can disunity between the north and south be solved?According to the text, what does the author claim as Lincoln’s three main errors and how does the author substantiate his claims?CHAPTER IX. COMMERCIAL CITIES--SOUTHERN COMMERCE.????????OUR theme is a city--a great Southern importing, exporting, and manufacturing city, to be located at some point or port on the coast of the Carolinas, Georgia or Virginia, where we can carry on active commerce, buy, sell, fabricate, receive the profits which accrue from the exchange of our own commodities, open facilities for direct communication with foreign countries, and establish all those collateral sources of wealth, utility, and adornment, which are the usual concomitants of a metropolis, and which add so very materially to the interest and importance of a nation. Without a city of this kind, the South can never develop her commercial resources nor attain to that eminent position to which those vast resources would otherwise exalt her. According to calculations based upon reasonable estimates, it is owing to the lack of a great commercial city in the South, that we are now annually drained of more than One Hundred and Twenty Millions of Dollars! We should, however, take into consideration the negative loss as well as the positive. Especially should we think of the influx of emigrants, of the visits of strangers and cosmopolites, of the patronage to hotels and public halls, of the profits of travel and transportation, of the emoluments of foreign and domestic trade, and of numerous other advantages which have their origin exclusively in wealthy, enterprising, and densely populated cities.????????Nothing is more evident than the fact, that our people have never entertained a proper opinion of the importance of home cities. Blindly, and greatly to our own injury, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars towards the erection of mammoth cities at the North, while our own magnificent bays and harbors have been most shamefully disregarded and neglected. Now, instead of carrying all our money to New-York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Cincinnati, suppose we had kept it on the south side of Mason and Dixon's line--as we would have done, had it not been for slavery--and had disbursed it in the upbuilding of Norfolk, Beaufort, Charleston, or Savannah, how much richer, better, greater, would the South have been to-day! How much larger and more intelligent would have been our population. How many hundred thousand natives of the South would now be thriving at home, instead of adding to the wealth and political power of other parts of the Union. How much greater would be the number and length of our railroads, canals, turnpikes, and telegraphs. How much greater would be the extent and diversity of our manufactures. How much greater would be the grandeur, and how much larger would be the number of our churches, theatres, schools, colleges, lyceums, banks, hotels, stores, and private dwellings. How many more clippers and steamships would we have sailing on the ocean, how vastly more reputable would we be abroad, how infinitely more respectable, progressive, and happy, would we be at home.????????That we may learn something of the importance of cities in general, let us look for a moment at the great capitals of the world. What would England be without London? What would France be without Paris? What would Turkey be without Constantinople? Or, to come nearer home, what would Maryland be without Baltimore? What would Louisiana be without New Orleans? What would South Carolina be without Charleston? Do we ever think of these countries or States without thinking of their cities also? If we want to learn the news of the country, do we not go to the city, or to the city papers? Every metropolis may be regarded as the nucleus or epitome of the country in which it is situated; and the more prominent features and characteristics of a country, particularly of the people of a country, are almost always to be seen within the limits of its capital city. Almost invariably do we find the bulk of the floating funds, the best talent, and the most vigorous energies of a nation concentrated in its chief cities; and does not this concentration of wealth, energy, and talent, conduce, in an extraordinary degree, to the growth and prosperity of the nation? Unquestionably. Wealth develops wealth, energy develops energy, talent develops talent. What, then, must be the condition of those countries which do not possess the means or facilities of centralizing their material forces, their energies, and their talents? Are they not destined to occupy an inferior rank among the nations of the earth? Let the South answer.????????And now let us ask, and we would put the question particularly to Southern merchants, what do we so much need as a great Southern metropolis? Merchants of the South, slaveholders! you are the avaricious assassinators of your country! You are the channels through which more than one hundred and twenty millions of dollars--$120,000,000--are annually drained from the South and conveyed to the North. You are daily engaged in the unmanly and unpatriotic work of impoverishing the land of your birth. You are constantly enfeebling our resources and rendering us more and more tributary to distant parts of the nation. Your conduct is reprehensible, base, criminal.????????Whether Southern merchants ever think of the numerous ways in which they contribute to the aggrandizement of the North, while, at the same time, they enervate and dishonor the South, has, for many years, with us, been a matter of more than ordinary conjecture. If, as it would seem, they have never yet thought of the subject, it is certainly desirable that they should exercise their minds upon it at once. Let them scrutinize the workings of Southern money after it passes north of Mason and Dixon's line. Let them consider how much they pay to Northern railroads and hotels, how much to Northern merchants and shop-keepers, how much to Northern shippers and insurers, how much to Northern theatres, newspapers, and periodicals. Let them also consider what disposition is made of it after it is lodged in the hands of the North. Is not the greater part of it paid out to Northern manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers, for the very articles which are purchased at the North--and to the extent that this is done, are not Northern manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers directly countenanced and encouraged, while, at the same time, Southern manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers, are indirectly abased, depressed, and disabled? It is, however, a matter of impossibility, on these small pages, to notice or enumerate all the methods in which the money we deposit in the North is made to operate against us; suffice it to say that it is circulated and expended there, among all classes of the people, to the injury and impoverishment of almost every individual in the South. And yet, our cousins of the North are not, by any means, blameworthy for availing themselves of the advantages which we have voluntarily yielded to them. They have shown their wisdom in growing great at our expense, and we have shown our folly in allowing them to do so. Southern merchants, slaveholders, and slave-breeders, should be the objects of our censure; they have desolated and impoverished the South; they are now making merchandize of the vitals of their country; patriotism is a word nowhere recorded in their vocabulary; town, city, country--they care for neither; with them, self is always paramount to every other consideration.????????Having already compared slavery with freedom in the States, we will now compare it with freedom in the cities. From every person as yet unconvinced of the despicableness of slavery, we respectfully ask attention to the following letters, which fully explain themselves:--FINANCE DEPARTMENT COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, New-York, February 17th, 1857. H. R. HELPER, ESQ., Dear Sir:--????????Your letter to Mayor Wood has been handed to me for an answer, which I take pleasure in giving as follows:????????The last assessment of property in this city was made in August, 1856.????????The value of all the real and personal property in the city, according to that assessment, is $511,740,492.????????A census of the city was taken in 1855, and the number of inhabitants at that time can be obtained only from the Secretary of State.Very truly yours,A. S. CADY.STATE OF NEW-YORK, SECRETARY'S OFFICE, Albany, February 24, 1857. H. R. HELPER, ESQ., Dear Sir:--????????Yours of the 17th February, in regard to the population of the city of New York, is before me. According to the census of????????1855 the population was 629,810 1850 the population was 515,547 1845 the population was 371,223 1840 the population was 312,710 1835 the population was 268,089 1830 the population was 197,112 ????????As to the population now, you have the same facilities of judging that we have from the above table.Very truly yours,A. N. WAKEFIELD, Chief Clerk.Helper, H. (2013). The Impending Crisis of the South. Documenting the American South. Retrieved from : 1According to the text, in lines 3 to 15, what is the author urging the South to do?The author states, “Blindly, and greatly to our own injury, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars towards the erection of mammoth cities at the North, while our own magnificent bays and harbors have been most shamefully disregarded and neglected. Now, instead of carrying all our money to New-York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Cincinnati, suppose we had kept it on the south side of Mason and Dixon's line--as we would have done, had it not been for slavery--and had disbursed it in the upbuilding of Norfolk, Beaufort, Charleston, or Savannah, how much richer, better, greater, would the South have been to-day”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?According to lines 46 to 60 of the text, what does the author accuse Southern slaveholders of?The author states, “Southern merchants, slaveholders, and slave-breeders, should be the objects of our censure; they have desolated and impoverished the South; they are now making merchandize of the vitals of their country; patriotism is a word nowhere recorded in their vocabulary; town, city, country--they care for neither; with them, self is always paramount to every other consideration”. What does the author mean by this, according to the text?To what extent, according the text, does the economy of the south differ from the economy of the north?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)”Week 6Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent did the Dred Scott decision create tensions, which contributed to succession?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)ObligedValiantlyDred Scott DecisionGarblingAugmentingAscendencyLamentPerversionExtinctionImbroglioCovertTurmoilExtraneousAbraham Lincoln, “Last Joint Debate , at Alton: Mr. Lincoln’s Reply” (1858)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.6.1.12.A.4.aExpansion and Reform (1801-1861)Week 6 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to explore ways in which the Dred Scott decision further divided America. The question of whether African Americans were considered citizens of the United States would either end slavery or perpetuate the existence of slavery. To examine this, as Lincoln points out, one needs to examine the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the implied rights given, respectively. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore how the Dred Scott decision, which declares that African Americans were not citizens of the United States, created further tensions that led to succession. The issue in itself was not about whether or not African Americans were equal to whites, but whether they were subject to jurisdiction of the states and federal government, if they were considered property. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1 to six of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 7 to 25 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 26 to 36 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent was the Dred Scott decision responsible for further tensions between the North and the South?Last Joint Debate, at Alton?Mr. Lincoln’s Reply?(October 15, 1858) LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have been somewhat, in my own mind, complimented by a large portion of Judge Douglas’s speech,—I mean that portion which he devotes to the controversy between himself and the present Administration. This is the seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have met in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improving in regard to his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Administration than I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I then told him to “Give it to them with all the power he had;” and as some of them were present, I told them I would be very much obliged if they would give it to him in about the same way. I take it he has now vastly improved upon the attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter myself he has really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to re-commend to him and to them what I then commended,—to prosecute the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again: “Go it, husband!—Go it, bear!” 1 There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of the discussion,—although I do not consider it much of my business, anyway. I refer to that part of the Judge’s remarks where he understakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a cheer for having done so. I would only remind the Judge that while he is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I want to know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has. Has Douglas the exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of all questions? Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself? Is he to have an entire monopoly on that subject? 2 So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it. I have heard the Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day,—that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial manner complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never have complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it held that a negro could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wrong when he says I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thank him or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing; and Judge Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly impressed me with the belief of a predetermination on his part to misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that I was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well he could by assuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this audience what is true in regard to that matter; and the means by which they may correct me if I do not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was then endeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott decision was a portion of a system or scheme to make slavery national in this country. I pointed out what things had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact that they had decided that a negro could not be a citizen; that they had done so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotest possibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the Constitution. I stated that, without making any complaint of it at all. I then went on and stated the other points decided in the case; namely: that the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and holding him in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard to which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not; that they decided the further point that taking him into a United States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress did not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as they held, was unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things as making up the points decided in that case. I mentioned them in a lump, taken in connection with the introduction of the Nebraska bill, and the amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted down by the friends of the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and conspiracy to make the institution of slavery national. In that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and in no other connection. 3 Out of this, Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. His assertion that I made an “especial objection” (that is his exact language) to the decision on this account, is untrue in point of fact. 4 Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded to, I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right before this people as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge’s object is here by all these allusions. He knows that we are before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place of birth, and so on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day to a portion of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what is called garbling,—taking portions of a speech which, when taken by themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as expressed at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking an extract before and an extract after) will give a different idea, and the true idea I intended to convey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I will occupy the time that way. 5 You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regard to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion. I said—and it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in his published speeches:— It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this Government. We had slaves among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter remain as our standard. 6 Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and white people. 7 Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground that negroes were not included in the Declaration of Independence:— I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal,—equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all,—constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere. 8 There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,—sentiments which have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it. 9 At Galesburgh, the other day, I said in answer to Judge Douglas, that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of Independence did not include negroes in the term “all men.” I reassert it to-day. I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment that the term “all men” in the Declaration did not include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than three years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I know that it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that the Declaration of Independence was in that respect “a self-evident lie,” rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with a perfect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending to believe it, and then asserting it did not include the negro. I believe the first man who ever said it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen. A. Douglas. And now it has become the catch-word of the entire party. I would like to call upon his friends everywhere to consider how they have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely different from their former belief; to ask whether they are not being borne along by an irresistible current,—whither, they know not. 10 In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some man in Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times, to show, as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he signs himself “An Old-Line Whig,” if I remember correctly. In the first place, I would say he was not an old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with old-line Whigs. I was with the old-line Whigs from the origin to the end of that party; I became pretty well acquainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever else you could ascribe to them. I know there never was one who had not more sense than to try to show by the evidence he produces that some man had, prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not included in the term “all men” in the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidence he produces? I will bring forward his evidence and let you see what he offers by way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said negroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward part of a speech from Henry Clay,—the part of the speech of Henry Clay which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that authority. While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused to be published. I have before me an extract from that speech which constitutes the evidence this pretended “Old-Line Whig” at Chicago brought forward to show that Mr. Clay didn’t suppose the negro was included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said:— And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality asserted among the members of the human race be practically enforced and carried out. There are portions, large portions,—women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners,—that will always probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the community. That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe that in making that declaration the States that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band of patriots that ever assembled in council,—a fraud upon the confederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States whose constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808. 11 This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in the term “all men” in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in all cases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced; but he says it is true as an abstract principle in the organization of society as well as in organized society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my own. Mr. Clay says a little further on:— I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental Government and from our ancestors. But here they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to incorporating the institution of slavery among its elements. 12 Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same extract, brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence, is no such statement on his part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth which should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in societies already organized. But if I say a word about it, if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view, if, in this “organized society,” I ask to have the public eye turned upon it, if I ask, in relation to the organization of new Territories, that the public eye should be turned upon it,—forthwith I am villified as you hear me to-day. What have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay’s illustrious example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not his authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories and societies, this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in organized society holding it up to the public view and recognizing what he recognized as the great principle of free government? 13 And when this new principle—this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago—is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property, of the negro in all the States of this Union. 14 But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words of Henry Clay:— I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental Government and from our ancestors. I wish every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But here they are; the question is, how they can best be dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the institution of slavery among its elements. 15 The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in relation to laying the foundations of new societies. I have never sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of abolishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other Slave State, shall emancipate her slaves; I have proposed no such thing. But when Mr. Clay says that in laying the foundations of societies in our Territories where it does not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of slavery as an element, I insist that we have his warrant—his license—for insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in such strong and emphatic language was most hateful to him. 16 Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I said “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” The Judge has so often made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it from memory. I used this language:— We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States,—old as well as new, North as well as South. 17 That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely offensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars upon the Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are my views upon it in brief. 18 I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska bill was brought forward four years ago last January, was it not for the “avowed object” of putting an end to the slavery agitation. We were to have no more agitation in Congress; it was all to be banished to the Territories. By the way, I will remark here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole business, for there was no slavery agitation at that time to allay. We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas’s stirred it up again. But was it not understood or intimated with the “confident promise” of putting an end to the slavery agitation? Surely it was. In every speech you heard Judge Douglas make, until he got into this “imbroglio,” as they call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on that Nebraska bill was full of his felicitation that we were just at the end of the slavery agitation. The last tip of the last joint of the old serpent’s tail was just drawing out of view. But has it proved so? I have asserted that under that policy that agitation “has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.” When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than last winter? When was it as great in the country as to-day? 19 There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior degree of self-government, beyond what they had ever had before. The first object and the main one of conferring upon the people a higher degree of “self-government” is a question of fact to be determined by you in answer to a single question. Have you ever heard or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its use, the people of Kansas had with this same right of “self-government?” In its main policy and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. 20 I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a crisis should have been reached and passed. I have stated in what way I thought it would be reached and passed. I have said that it might go one way or the other. We might, by arresting the further spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it may be arrested, and that it may be placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I have expressed that as my wish. I entertain the opinion, upon evidence sufficient to my mind, that the fathers of this Government placed that institution where the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they made provision that the source of slavery—the African slave-trade—should be cut off at the end of twenty years? Why did they make provision that in all the new territory we owned at that time slavery should be forever inhibited? Why stop its spread in one direction, and cut off its source in another, if they did not look to its being placed in the course of ultimate extinction? 21 Again: the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither of these cases does the word “slavery” or “negro race” occur; but covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of significance. What is the language in regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs in about this way: “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.” 22 The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and the black race, is on the subject of the basis of representation, and there the language used is:— Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,—three-fifths of all other persons. 23 It says “persons,” not slaves, not negroes; but this “three-fifths” can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes. 24 Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is said: “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.” There again there is no mention of the word “negro” or of slavery. In all three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in the instrument, covert language is used. Language is used not suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were among us. And I understand the contemporaneous history of those times to be that covert language was used with a purpose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever,—when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution of slavery had passed from among us,—there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the Government expected and intended the institution of slavery to come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be in the course of ultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made this Government part slave and part free. Understand the sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself,—was introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making the Government they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the difficulty—the absolute impossibility—of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the Government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, when the policy that the fathers of the Government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world, the only wise policy, the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon, that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution,—I turn upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in regard to it. He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 22nd of March of the present year, 1858. I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it. I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the Free and Slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude by those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had no war out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief that we shall have war out of it, if we return to that policy? Have we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis? I maintain that we have not. I have proposed nothing more than a return to the policy of the fathers. 25 I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that result. I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I have not only made the declaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict between the States, but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I propose nothing but what has a most peaceful tendency. The quotation that I happened to make in that Springfield speech, that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” and which has proved so offensive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same thing. He tries to show that variety in the domestic institutions of the different States is necessary and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have no controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I shall very readily agree with him that it would be foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they have a cranberry law in Indiana, where they have cranberries. I should insist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia the right to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we want no such laws here. I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas or anybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and face of the country, and consequent variety in the industrial pursuits and productions of a country, require systems of law conforming to this variety in the natural features of the country. I understand quite as well as Judge Douglas, that if we here raise a barrel of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together, and makes us better friends. We like one another the more for it. And I understand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the different parts of this Union; that instead of being a thing to “divide the house,”—figuratively expressing the Union,—they tend to sustain it; they are the props of the house, tending always to hold it up. 26 But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel between these things and this institution of slavery? I do not see that there is any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels over these things? When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which I say is an element of discord in this Union? We have sometimes had peace, but when was it? It was when the institution of slavery remained quiet where it was. We have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak in thunder-tones, telling us that the policy which has given peace to the country heretofore, being returned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again. You may say, and Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing, that all this difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of office-seekers and ambitious northern politicians. He thinks we want to get “his place,” I suppose. I agree that there are office-seekers amongst us. The Bible says somewhere that we are desperately selfish. I think we would have discovered that fact without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any less so than the average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish than Judge Douglas. 27 But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard to this institution of slavery springs from office-seeking, from the mere ambition of politicians? Is that the truth? How many times have we had danger from this question? Go back to the day of the Missouri Compromise. Go back to the Nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this same slavery question. Go back to the time of the Annexation of Texas. Go back to the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will find that every time, with the single exception of the Nullification question, they sprung from an endeavor to spread this institution. There never was a party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties themselves. But does not this question make a disturbance outside of political circles? Does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder? What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts, North and South? What has raised this constant disturbance in every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society,—in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken the Government and agitated the people, to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it? If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you I will quit before they have half done so. But where is the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that disturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened our institutions,—I say, where is the philosophy or the statesmanship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? Yet this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is advocating,—that we are to care nothing about it! I ask you if it is not a false philosophy? Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most about?—a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about? 28 The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for themselves. I agree with him very readily that the different States have that right. He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes that I am contending against the right of the States to do as they please about it. Our controversy with him is in regard to the new Territories. We agree that when the States come in as States they have the right and the power to do as they please. We have no power as citizens of the Free States, or in our Federal capacity as members of the Federal Union through the General Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of the Government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the States. What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from it while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them,—that we have no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we have. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so express myself? Do we not feel an interest in getting to that outlet with such institutions as we would like to have prevail there? If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal right all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a Slave Territory, and by consequence a Slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a Free State were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How many Democrats are there about here [“A thousand”] who have left Slave States and come into the Free State of Illinois to get rid of the institution of slavery? [Another voice: “A thousand and one.”] I reckon there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating had prevailed when this country was in a Territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid of it? Where would you have found your Free State or Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in this place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the institution, where will they find the place to go to? 29 Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home,—may find some spot where they can better their condition; where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over,—in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. 30 I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what I understand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the Free and the Slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There is no foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions. The real issue in this controversy—the one pressing upon every mind—is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that it should, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time, as being wrong. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. 31 On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union save and except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold most dear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery,—by spreading it out and making it bigger? You may have a wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong,—restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example. 32 On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself “as much opposed to slavery as anybody,” I would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say to yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say anything about it in the Free States, because it is not here. You must not say anything about it in the Slave States, because it is there. You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You must not say anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of “my place.” There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the Slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for the system of gradual emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. Now, I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy. More than that, take all the argument made in favor of the system you have proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that policy carefully excluded it. Even here to-day you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas’s arguments. He says he “don’t care whether it is voted up or voted down” in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don’t care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don’t care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, his argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,—it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. 33 That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right and wrong—throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas,—that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It will hereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may have an end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the real question, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a policy looking to its perpetuation,—we can get from among that class of men and bring them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then there will soon be an end of it, and that end will be its “ultimate extinction.” Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous matter thrown out so that men can fairly see the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina once declared that when this Constitution was framed, its framers did not look to the institution existing until this day. When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history of the times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men of these days; yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this country that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly or unwillingly, purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been the most prominent instrument in changing the position of the institution of slavery which the fathers of the Government expected to come to an end ere this,—and putting it upon Brooks’s cotton-gin basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of it. 34 I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories can still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court has made the decision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it? He says it needs “police regulations,” and that admits of “unfriendly legislation.” Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation, and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to support? Can he withhold it without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. 35 I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law,—that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge’s language, it is a “barren right” which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it,—and that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catching niggers,—at least, I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive Slave law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct. I defy any man to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all.?? Lincoln, A. (2013). The Last Debate at Alton, Licoln’s Reply. Bartleby. Retrieved from 1To what extent does paragraph three of the text exhibit the complexity of the decision of Dred Scott and its’ implications, according to the text?According to paragraph three of the text, what are Lincoln’s sentiments towards the Dred Scott decision?According to paragraph three, what was Lincoln’s intention in mentioning the Dred Scott decision, in terms of its relation to slavery?The author states, “Out of this, Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of my purpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races. His assertion that I made an “especial objection” (that is his exact language) to the decision on this account, is untrue in point of fact”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?According to paragraph five of the text, to what extent did Lincoln consider himself to be an abolitionist?In paragraph six of the text, according to the author, in which way does the author justify references or lack of references in the Constitution to slavery?Day 2In which ways does paragraph 8 of the text, written by Lincoln, explore the complexity of the issue of equality and slavery?According to paragraph 10 of the text, in which way did Lincoln perceive the interpretation of the Declaration of Independence to have influence over the Dred Scott decision and in which way does he ascertain a discrepancy in the decision? The author states, “It is a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle”. According to the text, what is the author referring to and what does the author mean by this statement?According to paragraph 16, what does Lincoln suggest will happen as a result of the interpretation of Dred Scott and the Declaration of Independence?The author states, “We might, by arresting the further spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South”. According to the text, in paragraph 22, what does the author mean by this?Day 3According to paragraph 26 of the text, how does Lincoln address Douglas’s concerns regarding the imposition of laws, regarding slavery on states? In which way, according to the author, does the author contribute the interpretation of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to creating a division within America?The author states, “You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,—it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?The author states, “I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction between them”. According to the text, what is the author referring to and what does he mean by this?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)” Week 7Summative AssessmentStudents will take an assessment analyzing primary and secondary source documents of the Expansion and Reform Era and write an argument citing evidence from those source documents which they select and about what was the most important contributing factor to American disunity between 1801 and 1861.Focus QuestionWhat was the most important contributing factor to American disunity between 1801 and 1861 and why?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Joyce Appleby “National Expansion and Reform, 1815–1860” (2013)Henry Clay, “America Should Not Annex Texas” (1844)John L. O’ Sullivan, “America Should Annex Texas” (1845)Sen. John C. Calhoun, “THE CAUSES BY WHICH THE UNION IS ENDANGERED” (1850)Webster, D. “The Union Must be preserved” (1850)Stephen A. Douglas, “Popular Sovereignty Should Settle the Slavery Question” (1858) Helper, H. “The Impending Crisis of the South” (1857)Abraham Lincoln, “Last Joint Debate , at Alton: Mr. Lincoln’s Reply” (1858)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.12.A.3.a, 6.12.a.3.b, 6.12.A.3.c, 6.1.12.A.3.e, 6.12.A.3.f6.1.12.A.3.h, 6.12.C.3.a, 6.1.12.D.3.eNew Nation Expansion and Reform (1801-1861)Week 7 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to synthesize the readings of the past seven weeks.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summative AssessmentThe Civil War was caused by various reasons, other than slavery. Unfulfilled promises of the Constitution, industrialization, federal and state power struggles and the Dred Scott decision divided America.Considerations:What is your evaluation of this? What was the most important contributing factor to American disunity between 1801 and 1861? Why? What other evidence would you need to strengthen your claim?Writing TaskCiting evidence from various texts read in this unit, defend a position about what was the most important contributing factor to American disunity between 1801 and 1861.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States I Unit Overview“Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)”Summative AssessmentStudents will write an argument citing evidence from those documents in which they select and defend a position about whether the Civil War was a war over slavery and African American rights.Essential QuestionsEnduring UnderstandingsTo what extent did slavery play a role in the Civil War?To what extend did the Civil War improve the lives of African Americans?The Civil War was caused by failure to compromise, about slavery, between the north and the south, but it was also a war about power and control.Lincoln’s primary goal was unification of the Union, not slavery.Emancipation proclamation was essential in defining the civil war, because it considered slave holding states rebellious.Many southerners’ resisted reconstruction initiatives, which were meant to improve the lives of African Americans.Although African Americans were free from slavery, as a result of the civil war, they still faced oppression and opposition. Focus QuestionsWeek 1:To what extent did failure to compromise on the issue of slavery, between the north and the south, lead to the civil war? Week 2:To what degree was the primary aim of the civil war to end slavery?Week 3:In which way, primarily, did Emancipation Proclamation play a role in defining the Civil War?Week 4:To what extent, did Reconstruction initiatives improve the lives of African Americans and unite America?Week 5In which ways, if at all, was the Civil War a war over slavery and African American rights?Learning Targets-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Academic VocabularyIndispensable Commodities peculiarFoci Waned protractedRelish barring OmnibusChafing Avert PlacateContention Ample RecantedEmphatic Reiterate UnanimityJurisprudence Perpetual ContemplationEnjoins ascertain acquiescenceArbitrarily despotism erroneousDismember Intrude SuccinctlyUnduly Menaces IncitingEmphatically Perilous DauntlessWantonly staggering inducementRemonstrance ruffian atrociousSubserviency credulous phalanxPerceptible controvert countervailing garrison Vexed Fester HailedExasperating Apprehension Atrocious Feebler latent harbingerAtrocious Black codes CoercionKu Klux Clan Freedman’s Bureau TumultRoiled blatant PerpetratedDesperadersContent-Specific Vocabulary/TermsBleeding Kansas Missouri CompromiseCompromise of 1850Wilmot provisoBlack codesKu Klux ClanFreedman’s BureauReconstruction Acts of 1867Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, RH 9-10.6, RH 9-10.9, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.4.a, 6.1.12.A.4.d, 6.1.12.D.4.c, 6.12.D.4.dUnit 4-Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877) Unit OverviewUnit Rationale: In this unit, students gain an understanding of the extent to which slavery and African American rights played a role in the civil war. Students will investigate how the failure to compromise, over the issue of slavery, led to the civil war. Students will also investigate the primary aim of the civil war and will analyze how emancipation played a role in defining the civil War. They will also investigate whether the civil war was successful in its primary aim and in addressing the cause of the Civil War. First-person accounts, maps, speeches, and other primary and secondary source materials may be used to answer historical questions. Historical Thinking: The study of history rests on knowledge of facts, dates, names, places, events, and ideas. However, true historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and to marshal solid evidence in support of their answers; to go beyond the facts presented in their textbooks and examine the historical record for themselves; to consult documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites, works of art, quantitative data, and other evidence from the past, and to do so imaginatively--taking into account the historical context in which these records were created and comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time.“Facts are crucial to historical understanding, but there is only way for them to take root in memory: Facts are mastered by engaging students in historical questions that spark their curiosity and make them passionate about seeking answers.” (“Reading Like A Historian”, Wineburg, Martin, and Monte-Sano, Teachers College Press, New York, 2011.) Four main skills help to facilitate historical understanding: sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating. Sourcing-Historians begin reading a document at the end by sourcing it. They glance at the first couple of words but then go immediately to the document’s attribution. Who wrote this source and when? Is it a diary entry? A memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act? A leaked e-mail? Is the author in a position to know first-hand or this account based on hearsay? Sourcing transforms the act of reading from passive reception to engaged and active interrogation.Contextualizing-Contextualizing is the notion that events MUST be located in place and time to be properly understood. Close Reading-Primary and secondary sources provide students with an opportunity for close reading. They are the place to teach students to slow down and read closely, to think deeply about word choice and subtext. Corroborating-Corroborating is a strategy in which a reader asks questions about important details to determine points of agreement and disagreement. By comparing and contrasting multiple account, students can start to build a real understanding of what happened in the past and why.Discipline Specific Literacy: Research has shown that a key to literacy is exposing students to a rich diet of texts that mix genre and style “at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics.” Primary sources confront readers with varied styles and textures of language that push the boundaries of literacy.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)”Week 1Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent did failure to compromise on the issue of slavery, between the north and the south, lead to the civil war? Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)IndispensableCommoditiespeculiarFociWanedprotractedrelishbarringMissouri CompromiseCompromise of 1850Wilmot provisoOmnibusChafingBleeding KansasAvertPlacateContentionAmpleRecantedEmphaticReiterateUnanimityJurisprudencePerpetualPerpetuityContemplationenjoinsascertainacquiescencearbitrarilydespotismerroneousdismemberBruce Levine, “ The Failure of Compromise” (2013)Abraham Lincoln, “ First Inaugural Address” (1861)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.4.a, 6.1.12.D.4.cUnit 4-Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)Week 1 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of the different agendas, of the north and south, and compromises, which attempted to avert southern secession. Students will investigate the nature of these compromises and analyze whether the Civil War was solemnly a war about slavery or African American rights. They will also, specifically, investigated ways in which Lincoln tried to avert succession, through compromise, in his first inaugural address. Although compromising was successful in delaying southern secession, it was unable to avert it. The north and the south had become different entities and the issue of slavery further divided them. The North could not understand the South’s reliance on the institution of slavery and the South perceived the North’s attack on slavery, as an attack on the South. Although the North and the South were able to compromise on many things, they were unwilling to compromise on slavery. President Lincoln attempted to overt secession by cautiously attempting to please both sides, which was ultimately impossible. Many historians argue that the Civil War was not primarily caused by the issue of slavery, but caused by underlying power struggles between the North and the South. Many claim that the issue of slavery simply gave a face to an issue that far surpassed it. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the role of slavery in the Civil War. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how the failure to compromise led to the civil war.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-104 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 105- 157 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-34 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent was the Civil War caused by failure to compromise over African American rights and slavery?The Failure of Compromise by Bruce LevineIn the spring of 1861, the United States of America split into two hostile countries—the United States and the new Confederate States of America. The two opposing heads of state agreed about what was causing the rupture—the long-running dispute concerning slavery and especially its status in the federal territories. “One section of our country?believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended,” noted Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address, “while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”[1] In a message to his own congress the following month, the Confederate president implicitly affirmed that interpretation. He and his colleagues had left the Union, Jefferson Davis explained, because Lincoln’s party had pledged to exclude “the labor of African slaves” from “the public domain” of the territories.As Davis emphasized in the same message, slavery “was and is indispensable” to the South’s kind of society.[2] Of the more than twelve million souls who resided in the southern states in 1860, nearly one out of every three was enslaved. As commodities that could be (and were) freely bought and sold, their bodies were worth something like three billion dollars. That was a sum greater than the value of all the farmland in all of the South and fully three times as great as the construction costs of all the railroads then running throughout all the United States. But even more important was the labor that those four million people performed. Slave labor yielded more than half of all the South’s tobacco; almost all of its sugar, rice, and hemp; and 90 percent of its cotton. Only slave laborers, southern leaders were sure, would work hard enough and cheaply enough to yield the immense profits that slaveholders expected.But the slaveholders’ attachment to slavery went even deeper than those considerations. Slavery, it seemed to them, was the only firm foundation for republican government. More generally still, their “peculiar institution” was the unique basis of the particular outlook, assumptions, norms, habits, and relationships that defined their world and to which they had become deeply and reflexively attached.In the North, just as in the South, meanwhile, economic and social development shaped the population’s cultural, intellectual, and political lives and values. Northerners who embraced an economy based on free labor came to view the ownership of one human being by another as economically backward, morally repugnant, and politically antidemocratic.This basic difference gave rise to a protracted conflict that waxed and waned in intensity between the Revolution and the Civil War. Various aspects of that issue became the foci of that conflict at various times—including the way to apportion representation in Congress, the right to petition Congress, the right of states to nullify federal laws, and the recapture of runaway slaves. But the most persistent and explosive of issue was that of slavery’s geographical expansion.Supporters and opponents of slavery both believed that the institution needed to spread in order to survive. Slave-based agriculture was intensive and exhausted the soil quickly. It therefore constantly required additional lands. As large portions of the US population moved westward, only the creation of new slave states could sustain the slaveholders’ political power in Congress and the Electoral College. And conversely, allowing the territories, and the states carved out of them, to banish slavery would provide slaves contemplating escape new sanctuaries toward which to flee.Opponents of slavery thought it equally urgent to bar that institution from the West. Many northern farmers and urban dwellers wanted to be able to migrate into the West without dwelling among slaves, competing with cheap slave labor, or being governed locally by slave-owning politicians. Nor did they relish the idea of increasing the slaveholders’ already outsized political power in the federal government. By preventing slavery from expanding, finally, many of its opponents hoped to see it choke to death where it already existed.This dispute repeatedly erupted into major political crises. Those who prized national harmony above the rights or wrongs of slavery tried to defuse these crises with legislative deals that offered something to both sides. The two most important of these deals became known as the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850.In 1819, the Missouri Territory—a piece of the Louisiana Purchase—applied for statehood. By that time there were some 10,000 slaves living in the territory. In order to prevent the spread of slavery, a group of northern congressmen led by James Tallmadge Jr. of New York proposed granting statehood to Missouri on condition that it gradually abolish of slavery. This would be accomplished by preventing any additional slaves from entering Missouri and emancipating all slave children born in Missouri following statehood once those children reached the age of twenty-five.The House of Representatives, where the more populous North enjoyed greater strength than the South, passed the Tallmadge plan. The Senate, however, where slave and free states had the same representation regardless of the size of their populations, voted to admit Missouri as a state without imposing any restrictions on slavery there.A legislative compromise finally broke this stalemate. Congress granted statehood to Missouri without barring slavery from it, and Maine, whose application for statehood had in the interim been blocked by southern senators, would now enter the Union as a free state. But in another measure Congress declared slavery illegal in all remaining territories that had been purchased in 1803 and lay north of Missouri’s southern border (at 36° 30′ latitude).A war with Mexico between 1846 and 1848 led to a second great compromise over slavery. By the terms of the treaty that ended that war, the United States acquired more than half a million square miles of Mexican land. Anticipating such an outcome, Rep. David Wilmot, a Pennsylvania Democrat, introduced a measure in the summer of 1846 declaring that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part” of any land seized during the war. After a heated debate, the House of Representatives passed the “Wilmot proviso,” but in the Senate, once again, proslavery forces mustered the votes needed to block the measure.This conflict, too, ended in a compromise embodied in a number of congressional resolutions. One accepted the province of California into the Union as a state with the right to decide for itself whether or not to legalize slavery within its borders; it soon outlawed slavery. A second measure organized the rest of the lands taken from Mexico into two territories—New Mexico and Utah—without addressing the status of slavery there. In a process dubbed “popular sovereignty,” the white residents of each territory would be permitted to decide that question on their own; both territorial governments later legalized slavery. To placate anti-slavery sentiment, a third measure forbade using the District of Columbia any longer as a regional slave market, making it a crime to bring any additional slaves into the District for the purpose of selling and delivering them elsewhere. And to mollify slaveholders, a fourth measure was adopted. Designed to put additional teeth into the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution, it empowered federal marshals to pursue people accused of being runaways into free states and to force citizens of those states to join their posses. It also established a body of special federal commissioners (instead of northern judges) to preside over all such cases and denied jury trials to the accused. A final part of the compromise package settled a boundary dispute between Texas and the New Mexico territory.Many political leaders cheered both the 1820 and 1850 compromises as resolutions of the slavery conflict. Each did, for a time, formally decide the specific questions then in contention. But neither testified to the existence of an overriding, nationwide spirit of conciliation among the population—and neither resolved the fundamental, underlying dispute over slavery, its merits, and its future in the United States.In both 1820 and 1850, compromise advocates had found it impossible to pass the measures they offered in a single bill. Too many northern congressmen objected to the concessions being made to the South (such as admitting Missouri as a slave state or strengthening the fugitive slave bill), and too many southern congressmen felt the same way about concessions offered to the North (such as outlawing slavery in much of the Louisiana Purchase or admitting California effectively as a free state). Therefore, single “omnibus” compromise bills were broken up into separate measures so that each could be voted upon and passed by distinct, shifting majorities.In both the North and the South, many who disliked all or part of the compromise packages agreed to abide by them for the sake of maintaining national peace. But the opposing sentiments that made both the 1820 and 1850 compromises so difficult to enact ultimately undermined each of them.Chafing at the new fugitive slave law, anti-slavery forces tried to render it unenforceable. Southerners who liked the new “popular sovereignty” doctrine used it to overturn the Missouri Compromise. In 1854, Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois introduced a bill into Congress to facilitate the political organization of the Nebraska territory, a vast region composed of lands obtained in the Louisiana Purchase but not yet formed into states. Over the years, southern leaders had come more and more to resent the 1820 exclusion of slavery from that part of the continent. As a result of their pressure, Douglas’s bill declared the Missouri Compromise null and void. It divided Nebraska into two territories, a Nebraska to the north and a Kansas to the south. White settlers would decide the legal status of slavery in each via “popular sovereignty.”The repeal of the Missouri Compromise triggered a huge political backlash in the free states that ultimately gave rise to a new political party, the Republican Party, that pledged to exclude slavery from all federal territories. In the Kansas territory, meanwhile, a guerrilla war known as “Bleeding Kansas” erupted between pro- and anti-slavery settlers, who received support from others in the North and South.In 1857, a Supreme Court dominated by southerners and pro-southern Democrats sought once again to resolve the conflict over slavery in the territories with a two-pronged ruling in the now-famous Dred Scott case. The Court declared that a slaveholder could carry human property into free territories and even free states and hold such people there for an unspecified period of time without losing claim to them. The Court also ruled that neither Congress nor territorial governments had the constitutional power to outlaw slavery in any federal territory.This decision only further inflamed anti-slavery opinion in the North and brought additional support to the Republican Party. In the most dramatic expression of the escalating tensions, the abolitionist John Brown and about two dozen men, white and black, mounted a raid in 1859 against a federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Virginia. They hoped to encourage a massive slave revolt that would eventually spread further. Although the attempt failed, it did much to stoke the flames of the North-South conflict.By 1860, most northern voters had manifestly lost confidence in legislative compromises over slavery. They therefore cast their ballots for presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln, who pledged to outlaw slavery throughout the territories and who hoped this would accelerate that system’s “ultimate extinction.”[3] Convinced that Lincoln’s election proved that slavery had no future in the United States, South Carolina’s leaders voted that state out of the United States in December 1860. As it departed, it exhorted the rest of the slave states to follow suit.Once again the call went up for a compromise that would turn back the secession tide. Political leaders advanced a variety of solutions designed to do so. They varied in detail, but all called for mollifying the South by allowing slavery to expand into some of the federal territories. The most popular of these was a plan devised by Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky. It would amend the US Constitution to prohibit Congress from ever abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia or interfering with the slave trade between states and would provide compensation for any master unable to recover slaves who had escaped into the North.But the plan’s centerpiece was a decision to divide the territories between North and South by extending the old Missouri Compromise line (of 36° 30′) westward, outlawing slavery above that line while recognizing and permanently protecting it south of that line in all territories that were “now held, or hereafter acquired.” All these amendments were to be permanently in force and un-repealable once ratified.Lincoln was prepared to make some concessions to avert disunion, but he refused to abandon the core of the Republican platform. “We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten. .?.?. If we surrender, it is the end of us.” Crittenden’s proposal to legalize slavery in all southerly territories “now held, or hereafter acquired” testified to a continuing intention to annex additional parts of Mexico and the Caribbean to the United States for the purpose of expanding slavery within it. If the North gave in to blackmail, Lincoln warned, the South would “repeat the experiment upon us” whenever they wish, soon no doubt demanding that Cuba be absorbed as a slave state “as a condition upon which they will stay in the Union.”[4]The Republican Party’s rank and file agreed with Lincoln’s stand, and the Crittenden plan failed to win congressional approval. And in short order the rest of the states of the lower South cotton kingdom (Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida) declared themselves out of the Union, too.The departure of the lower South and the Republicans’ refusal to back away from their program strengthened secession sentiment in four of the eight slave states still in the Union—Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. The major Virginia planter Robert E. Scott, once a unionist, now warned that the secession of seven slave states had “given to the non-slaveholding States such a preponderance in the Federal Government over the remaining slaveholding States as to make it incompatible with the safety of the latter to remain permanently associated with them under the present constitution.” Now “the free States would control the Government” while the remaining slave states will “be reduced to the condition of humble subordination.”[5] Leaders of all four of those slave states in the upper South again demanded that Lincoln repudiate his party’s program or risk additional withdrawals from the Union. They also warned that any use of force by the federal government to prevent the Union’s dissolution would propel them into the arms of their sister slaveholding states in the Confederacy.Lincoln rejected these ultimatums. When the Confederacy fired upon and forced the surrender of Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor in April 1861, Lincoln called on the states to send volunteers to put down this armed rebellion against the government. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina refused and made good on their threat to join the Confederacy. The era of compromise had ended; the era of civil war had begun.[1] In Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler et al (1953), 4:268–269.[2] Dunbar F. Rowland, ed., Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches (1923), 5:72–73.[3] Lincoln made this point numerous times. For just one example, see Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 2:461.[4] Abraham Lincoln to James T. Hale, Jan. 11, 1861, in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 4:172.[5] Proceedings of the Virginia State Convention of 1861, ed. George H. Reese (1965), 3:61–62.Bruce Levine is professor of history and African American Studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He is the author of Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War (2005), Half Slave & Half Free: The Roots of Civil War (1992, 2005), and other books, and the forthcoming The Fall of the House of Dixie: How the Civil War Remade the South .?.?. and the Nation (2013).Levine, B. (2013). The failure of compromise. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1According to lines ten to seventeen of the text, why were slaves economically important to the south? According to the text, in which ways were the perceptions of slavery shaped by the dependence of slavery?In which ways did these perceptions of slavery create conflicts and tensions within the North and the South, according to the text?In which ways did those who “prized national harmony above the rights or wrongs of slavery” attempt to defuse the crisis, according to the text?According to the text, what caused the breakdown in compromising, between the North and the South?Day 2In which way did Lincoln’s election entice Southerner’s to succeed?According to the text, why did the Crittenden plan fail to win congressional approval?According to the text, in which way did the “departure of the lower South and the Republicans’ refusal to back away from their program” strengthen “secession sentiment in four of the eight slave states still in the Union”, according to the text?According to the text, what ultimatums did the leaders of “all four slave states in the upper south” present?In which way did Lincoln respond to these ultimatums and why?Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural AddressMonday, March 4, 1861Fellow-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."???1??I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.2??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.3??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.4??I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.5??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.6??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?7??There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?8??Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?9??I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.10??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.11??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.12??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?13??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."14??But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.15??It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.16??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.17??In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.18??The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.19??That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?20??Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?21??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.22??From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.23??Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?24??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.25??I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.26??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.27??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.28??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.29??The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.30??Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.31??By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.32??My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.33??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."34??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.Lincoln, A. (2013). Abraham Lincoln: First inaugural address: Monday, March 4, 1861. Barttleby. Retrieved from 1Lincoln states, “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”. According to the text, what is Lincoln referring to when he makes this statement?According to paragraph three of the text, in what way does Lincoln attempt to gain Southern support?The author states, “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”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?Lincoln states, “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”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?Lincoln states, “It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances”. According to the text, what did the author mean by this statement?In which way, according to the text, does Lincoln threatened the southern states that are planning to leave the union?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)”Week 2Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what degree was the primary aim of the civil war to end slavery?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)IntrudeSuccinctlyUndulyMenacesIncitingEmphaticallyPerilousDauntlesswantonlystaggeringinducementremonstranceruffianatrocioussubserviencycredulousphalanxPerceptiblecontrovert Horace Greely, “Freeing the Slaves Should be the Primary War Aim” (1862)Lincoln, A, “Reply to Greeley” (1862)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.4.a, Unit 4-Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)Week 2 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of the primary aim of the civil war. Students will investigate whether the purpose of the Civil War was to end slavery or restore the Union. Although Lincoln tried very hard to keep peace between the north and the south, both the north and south were unsatisfied. Abolitionists were unsatisfied and called for Lincoln to focus his efforts on freeing the slaves, because they were hoping for swifter action. Lincoln, however, made his goal clear. His primary aim for the civil war was to save the union and he recognized that a decision needed to be made. Lincoln knew that America could no longer survive divided. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the complexity of the balance between preserving the union and ending slavery. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of the conflicting aims of the Civil War. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-89 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 90- 143 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 1-34 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent was the purpose of the civil war justified by slavery?Horace Greeley's "The Prayer of the Twenty Millions"(August 19, 1862)To ABRAHAM LINCOLN,President of the United States?????? DEAR SIR: I do not intrude to tell you--for you must know already--that a great proportion of those who triumphed in you election, and of all who desire the unqualified suppression of the Rebellion now desolating our country, are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of the Rebels. I write only to set succinctly and unmistakably before you what we require, what we think we have a right to expect, and of what we complain.??????? I. We require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, charged especially and preeminently with this duty, that you EXECUTE THE LAWS. Most emphatically do we demand that such laws as have been recently enacted, which therefore may fairly be presumed to embody the present will and to be dictated by the present needs of the Republic, and which, after due consideration have received your personal sanction, shall by you be carried into full effect, and that you publicly and decisively instruct your subordinates that such laws exist, that they are binding on all functionaries and citizens, and that they are to be obeyed to the letter.??????? II. We think you are strangely and disastrously remiss in the discharge of your official and imperative duty with regard to the emancipating provisions of the new Confiscation Act. Those provisions were designed to fight Slavery with Liberty. They prescribe that men loyal to the Union, and willing to shed their blood in her behalf, shall no longer be held, with the Nations consent, in bondage to persistent, malignant traitors, who for twenty years have been plotting and for sixteen months have been fighting to divide and destroy our country. Why these traitors should be treated with tenderness by you, to the prejudice of the dearest rights of loyal men, We cannot conceive.??????? III. We think you are unduly influenced by the counsels, the representations, the menaces, of certain fossil politicians hailing from the Border Slave States. Knowing well that the heartily, unconditionally loyal portion of the White citizens of those States do not expect nor desire chat Slavery shall be upheld to the prejudice of the Union--(for the truth of which we appeal not only to every Republican residing in those States, but to such eminent loyalists as H. Winter Davis, Parson Brownlow, the Union Central Committee of Baltimore, and to The Nashville Union)--we ask you to consider that Slavery is everywhere the inciting cause and sustaining base of treason: the most slaveholding sections of Maryland and Delaware being this day, though under the Union flag, in full sympathy with the Rebellion, while the Free-Labor portions of Tennessee and of Texas, though writhing under the bloody heel of Treason, are unconquerably loyal to the Union. So emphatically is this the case, that a most intelligent Union banker of Baltimore recently avowed his confident belief that a majority of the present Legislature of Maryland, though elected as and still professing to be Unionists, are at heart desirous of the triumph of the Jeff. Davis conspiracy; and when asked how they could be won back to loyalty, replied "only by the complete Abolition of Slavery." It seems to us the most obvious truth, that whatever strengthens or fortifies Slavery in the Border States strengthens also Treason, and drives home the wedge intended to divide the Union. Had you from the first refused to recognize in those States, as here, any other than unconditional loyalty--that which stands for the Union, whatever may become of Slavery, those States would have been, and would be, far more helpful and less troublesome to the defenders of the Union than they have been, or now are.??????? IV. We think timid counsels in such a crisis calculated to prove perilous, and probably disastrous. It is the duty of a Government so wantonly, wickedly assailed by Rebellion as ours has been to oppose force to force in a defiant, dauntless spirit. It cannot afford to temporize with traitors nor with semi-traitors. It must not bribe them to behave themselves, nor make cheat fair promises in the hope of disarming their causeless hostility. Representing a brave and high-spirited people, it can afford to forfeit anything else better than its own self-respect, or their admiring confidence. For our Government even to seek, after war has been made on it, to dispel the affected apprehensions of armed traitors that their cherished privileges may be assailed by it, is to invite insult and encourage hopes of its own downfall. The rush to arms of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, is the true answer at once to the Rebel raids of John Morgan and the traitorous sophistries of Beriah Magoffin.??????? V. We complain that the Union cause has suffered, and is now suffering immensely, from mistaken deference to Rebel Slavery. Had you, Sir, in your Inaugural Address, unmistakably given notice that, in case the Rebellion already commenced were persisted in, and your efforts to preserve the Union and enforce the laws should be resisted by armed force, you would recognize no loyal person as rightfully held in Slavery by a traitor, we believe the Rebellion would therein have received a staggering if not fatal blow. At that moment, according to the returns of the most recent elections, the Unionists were a large majority of the voters of the Slave States. But they were composed in good part of the aged, the feeble, the wealthy, the timid--the young, the reckless, the aspiring, the adventurous, had already been largely lured by the gamblers and negro-traders, the politicians by trade and the conspirators by instinct, into the toils of Treason. Had you then proclaimed that Rebellion would strike the shackles from the slaves of every traitor, the wealthy and the cautious would have been supplied with a powerful inducement to remain loyal. As it was, every coward in the South soon became a traitor from fear; for Loyalty was perilous, while Treason seemed comparatively safe. Hence the boasted unanimity of the South--a unanimity based on Rebel terrorism and the fact that immunity and safety were found on that side, danger and probable death on ours. The Rebels from the first have been eager to confiscate, imprison, scourge and kill: we have fought wolves with the devices of sheep. The result is just what might have been expected. Tens of thousands are fighting in the Rebel ranks to-day whose, original bias and natural leanings would have led them into ours.??????? VI. We complain that the Confiscation Act which you approved is habitually disregarded by your Generals, and that no word of rebuke for them from you has yet reached the public ear. Fremont's Proclamation and Hunter's Order favoring Emancipation were promptly annulled by you; while Halleck's No. 3, forbidding fugitives from Slavery to Rebels to come within his lines-- an order as unmilitary as inhuman, and which received the hearty approbation of every traitor in America-- with scores of like tendency, have never provoked even your own remonstrance. We complain that the officers of your Armies have habitually repelled rather than invited approach of slaves who would have gladly taken the risks of escaping from their Rebel masters to our camps, bringing intelligence often of inestimable value to the Union cause. We complain that those who have thus escaped to us, avowing a willingness to do for us whatever might be required, have been brutally and madly repulsed, and often surrendered to be scourged, maimed and tortured by the ruffian traitors, who pretend to own them. We complain that a large proportion of our regular Army Officers, with many of the Volunteers, evince far more solicitude to uphold Slavery than to put down the Rebellion. And finally, we complain that you, Mr. President, elected as a Republican, knowing well what an abomination Slavery is, and how emphatically it is the core and essence of this atrocious Rebellion, seem never to interfere with these atrocities, and never give a direction to your Military subordinates, which does not appear to have been conceived in the interest of Slavery rather than of Freedom.??????? VII. Let me call your attention to the recent tragedy in New Orleans, whereof the facts are obtained entirely through Pro-Slavery channels. A considerable body of resolute, able-bodied men, held in Slavery by two Rebel sugar-planters in defiance of the Confiscation Act which you have approved, left plantations thirty miles distant and made their way to the great mart of the South-West, which they knew to be the indisputed possession of the Union forces. They made their way safely and quietly through thirty miles of Rebel territory, expecting to find freedom under the protection of our flag. Whether they had or had not heard of the passage of the Confiscation Act, they reasoned logically that we could not kill them for deserting the service of their lifelong oppressors, who had through treason become our implacable enemies. They came to us for liberty and protection, for which they were willing render their best service: they met with hostility, captivity, and murder. The barking of the base curs of Slavery in this quarter deceives no one--not even themselves. They say, indeed, that the negroes had no right to appear in New Orleans armed (with their implements of daily labor in the cane-field); but no one doubts that they would gladly have laid these down if assured that they should be free. They were set upon and maimed, captured and killed, because they sought the benefit of that act of Congress which they may not specifically have heard of, but which was none the less the law of the land which they had a clear right to the benefit of--which it was somebody's duty to publish far and wide, in order that so many as possible should be impelled to desist from serving Rebels and the Rebellion and come over to the side of the Union, They sought their liberty in strict accordance with the law of the land--they were butchered or re-enslaved for so doing by the help of Union soldiers enlisted to fight against slaveholding Treason. It was somebody's fault that they were so murdered--if others shall hereafter stuffer in like manner, in default of explicit and public directions to your generals that they are to recognize and obey the Confiscation Act, the world will lay the blame on you. Whether you will choose to hear it through future History and 'at the bar of God, I will not judge. I can only hope.??????? VIII. On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the Rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile--that the Rebellion, if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if Slavery were left in full vigor--that Army officers who remain to this day devoted to Slavery can at best be but half-way loyal to the Union--and that every hour of deference to Slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union, I appeal to the testimony of your Ambassadors in Europe. It is freely at your service, not at mine. Ask them to tell you candidly whether the seeming subserviency of your policy to the slaveholding, slavery-upholding interest, is not the perplexity, the despair of statesmen of all parties, and be admonished by the general answer.??????? IX. I close as I began with the statement that what an immense majority of the Loyal Millions of your countrymen require of you is a frank, declared, unqualified, ungrudging execution of the laws of the land, more especially of the Confiscation Act. That Act gives freedom to the slaves of Rebels coming within our lines, or whom those lines may at any time inclose--we ask you to render it due obedience by publicly requiring all your subordinates to recognize and obey it. The rebels are everywhere using the late anti-negro riots in the North, as they have long used your officers' treatment of negroes in the South, to convince the slaves that they have nothing to hope from a Union success-that we mean in that case to sell them into a bitter bondage to defray the cost of war. Let them impress this as a truth on the great mass of their ignorant and credulous bondsmen, and the Union will never be restored-never. We cannot conquer Ten Millions of People united in solid phalanx against us, powerfully aided by the Northern sympathizers and European allies. We must have scouts, guides, spies, cooks, teamsters, diggers and choppers from the Blacks of the South, whether we allow them to fight for us or not, or we shall be baffled and repelled. As one of the millions who would gladly have avoided this struggle at any sacrifice but that Principle and Honor, but who now feel that the triumph of the Union is dispensable not only to the existence of our country to the well being of mankind, I entreat you to render a hearty and unequivocal obedience to the law of the land.Yours,Horace GreeleyNew York, August 19, 1862Source originally from? Lincoln and Greeley by Harlan HornerGreeley, H. (2013). Freeing the alves should be the primary war aim. Retrieved from 1According to the text, in lines nineteen to twenty five, what is the author accusing President Lincoln of? The author states, “It seems to us the most obvious truth, that whatever strengthens or fortifies Slavery in the Border States strengthens also Treason, and drives home the wedge intended to divide the Union. Had you from the first refused to recognize in those States, as here, any other than unconditional loyalty--that which stands for the Union, whatever may become of Slavery, those States would have been, and would be, far more helpful and less troublesome to the defenders of the Union than they have been, or now are”. What does the author mean by this statement?The author states, “Had you, Sir, in your Inaugural Address, unmistakably given notice that, in case the Rebellion already commenced were persisted in, and your efforts to preserve the Union and enforce the laws should be resisted by armed force, you would recognize no loyal person as rightfully held in Slavery by a traitor, we believe the Rebellion would therein have received a staggering if not fatal blow”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?The author states, “Had you then proclaimed that Rebellion would strike the shackles from the slaves of every traitor, the wealthy and the cautious would have been supplied with a powerful inducement to remain loyal”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?The author states, “And finally, we complain that you, Mr. President, elected as a Republican, knowing well what an abomination Slavery is, and how emphatically it is the core and essence of this atrocious Rebellion, seem never to interfere with these atrocities, and never give a direction to your Military subordinates, which does not appear to have been conceived in the interest of Slavery rather than of Freedom”. According to the text, what is the author referring to when he makes this statement?Day 2The author states, “On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that all attempts to put down the Rebellion and at the same time uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile--that the Rebellion, if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if Slavery were left in full vigor--that Army officers who remain to this day devoted to Slavery can at best be but half-way loyal to the Union--and that every hour of deference to Slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union, I appeal to the testimony of your Ambassadors in Europe.” According to the text, what does the author mean by this?The author states, “The rebels are everywhere using the late anti-negro riots in the North, as they have long used your officers' treatment of negroes in the South, to convince the slaves that they have nothing to hope from a Union success-that we mean in that case to sell them into a bitter bondage to defray the cost of war. Let them impress this as a truth on the great mass of their ignorant and credulous bondsmen, and the Union will never be restored-never”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?According to the text, what was the author’s purpose in writing this text?According to the text, in which way does Greely connect emancipation with northern victory?According to the text, what should be the primary aim of the war?Lincoln's Reply to Greeley(August 22, 1862)Executive Mansion,Washington, August 22, 1862Hon. Horace Greeley:??????? Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.???????? As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.??????? I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don't believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.??????? I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.Yours,A. LincolnSource originally from Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, edited by Roy BaslerLincoln, A. (2013). Lincoln’s reply to Greely. Harvard Square Library. Retrieved from Greely. 1The author states, “If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them.” According to the text what is Lincoln referring to?The author states, “If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them”. According to the author, what does the author mean by this statement?According to the text, what is Lincoln’s primary objective in the civil war?What was the authors’ purpose for writing this text?In which way, according to the text, is Lincoln’s own struggle with the issue of slavery evident? Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)”Week 3Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way, primarily, did Emancipation Proclamation play a role in defining the Civil War?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)countervailing garrisonVexedFesterHailedExasperatingApprehensionFeebler latentharbingeratrociousAbraham Lincoln, “Emancipation Proclamation” (1863) Fredrick Douglas, “Emancipation Proclaimed” (1862)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.4.bUnit 4-Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)Week 3 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of how, primarily, emancipation proclamation, played a role in the civil war. Students will investigate how emancipation proclamation defined the civil war and ended compromising between the north and the south. Lincoln, as president, needed to make a decision before America became further divided by power struggles and the issue of slavery. Emancipation proclamation was important in defining the war. It declared all southern states that allowed slavery rebellious and gave them an ultimatum. Southern states either had to outlaw slavery or face the union. One can argue that emancipation proclamation was used as a justification for the Civil War.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore ways in which the emancipation proclamation declared war on the south and slavery. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how emancipation proclamation defined the Civil War. Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-40 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-57 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads paragraphs 58-111 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent did emancipation proclamation play a role in defining the civil war? The Emancipation ProclamationJanuary 1, 1863 A TranscriptionBy the President of the United States of America:A Proclamation.Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages. And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh. By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. Day 1The author states, “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.” According to the text, what did the author mean by this?According to the text, in lines 18 to 28, which states were affected by the emancipation proclamation?According to lines 29-31 of the text, which slaves were freed by emancipation proclamation?According to the text, what was the authors’ purpose for writing the emancipation proclamation?In which way, did emancipation proclamation justify the Civil War, according to the text?EMANCIPATION PROCLAIMED Douglass' Monthly, October 1862 Common sense, the necessities of the war, to say nothing of the dictation of justice and humanity have at last prevailed. We shout for joy that we live to record this righteous decree. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, in his own peculiar, cautious, forbearing and hesitating way, slow, but we hope sure, has, while the loyal heart was near breaking with despair, proclaimed and declared: "That on the First of January, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-three, All Persons Held as Slaves Within Any State or Any Designated Part of a State, The People Whereof Shall Then be in Rebellion Against the United States, Shall be Thenceforward and Forever Free." "Free forever" oh! long enslaved millions, whose cries have so vexed the air and sky, suffer on a few more days in sorrow, the hour of your deliverance draws nigh! Oh! Ye millions of free and loyal men who have earnestly sought to free your bleeding country from the dreadful ravages of revolution and anarchy, lift up now your voices with joy and thanksgiving for with freedom to the slave will come peace and safety to your country. President Lincoln has embraced in this proclamation the law of Congress passed more than six months ago, prohibiting the employment of any part of the army and naval forces of the United States, to return fugitive slaves to their masters, commanded all officers of the army and navy to respect and obey its provisions. He has still further declared his intention to urge upon the Legislature of all the slave States not in rebellion the immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery. But read the proclamation for it is the most important of any to which the President of the United States has ever signed his name.Opinions will widely differ as to the practical effect of this measure upon the war. All that class at the North who have not lost their affection for slavery will regard the measure as the very worst that could be devised, and as likely to lead to endless mischief. All their plans for the future have been projected with a view to a reconstruction of the American Government upon the basis of compromise between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. The thought of a country unified in sentiments, objects and ideas, has not entered into their political calculations, and hence this newly declared policy of the Government, which contemplates one glorious homogeneous people, doing away at a blow with the whole class of compromisers and corrupters, will meet their stern opposition. Will that opposition prevail? Will it lead the President to reconsider and retract? Not a word of it. Abraham Lincoln may be slow, Abraham Lincoln may desire peace even at the price of leaving our terrible national sore untouched, to fester on for generations, but Abraham Lincoln is not the man to reconsider, retract and contradict words and purposes solemnly proclaimed over his official signature. The careful, and we think, the slothful deliberation which he has observed in reaching this obvious policy, is a guarantee against retraction. But even if the temper and spirit of the President himself were other than what they are, events greater than the President, events which have slowly wrung this proclamation from him may be relied on to carry him forward in the same direction. To look back now would only load him with heavier evils, while diminishing his ability, for overcoming those with which he now has to contend. To recall his proclamation would only increase rebel pride, rebel sense of power and would be hailed as a direct admission of weakness on the part of the Federal Government, while it would cause heaviness of heart and depression of national enthusiasm all over the loyal North and West. No, Abraham Lincoln will take no step backward. His word has gone out over the country and the world, giving joy and gladness to the friends of freedom and progress wherever those words are read, and he will stand by them, and carry them out to the letter. If he has taught us to confide in nothing else, he has taught us to confide in his word. The want of Constitutional power, the want of military power, the tendency of the measure to intensify Southern hate, and to exasperate the rebels, the tendency to drive from him all that class of Democrats at the North, whose loyalty has been conditioned on his restoring the union as it was, slavery and all, have all been considered, and he has taken his ground notwithstanding. The President doubtless saw, as we see, that it is not more absurd to talk about restoring the union, without hurting slavery, than restoring the union without hurting the rebels. As to exasperating the South, there can be no more in the cup than the cup will hold, and that was full already. The whole situation having been carefully scanned, before Mr. Lincoln could be made to budge an inch, he will now stand his ground. Border State influence, and the influence of half-loyal men, have been exerted and have done their worst. The end of these two influences is implied in this proclamation. Hereafter, the inspiration as well as the men and the money for carrying on the war will come from the North, and not from half-loyal border States.The effect of this paper upon the disposition of Europe will be great and increasing. It changes the character of the war in European eyes and gives it an important principle as an object, instead of national pride and interest. It recognizes and declares the real nature of the contest, and places the North on the side of justice and civilization, and the rebels on the side of robbery and barbarism. It will disarm all purpose on the part of European Government to intervene in favor of the rebels and thus cast off at a blow one source of rebel power. All through the war thus far, the rebel ambassadors in foreign countries have been able to silence all expression of sympathy with the North as to slavery. With much more than a show of truth, they said that the Federal Government, no more than the Confederate Government, contemplated the abolition of slavery.But will not this measure be frowned upon by our officers and men in the field? We have heard of many thousands who have resolved that they will throw up their commissions and lay down their arms, just so soon as they are required to carry on a war against slavery Making all allowances for exaggeration there are doubtless far too many of this sort in the loyal army. Putting this kind of loyalty and patriotism to the test, will be one of the best collateral effects of the measure. Any man who leaves the field on such a ground will be an argument in favor of the proclamation, and will prove that his heart has been more with slavery than with his country. Let the army be cleansed from all such pro-slavery vermin, and its health and strength will be greatly improved. But there can be no reason to fear the loss of many officers or men by resignation or desertion. We have no doubt that the measure was brought to the attention of most of our leading Generals, and blind as some of them have seemed to be in the earlier part of the war, most of them have seen enough to convince them that there can be no end to this war that does not end slavery. At any rate, we may hope that for every pro-slavery man that shall start from the ranks of our loyal army, there will be two anti-slavery men to fill up the vacancy, and in this war one truly devoted to the cause of Emancipation is worth two of the opposite sort.Whether slavery will be abolished in the manner now proposed by President Lincoln, depends of course upon two conditions, the first specified and the second implied. The first is that the slave States shall be in rebellion on and after the first day of January 1863 and the second is we must have the ability to put down that rebellion. About the first there can be very little doubt. The South is thoroughly in earnest and confident. It has staked everything upon the rebellion. Its experience thus far in the field has rather increased its hopes of final success than diminished them. Its armies now hold us at bay at all points, and the war is confined to the border States slave and free. If Richmond were in our hands and Virginia at our mercy, the vast regions beyond would still remain to be subdued. But the rebels confront us on the Potomac, the Ohio, and the Mississippi. Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Virginia are in debate on the battlefields and their people are divided by the line which separates treason from loyalty. In short we are yet, after eighteen months of war, confined to the outer margin of the rebellion. We have scarcely more than touched the surface of the terrible evil. It has been raising large quantities of food during the past summer. While the masters have been fighting abroad, the slaves have been busy working at home to supply them with the means of continuing the struggle. They will not down at the bidding of this Proclamation, but may be safely relied upon till January and long after January. A month or two will put an end to general fighting for the winter. When the leaves fall we shall hear again of bad roads, winter quarters and spring campaigns. The South which has thus far withstood our arms will not fall at once before our pens. All fears for the abolition of slavery arising from this apprehension may be dismissed. Whoever, therefore, lives to see the first day of next January, should Abraham Lincoln be then alive and President of the United States, may confidently look in the morning papers for the final proclamation, granting freedom, and freedom forever, to all slaves within the rebel States. On the next point nothing need be said. We have full power to put down the rebellion. Unless one man is more than a match for four, unless the South breeds braver and better men than the North, unless slavery is more precious than liberty, unless a just cause kindles a feebler enthusiasm than a wicked and villainous one, the men of the loyal States will put down this rebellion and slavery, and all the sooner will they put down that rebellion by coupling slavery with that object. Tenderness towards slavery has been the loyal weakness during the war. Fighting the slaveholders with one hand and holding the slaves with the other, has been fairly tried and has failed. We have now inaugurated a wiser and better policy, a policy which is better for the loyal cause than an hundred thousand armed men. The Star Spangled Banner is now the harbinger of Liberty and the millions in bondage, inured to hardships, accustomed to toil, ready to suffer, ready to fight, to dare and to die, will rally under that banner wherever they see it gloriously unfolded to the breeze. Now let the Government go forward in its mission of Liberty as the only condition of peace and union, by weeding out the army and navy of all such officers as the late Col. Miles, whose sympathies are now known to have been with the rebels. Let only the men who assent heartily to the wisdom and the justice of the anti-slavery policy of the Government be lifted into command; let the black man have an arm as well as a heart in this war, and the tide of battle which has thus far only waved backward and forward, will steadily set in our favor. The rebellion suppressed, slavery abolished, and America will, higher than ever, sit as a queen among the nations of the earth.Now for the work. During the interval between now and next January, let every friend of the long enslaved bondman do his utmost in swelling the tide of anti-slavery sentiment, by writing, speaking, money and example. Let our aim be to make the North a unit in favor of the President's policy, and see to it that our voices and votes, shall forever extinguish that latent and malignant sentiment at the North, which has from the first cheered on the rebels in their atrocious crimes against the union, and has systematically sought to paralyze the national arm in striking down the slaveholding rebellion. We are ready for this service or any other, in this, we trust the last struggle with the monster slavery.Resource:Douglas, F. (2013). Emancipation Proclaimed. Routleledge. Retrieved from /9780415891127/data/Editorial_Emancipation_Proclaimed_Douglass_Monthly_October_1862.pdfDay 11. According to the text, in which way will emancipation proclamation help enslaved Africans, but hurt those who rely on the system of slavery? 2. The author states, “Opinions will widely differ as to the practical effect of this measure upon the war. All that class at the North who have not lost their affection for slavery will regard the measure as the very worst that could be devised, and as likely to lead to endless mischief.” According to the text, what does the author mean by this?3. The author states, “The President doubtless saw, as we see, that it is not more absurd to talk about restoring the union, without hurting slavery, than restoring the union without hurting the rebels”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this? 4. In which way, according to the text, will emancipation proclamation aid in obtaining European support for the Civil War?5. In which way, according to the text, does the emancipation proclamation end compromise and declare war on the South? Day 21.In which way, according to the text, can Emancipation proclamation hurt Union efforts to win the war? 2.In which way, according to the text, is abolition reliant on the northern ability to suppress southern rebellion? 3. The author states, “Let our aim be to make the North a unit in favor of the President's policy, and see to it that our voices and votes, shall forever extinguish that latent and malignant sentiment at the North, which has from the first cheered on the rebels in their atrocious crimes against the union, and has systematically sought to paralyze the national arm in striking down the slaveholding rebellion”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?4. According to the text, what was the purpose of the text and who was it directed to?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)”Week 4Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent, did Reconstruction initiatives improve the lives of African Americans and unite America?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Black codesKu Klux ClanFreedman’s BureauTumultCoercionRoiledblatantaspirationsReconstruction Acts of 1867PerpetratedDesperadersEdward L. Ayers, “ Reconstruction” (2013)Frankfort, Kentucky, Congressional Petition, “ Descriptions of the Ku Klux Klans” (1871)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.D.4.d, 6.12.12.D.4.cUnit 4-Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)Week 4 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of how Reconstruction fell short of addressing the rights of African Americans, but improved life for African Americans, in some respects. As a result of emancipation proclamation, many African Americans gained freedom. Although African American families celebrated their newly gained freedom, they also could not deny institutional oppression. Sharecropping, after all, seemed to be another form of slavery and African Americans were still struggling to gain civil rights. Also noteworthy to mention, is that laws, which protected African Americans, were ineffective, if they were not enforced. Reconstruction was very difficult, as two parts of a country with opposing views were forced to unite. These divisions were evident in the South’s resistance to obey laws or enforce them. Former confederates terrorized African Americans and Republicans, in efforts to inhibit reconstruction initiatives. Unity between the north and the south was a work in progress.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore ways in which reconstruction fell short of uniting the union and addressing the rights of African Americans. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how disunity between America was evident in the resistance to reconstruction initiatives.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-51 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 52-145 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-285 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent was Reconstruction successful in uniting America?Reconstructionby Edward L. AyersIn the twelve years after the Civil War—the era of Reconstruction—there were massive changes in American culture, economy, and politics. These were the years of the “Old West,” of cowboys, Indians, and buffalo hunts, of cattle drives, railroads, and ranches. It was also the beginning of the “Gilded Age” in the North, the age of big fortunes, enormous businesses, struggle over labor unions, and the burgeoning of cities filled with immigrants, all of it given an air of desperation by the largest economic depression in United States history beginning in 1873. The events in the West and the North interwove with those in the South, where the central struggles of Reconstruction unfolded.The political Reconstruction of the South progressed in two distinct eras. The first was Presidential Reconstruction, from 1865 through early spring 1867, when Andrew Johnson shaped the pace and depth of the reintegration of the South into the United States following the Confederacy’s surrender. The United States government, including President Lincoln, had defined no explicit and coherent plan for the postwar South and Lincoln’s assassination and Johnson’s rise to the presidency threw things into even greater uncertainty. Johnson, who had defended the Union as a United States senator and wartime governor of Tennessee and who was elected vice president under Lincoln in 1864, proved surprisingly lenient with white Southerners and unsympathetic to the people who had been held in slavery. Johnson hoped to create a national party devoted to the Union and sought the support of the former leaders of the South. He sacrificed black Southerners’ interests in the process.Under Johnson, white Southerners held on to all they could of the old order. They passed “Black Codes” that narrowly defined the possibilities of life for freedpeople, preventing them from renting land or owning firearms and placing their children in coercive “apprenticeships” to their former owners. Former Confederates violently attacked black people in New Orleans, in Memphis, and in the countryside across the region. The Ku Klux Klan terrorized those who challenged white supremacy in any way. White Southerners resisted the Freedmen’s Bureau, which aided impoverished whites and blacks with surplus United States Army material, used special courts to adjudicate conflicts between freedpeople and their former masters, and tried to prevent violence against African Americans.In this period of tumult immediately after the war, former slaves and former slaveholders had to define new ways of living. White landowners wanted black workers to labor in gangs under close supervision; African Americans wanted to work on their own. Within a few years, a system evolved in which landowners and landless workers shared some of the profits from the crops they produced. This bargain, born of necessity, became a system known as sharecropping and would dominate the Southern economy for generations to come.Sharecropping often led the families doing the work in the fields deeper into debt over the course of the year, for they had no cash until the crop came in. Without collateral, sharecroppers had to pay whatever interest the landowner or the storeowner (often the same person) charged. When the crop—almost always cotton—was harvested and they received their share, the laboring families often owed more than they had earned for all their work. This system induced both landowners and sharecroppers to grow more and more cotton, driving down the price as a result and locking the South in a desperate cycle.Relations between black women and black men changed with emancipation as well. Enslaved people had sustained families despite the lack of legal recognition of marriage and despite the reality that children could be sold off at a slaveholder’s whim. Relationships in slavery did not foster the kind of relationships held up as the ideal among white Americans, with an independent man as the breadwinner and a wife working in the home. Enslaved women were often on their own, raising children without a husband or father present. People who loved one another were often separated against their will, with little hope of reunion; others found themselves forced to live with or have children with partners not of their choosing.When slavery ended, African American women joined men, with varying degrees of eagerness, in separate households. The Freedmen’s Bureau and churches encouraged marriage, but relationships between formerly enslaved people were not always easily resolved. Couples that had been formed by necessity or force broke or drifted apart. Both men and women were happy for women to devote less time to the white men’s fields and to be less subject to sexual assault and coercion, but many black women were not eager to submit themselves to the will of husbands either. The individual household as well as the regional economy, in other words, had to be reconstructed. The reconstitution of African American families and communities proved a major accomplishment of succeeding generations.Even as long-term changes in labor and in family life evolved in the South after the Civil War, political conflict and change roiled the nation. A second era of Reconstruction began in March 1867, when a new Republican majority in Congress pressed for a much more aggressive recasting of the South than Johnson had overseen. The blatant and violent resistance of white Southerners to even the mild reforms of Presidential Reconstruction had persuaded the Northern electorate that deeper reforms were required before the Southern states could rejoin the Union. A wing of the Republican Party, called “Radicals” by their critics, instituted a sweeping set of changes in the South.The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into five military districts under national control. The Acts required that each state write a new constitution giving voting rights to all men, regardless of race or prior enslaved status, and ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declared that all people other than American Indians born in the United States were citizens, with rights to due process of law. African American men mobilized to vote and elected many of their number to the constitutional conventions and political positions across the South.The Republican conventions and legislatures formed in Reconstruction sought to use the power of the state to help public education, to spread tax responsibility, to stop public whipping, and to foster economic development. White Southerners ridiculed, derided, and undermined every action of those bodies. Although most Republican officeholders, especially at the higher levels, were white men, every instance of failure was held up as an example of the unfitness of African Americans to hold positions of public trust.Any white man who joined with black voters and allies in the Republican Party was castigated as a traitor to his race, as either a “scalawag” (a native white Southern Republican) or a “carpetbagger” (a white Northern Republican). The scalawags were portrayed by the Democrats as shameless men of poor character, willing to sell their heritage as white men for a chance at a political office. The carpetbaggers, who received positions as governors, congressmen, or senators from their Republican allies, were portrayed as rootless adventurers so shiftless they could carry all they owned in a cheap bag made of carpet, exploiting the ignorance of black voters for their own greed. In reality, these Northern-born white Republicans tended to be well-educated men of property, often US veterans, who had come to the South months or years before any prospect of office holding appeared.Reconstruction in the South in the years after 1867 proved to be a kaleidoscope of conflicting motivations, coalitions, and expectations. Some former abolitionists, white and black, came to the South to help complete the work of emancipation; other newcomers sought mainly personal economic advantage. Some white Southern Republicans worked in good faith alongside black allies while others spoke of their supposed comrades with open distaste. Some Southern Republicans advocated laws that aided business while others sought to protect the landless. Whatever their goals or backgrounds, Republicans found themselves under relentless attack from white Democrats, who sought to remove their opponents from power quickly and permanently. The Democrats favored as little government as possible, especially when it was under the control of a biracial coalition.Republican power lasted varying amounts of time in different Southern states. The course of Reconstruction in each state depended on how quickly new constitutions were written and approved, on how much black men and their white Republican allies could remain mobilized in the face of white violence and blacklisting, and how effective Republican political leaders were in holding on to power. In some Southern states Reconstruction ended quietly, in backroom deals among conservative men eager to bring the conflict to a close. Elsewhere Reconstruction ended in open warfare, as armed white men terrorized black and white Republicans in their homes, at work and at church, and at the polls. In Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, Reconstruction came to an end only after contested election returns in the presidential race of 1876 led to a compromise that gave the electoral votes to the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, who, in return, removed the troops from those last states.Such a complex and charged history has been open to widely differing interpretations, at the time and ever since. The nation’s first generation of professional scholars told their readers early in the twentieth century that black people simply were not prepared for freedom much less citizenship, that the leaders of Reconstruction in the South were rootless, incompetent, and morally bankrupt Yankees who came to the South only to pillage it. After World War II, with the occupations of Japan and Germany fresh in Americans’ minds, and with the civil rights struggle emerging, historians argued that Reconstruction had failed because it had not gone nearly far enough in removing former Confederates from power or in providing the freed people the land and justice they deserved. Such a view became dominant in the 1960s and has remained central to historians’ understanding.The magisterial 1988 history by Eric Foner, Reconstruction, sympathetic to African Americans, their accomplishments, and their allies, deemed Reconstruction “America’s unfinished revolution.” Historians today generally accept that verdict, seeing the era of Reconstruction as a period of remarkable effort defeated by white Southerners and undermined by a faltering white Northern electorate. The goals of legal and political equity would be delayed for another century.From the largest perspective, the challenges of Reconstruction are all too clear. The effort to recast the postwar South was up against long odds from the outset. Reconstruction sought to complete one of the great revolutions of modern history and to do so without the benefit of overwhelming military force, modern tools of surveillance, or a contrite opponent. Slavery in the United States had been strong and growing stronger when it suddenly ended in a vast war waged over much of the continent. Southern slave-holders had held the largest slave population in the hemisphere, in an empire that had grown in population through a massive domestic slave trade and in territory through a war with Mexico that determined the future of much of North America. Southerners had dominated the presidency and the Supreme Court throughout the first three generations of United States history and had not hesitated to use that power to suppress abolition, to force northern complicity in returning fugitive slaves, and to lay legal claim to at least half of the nation’s territory. Changing all those power relations at one time was a massive undertaking.Moreover, the three major groups in Reconstruction were divided internally. The white North wanted irreconcilable goals: vengeance and reconciliation, transformation and stability, justice and the status quo. In the white South, many called for peace and acceptance of the new order while others demanded relentless resistance to alien invaders. The black South saw conflicts between former slaves and former free blacks, between people from town and people from the country, between women and men, between secular leaders and religious leaders. Reconstruction was shaped by struggles within as well as among those groups.Black Southerners, despite their divisions, showed a remarkable eagerness to practice democratic politics to advance their own ends. They mobilized quickly and effectively, posing a powerful threat in numbers and leadership. “This is a democracy—a government of the people,” argued a convention of African Americans in Nashville in January 1865, as they petitioned white Unionists for a voice in the future that stretched before them. “It should aim to make every man, without regard to the color of his skin, the amount of his wealth, or the character of his religious faith, feel personally interested in its welfare. Every man who lives under the Government should feel that it is his property, his treasure, the bulwark and defense of himself and his family, his pearl of great price, which he must preserve, protect, and defend faithfully at all times, on all occasions, in every possible manner.”These ideals and these aspirations refused to fade over the next century. Black Southerners sustained their political power wherever they could, joining with white allies when practical over the twenty years following the end of Reconstruction, even electing African American congressmen into the early twentieth century. Faced with this determined quest for democratic representation, white Southerners revised the state constitutions of the Reconstruction era around the turn of the century, negating the power of the Fifteenth Amendment and stripping African American men of the vote through poll taxes and other supposedly race-blind provisions. Despite these obstacles, over the first half of the twentieth century black Southern men and women asserted their humanity and their rights in businesses, churches, and schools. In the Civil Rights struggles of the post–World War II era, they turned to the hard-won gains of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as the leverage they needed to secure their full rights as Americans. Only then would the possibilities of Reconstruction begin to be realized.Edward L. Ayers is president of the University of Richmond. He has authored or edited ten books, several focused on the history of the American South and the legacy of the Civil War, including The Promise of the New South: Life after Reconstruction (1992); In the Presence of Mine Enemies: Civil War in the Heart of America, 1859–1863 (2003), which received the 2004 Bancroft Prize for Distinguished Book in American History; and America’s War: Talking about the Civil War and Emancipation on their 150th Anniversaries (2011).Resource:Ayers, E. (2013). Reconstruction. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1In which way did the “Black Codes” support southern former confederates, while suppressing African Americans, according to the text?In which ways, besides the “Black Codes”, did former white confederates attempt to suppress African Americans, according to the text in lines 18 to 25? According to lines 26 to 36, in which way was sharecropping similar to slavery and used to suppress African Americans?In which ways, according to the text, did African American families benefit from the civil war, according to lines 37 to 51?Day 2In which ways, according to the text, did the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 attempt to unify the south and the north?In which ways does lines 65 to 86 of the text, demonstrate unresolved issues that were incited by the institution of slavery? According to the text, in lines 97 to 109, in which ways did reconstruction fail?In which ways, according to the text, did power relations play a role in challenging reconstruction?According to the text, in which way was reconstruction a success?Descriptions of the Ku Klux Klans”Frankfort, Kentucky, Congressional PetitionTo the senate and house of representatives in congress assembled: We the Colored Citizens of Frankfort and vicinity do this day memorialize your honorable bodies upon the condition of affairs now exiting in Kentucky.We would respectfully state that life, liberty and property are unprotected among the colored race of this state. Organized Bands of desperate and lawless men mainly composed of soldiers of the late Rebel Armies Armed disciplined and disguised and bound by Oath and secret obligations have by force terror and violence subverted all civil society among Colored people, thus utterly rendering insecure the safety of persons and property, overthrowing all those rights which are the primary basis and objects of the Government which are expressly guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States as amended; We believe you are not familiar with the description of the Ku Klux Klans riding nightly over the country going from County to County and in the County towns spreading terror wherever they go, by robbing whipping ravishing and killing our people without provocation, compelling Colored people to brake the ice and bathe in the Chilly waters of the Kentucky River.The Legislature has adjourned they refused to enact any laws to suppress Ku Klux disorder. We regard them as now being licensed to continue their dark and bloody deeds under cover of the dark night. They refuse to allow us to testify in the state Courts where a white man is concerned. We find their deeds are perpetrated only upon Colored men and white Republicans. We also find that for our services to the Government and our race we have become the special object of hatred and persecution at the hands of the Democratic party. Our people are driven from their homes in great numbers having no redress only the U.S. Courts which is in many cases unable to reach them. We would state that we have been law abiding citizens, pay our tax and in many parts of the state our people have been driven from the poles, refused the right to vote. Many have been slaughtered while attempting to vote, we ask how long is this state of things to last.We appeal to you as law abiding citizens to enact some laws that will protect us. And that will enable us to exercise the rights of citizens. We see that the senators from this state denies there being organized Bands of desperaders in the state, for information we lay before you an number of violent acts occured during his Administration. Although he Stevenson says half Dozen instances of violence did occur these are not more than one half the acts that have occured. They Democratic party has here a political organization composed only of Democrats not a single Republican can join them where many of these acts have been committed it has been proven that they were the men, don with Armies from the State Arsenal. We pray you will take some steps to remedy these evils.Don by a Committee of Grievances appointed at a meeting of all the Colored Citizens of Frankfort & vicinity.Mar. 25th, 1871Henry Marrs, Teacher colored school Henry Lynn, Livery stable keeper N. N. Trumbo, Grocer Samuel Damsey, B. Smith [Blacksmith] B. T. Crampton, BarberCommittee1. A mob visited Harrodsburg in Mercer County to take from jail a man named Robertson, Nov. 14, 1867.2. Smith attacked and whipped by regulation in Zelun County Nov. 1867.3. Colored school house burned by incendiaries in Breckinridge Dec. 24, 1867.4. A Negro Jim Macklin taken from jail in Frankfort and hung by mob January 28, 1868.5. Sam Davis hung by mob in Harrodsburg May 28, 1868.6. Wm. Pierce hung by a mob in Christian July 12, 1868.7. Geo. Roger hung by a mob in Bradsfordsville Martin County July 11, 1868.8. Colored school Exhibition at Midway attacked by a mob July 31, 1868.9. Seven person ordered to leave their homes at Standford, Ky. Aug. 7, 1868.10. Silas Woodford age sixty badly beaten by disguised mob. Mary Smith Curtis and Margaret Mosby also badly beaten, near Keene Jessemine County Aug. 1868.11. Cabe Fields shot—and killed by disguise men near Keene Jessamine County Aug. 3, 1868.12. James Gaines expelled from Anderson by Ku Klux Aug. 1868.13. James Parker killed by Ku Klux Pulaski, Aug. 1868.14. Noah Blankenship whipped by a mob in Pulaski County Aug. 1868.15. Negroes attacked robbed and driven from Summerville in Green County Aug. 21, 1868.16. William Gibson and John Gibson hung by a mob in Washington County Aug. 1868.17. F. H. Montford hung by an mob near Cogers landing in Jessamine County Aug. 28, 1868.18. Wm. Glassgow killed by a mob in Warren County Sep. 5, 1868.19. Negro hung by a mob Sep. 1868.20. Two Negros beaten by Ku Klux in Anderson County Sept. 11, 1868.21. Mob attacked house of Oliver Stone in Fayette County Sept. 11, 1868.22. Mob attacked Cumins house in Pulaski County. Cumins his daughter and a man name Adams killed in the attack Sept. 18, 1868.23. U.S. Marshall Meriwether attacked captured and beatened with death in Larue County by mob Sept. 1868.24. Richardson house attacked in Conishville by mob and Crasban killed Sept. 28, 1868.25. Mob attacks Negro cabin at hanging forks in Lincoln County. John Mosteran killed &C Cash & Coffey killed Sept. 1869.26. Terry Laws &C James Ryan hung by mob at Nicholasville Oct. 26, 1868.27. Attack on Negro cabin in Spencer County—a woman outraged Dec. 1868.28. Two Negroes shot by Ku Klux at Sulphur Springs in Union County, Dec. 1868.29. Negro shot at Morganfield Union County, Dec. 1868.30. Mob visited Edwin Burris house in Mercer County, January, 1869.31. William Parker whipped by Ku Klux in Lincoln County Jan. 20, 1869.32. Mob attacked and fired into house of Jesse Davises in Lincoln County Jan. 20, 1868.33. Spears taken from his room at Harrodsburg by disguise men Jan. 19, 1869.34. Albert Bradford killed by disguise men in Scott County, Jan. 20, 1869.35. Ku Klux whipped boy at Standford March 12, 1869.36. Mob attacked Frank Bournes house in Jessamine County. Roberts killed March 1869.37. Geo Bratcher hung by mob on sugar creek in Garrard County March 30, 1869.38. John Penny hung by a mob at Nevada Mercer county May 29, 1869.39. Ku Klux whipped Lucien Green in Lincoln county June 1869.40. Miller whipped by Ku Klux in madison county July 2d, 1869.41. Chas Henderson shot &? his wife killed by mob on silver creek Madison county July 1869.42. Mob decoy from Harrodsburg and hangs Geo Boiling July 17, 1869.43. Disguise band visited home of I. C. Vanarsdall and T. J. Vanarsdall in Mercer county July 18/69.44. Mob attack Ronsey's house in Casey county three men and one woman Killed July 1869.45. James Crowders hung by mob near Lebanon Merion county Augt 9, 1869.46. Mob tar and feather a citizen of Cynthiana in Harrison county Aug. 1869.47. Mob whipped and bruised a Negro in Davis county Sept. 1869.48. ^ Ku Klux burn colored meeting-house in Carrol county Sept. 1869.49. Ku Klux whipped a Negro at John Carmins's farm in Fayette county Sept. 1869.50. Wiley Gevens killed by Ku Klux at Dixon Webster county Oct. 1869.51. Geo Rose killed by Klu Klux near Kirkville in Madison county Oct. 18, 1869.52. Ku Klux ordered Wallace Sinkhorn to leave his home near Park-ville Boyle county Oct. 1869.53. Man named Shepherd shot by mob near Parksville Oct. 1869.54. Regulator killed Geo Tanhely in Lincoln county Nov. 2d, 1869.55. Ku Klux attacked Frank Searcy house in madison county one man shot Nov. 1869.56. Searcy hung by mob madison county at Richmond Nov. 4th, 1869.57. Ku Klux killed Robt Mershon daughter shot Nov. 1869.58. Mob whipped Pope Hall and Willett in Washington county Nov. 1869.59. Regulators whipped Cooper in Palaski County Nov. 1869.60. Ku Klux ruffians outraged Negroes in Hickman county Nov. 20, 1869.61. Mob take two Negroes from jail Richmond Madison county one hung one whipped Dec. 12, 1869.Petition from Kentucky Citizens on Ku Klux Klan Violence S2162. Two Negroes killed by mob while in civil custody near mayfield Graves county Dec. 1869.63. Allen Cooper killed by Ku Klux in Adair county Dec. 24th, 1869.64. Negroes whipped while on Scott's farm in Franklin county Dec. 1869.65. Mob hung Chas Fields in Fayette county Jan. 20, 1870.66. Mob take two men from Springfield jail and hung them Jan. 31, 1870.67. Ku Klux whipped two Negros in Madison county Feb. 1870.68. Simms hung by mob near Kingston Madison county Feb. 1870.69. Mob hung up, then whipped Douglass Rodes near Kingston Madison County February 1870.70. Mob takes Fielding Waller from jail at Winchester Feb. 19th, 1870.71. R. L. Byrom hung by mob at Richmond Feb. 18th, 1870.72. Perry hung by mob near Lancaster Garrard County April 5th, 70.73. Negro hung by mob at Crab-orchard Lincoln county Apr. 6th, 1870.74. Mob rescue prisoner from Summerset jail Apr. 5, 1870.75. Mob attacked A. Owen's house in Lincoln county Hyatt killed and Saunders shot Apr. 1870.76. Mob releases five prisoners from Federal Officers in Bullitt county Apr. 11th, 1870.77. Sam Lambert shot 8C hung by mob in Mercer county Apr. 11th, 1870.78. Mob attacks William Palmer house in Clark County William Hart killed Apr. 1870.79. Three men hung by mob near Gloscow Warren county May 1870.80. John Redman killed by Ku Klux in Adair county May 1870.81. William Sheldon Pleasanton Parker Daniel Parker Willis Parker hung by mob in Laurel county May 14th, 1870.82. Ku Klux visited Negro cabins at Deak's Mill Franklin county robbed and maltreated inmates May 14th, 1870.83. Negro's school house burned by incendiaries in Christain county May 1870.84. Negro hung by mob at Greenville Muhlenburgh county May 1870.85. Colored school house on Glen creek in Woodford county burned by incendiaries June 4th, 1870.86. Ku Klux visited Negro cabin robbing and maltreating inmates on Sand Riffle in Hay county June 10, 1870.87. Mob attacked Jail in Whitley County two men shot June 1870.88. Election riot at Harrodsburg four person killed Aug. 4, 1870.89. Property burned by incendiaries in Woodford county Augt. 8, 1870.90. Turpin & Parker killed by mob at Versailled Augt. 10, 1870.91. Richard Brown's house attacked by Ku Klux, in Hay.92. Simpson Grubbs killed by a band of men in Montgomery county Augt. 1870.93. Jacob See rescued from Mt. Sterling jail by mob Sept. 1870.94. Frank Timberlake hung by a mob at Flemingburg Fleming county Sept. 1870.95. John Simes shot & his wife murdered by Ku Klux in Hay county Sept. 1870.96. Oliver Williams hung by Ku Klux in Madison county Sept. 1870.97. Ku Klux visited cabins of colored people robbed and maltreated inmates at Havey Mill Franklin county.98. A mob abducted Hicks from Lancaster Oct. 1870.99. Howard Gilbert shot by Ku Klux in Madison county Oct 9th, 1870.100. Ku Klux drive colored people Bald-Knob Franklin county Oct. 1870.101. Two Negroes shot on Harrison Blanton's farm near Frankfort Dec. 6th, 1870.102. Two Negroes killed in Fayette county while in civil custody Dec. 18, 1870.103. Howard Million murdered by Ku Klux in Fayette county Dec. 1870.104. John Dickerson driven from his home in Hay county and his daughter ravished Dec. 12, 1870.105. A Negro named George hung by a mob at Cynthiana Harrison county Dec. 1870.106. Negro killed by Ku Klux near Ashland Fayette county January 7th, 1871.107. A Negro named Hall whipped and shot near Shelbyville Shelby county Jan. 17, 1871.108. Ku Klux visited Negro cabin at Stamping Ground in Scott county force (White) 8C Ku Klux killed two Negroes killed in self defence.109. Negro killed by Ku Klux in Hay county January 14, 1871.110. Negro church & school house in Scott county [burned?] Jan. 13,1871.111. Ku Klux maltreated Demar his two sons and Joseph Allen in Franklin Jan. 1871.112. Dr Johnson whipped by Ku Klux in Magoffin county Dec. 1871.113. Property burned by incendiaries in Fayette county Jan. 21, 1871.Petition from Kentucky Citizens on Ku Klux Klan Violence 11. The author states, “The Democratic party has here a political organization composed only of Democrats not a single Republican can join them where many of these acts have been committed it has been proven that they were the men, don with Armies from the State Arsenal”. What does the author mean by this statement, according to the text?2. In which ways, according to the text, does the Democratic Party support the efforts of the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize African Americans?3. What is the purpose of listing the crimes the Ku Klux Klan has committed, according to the text?4. According to the text, in which way does this letter demonstrate southern resistance to reconstruction initiatives?5. According to the text, what was the purpose of this text?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Civil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877) ” Week 5Summative AssessmentStudents will take an assessment analyzing primary and secondary source documents of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era and write an argument citing evidence from those source documents which they select and about whether the Civil War was a war over slavery and African American rightsFocus QuestionIn which ways, if at all, was the Civil War a war over slavery and African American rights?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Bruce Levine, “ The Failure of Compromise” (2013)Abraham Lincoln, “ First Inaugural Address” (1861)Horace Greely, “Freeing the Slaves Should be the Primary War Aim” (1862)Lincoln, A, “Reply to Greeley” (1862)Abraham Lincoln, “Emancipation Proclamation” (1863) Fredrick Douglas, “Emancipation Proclaimed” (1862)Edward L. Ayers, “ Reconstruction” (2013)Frankfort, Kentucky, Congressional Petition, “ Descriptions of the Ku Klux Klans” (1871)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.4.a, 6.1.12.A.4.d, 6.1.12.D.4.c, 6.12.D.4.dCivil War and Reconstruction (1850-1877)Week 5 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to synthesize the readings of the past four weeks.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summative AssessmentThe Civil War was caused by failure to compromise, about slavery, between the north and the south, but it was also a war about power and control. Emancipation proclamation seems synonymous with Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. While many historians argue that slavery was the main reason for the Civil War, other say that slavery was just the underlying issue that encompassed far deeper issues.Considerations:What is your evaluation of this? In which ways, if at all, was the Civil War a war over slavery and African American rights? Why? What other evidence would you need to strengthen your claim?Writing TaskCiting evidence from various texts read in this unit, defend a position about whether the Civil War was a war over slavery and African American rights.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States I Unit Overview“Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)”Summative AssessmentStudents will write an argument citing evidence from those documents in which they select and defend a position about whether the industrial revolution was more beneficial than detrimental to the United States. Essential QuestionsEnduring UnderstandingsTo what extent was the industrial revolution beneficial to America? The industrial revolution stimulated the economy through communication and transportation innovations, which aided reconstruction.As industrialists accumulated wealth, farmers and small business owners were barely surviving, because of monopolization. As industrial owners found ways to be more productive, they needed other markets to conduct commerce after the depression and this encouraged America to become imperialistic. Industrialization created many job opportunities that lured immigrants and nativists feared that these immigrants would endanger their way of life and take their jobs. Focus QuestionsWeek 1:In which way, primarily, did industrialization affect the west and aid in reconstruction? Week 2:In which way, primarily, did industrialization fuel labor conflicts and division in America?Week 3:To what extent is the Industrial revolution responsible for American imperialism, while creating national and international conflicts?Week 4:To what extent was nativism and racial tensions caused by the industrial revolution?Week 5:In what way, if at all, was the industrial revolution more beneficial than detrimental to the United States?Week 6:Week 7:Week 8:Learning Targets-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Academic VocabularyNostalgic Trajectory InevitabilityExtractive presaged iconicAmassed impasse ascendencyUsurpation mundane belieTumult Extractive ArduousExtralegal codified annihilationImpetus perpetual faunaantithetical Eloquent InsurgencyHeyday Monotonous automatonsalmshouses Condemnation abet Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsCrazy Horse and Sitting Bull Little Bighorn Colonel George Armstrong CusterTranscontinental railroad Farmers Alliance Knights of LaborPopulists People’s Party People’s PartyForaker Act Seward McKinleyUlysses Grant John Tyler Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.5.a, 6.1.12.A.5.b, 6.1.12.A.5.c, 6.1.12.B.5.a, 6.1.12.C.5.a, 6.1.12.C.5.b, 6.12.D.5.bUnit 5- Industrial Revolution (1870-1900) Unit OverviewUnit Rationale: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of the extent to which the industrial revolution was beneficial to America. Students will explore ways in which the industrial revolution aided reconstruction. Students will investigate how industrialization affected farmers, small business owners, and factory workers. Students will also examine the extent to which industrialization led to imperialism and nativism.Historical Thinking: The study of history rests on knowledge of facts, dates, names, places, events, and ideas. However, true historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and to marshal solid evidence in support of their answers; to go beyond the facts presented in their textbooks and examine the historical record for themselves; to consult documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites, works of art, quantitative data, and other evidence from the past, and to do so imaginatively--taking into account the historical context in which these records were created and comparing the multiple points of view of those on the scene at the time.“Facts are crucial to historical understanding, but there is only way for them to take root in memory: Facts are mastered by engaging students in historical questions that spark their curiosity and make them passionate about seeking answers.” (“Reading Like A Historian”, Wineburg, Martin, and Monte-Sano, Teachers College Press, New York, 2011.) Four main skills help to facilitate historical understanding: sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating. Sourcing-Historians begin reading a document at the end by sourcing it. They glance at the first couple of words but then go immediately to the document’s attribution. Who wrote this source and when? Is it a diary entry? A memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act? A leaked e-mail? Is the author in a position to know first-hand or this account based on hearsay? Sourcing transforms the act of reading from passive reception to engaged and active interrogation.Contextualizing-Contextualizing is the notion that events MUST be located in place and time to be properly understood. Close Reading-Primary and secondary sources provide students with an opportunity for close reading. They are the place to teach students to slow down and read closely, to think deeply about word choice and subtext. Corroborating-Corroborating is a strategy in which a reader asks questions about important details to determine points of agreement and disagreement. By comparing and contrasting multiple account, students can start to build a real understanding of what happened in the past and why.Discipline Specific Literacy: Research has shown that a key to literacy is exposing students to a rich diet of texts that mix genre and style “at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics.” Primary sources confront readers with varied styles and textures of language that push the boundaries of literacy.Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)”Week 1Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way, primarily, did industrialization affect the west and aid in reconstruction? Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)NostalgicColonel George Armstrong CusterCrazy Horse and Sitting BullLittle BighornTrajectoryInevitabilityExtractivepresagediconicamassedimpasseascendencyusurpationmundanebelietumultExtractiveArduousextralegal and codifiedtranscontinental railroadannihilationimpetusperpetualfaunaantitheticalNed Blackhaw, “Development of the West” (2013)Richard White, “ Born Modern: An Overview of the West” (2013)Richard White, “Transcontinental Railroads: Compressing Time and Space” (2013)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.5.a, 6.1.12.A.5.b, 6.1.12.A.5.c, 6.1.12.B.5.a, 6.1.12.C.5.a, 6.1.12.C.5.b, 6.12.D.5.bUnit 5- Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)Week 1 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of how the west was affect by industrialization and aided reconstruction. Students will investigate why the west was considered the modern world and how industrialization stimulated the economy, while taking into account the negative impacts of industrialization.The transcontinental railroad made traveling and transporting more time and cost effective by reducing the need to reload supplies and board various trains and ferries to reach a destination. Raw materials and livestock became easy to transport and made settlements easier to establish. Easy transportation also encouraged many men and women to settle closer to industrialized cities and many jobs were created. Tourism, especially in the West, also helped the economy. Unfortunately, the creation of jobs, which lured many immigrant works, created racial tensions and the lack of safety codes in an industrialized society, which led to many deaths, were negative effects of the industrial revolution.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the role the west played in industrialization and reconstruction. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how reconstruction was aided by the west and the effects of the industrial revolution in the west.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-46 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 141 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-127 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent did western industrialization aid in reconstruction efforts?Development of the Westby Ned BlackhawkIn the summer of 1876, two dramatically different places captured the American nation’s attention. As the summer began, fairgoers in Philadelphia teemed into the Centennial Exhibition held to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of independence. Millions marveled at the majestic torch and metal hand that had just come from France, an initial gift to commemorate the two nations’ shared revolutionary spirits. Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone and other technological wonders were unveiled at Machinery Hall, the centerpiece of the fair, while on opening night an orchestra and thousand-person choir performed the national anthems of the forty-nine nations invited to this first American world’s fair.Across the continent in late June, allied American Indians from the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe nations camped along the Little Big Horn River on the Montana plains awaiting US military forces under the leadership of Colonel George Armstrong Custer. Lakota leaders such as Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull remembered well their nation’s capacity for inflicting damage on the US military. After all, Lakotas in 1866 under Red Cloud had fought US forces to a virtual standstill along Montana’s Bozeman Trail. Crazy Horse in particular had distinguished himself by leading the annihilation of Montana’s Fort Phil Kearny. The subsequent treaty at Fort Laramie in 1868 recognized such power and established a “Great Sioux Reservation” across what are now the western halves of North and South Dakota. Following a series of broken promises after the Fort Laramie treaty, Lakota leaders led their bands out of the Great Sioux Reservation of the Dakota Territory and back to their beloved equestrian and bison grasslands in Montana.The “end of the Indian wars” has always held either a deeply nostalgic or triumphant sense of predetermination. Lakota history has particularly suited such narratives well. Custer’s “massacre,” “slaughter,” or “last stand” at Little Bighorn quickly became the most iconic battle of the post-Civil War Era. Endlessly reimagined in popular “wild west” shows, serial novels, and advertisements, it came to epitomize American expansion and US history more broadly. Custer’s defeat, and not the subsequent confinement of Lakota communities onto their fragmented reservation, has framed many narratives of the West.Scholars have often viewed both the trajectory of the technological advances and the collapse of the fragile ecologies that sustained Native American autonomy through the lens of inevitability. These two signature events from the summer of 1876 highlight many of the interconnections that would increasingly bind the American West with the development of the American nation. Indeed, the twenty-five year period afterward was filled with the most dynamic processes of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration that the country had yet witnessed, making the United States by the end of the nineteenth century a modern and emergent power.Although communication and transportation networks increasingly linked the West with the rest of the nation, no one could have foreseen the next quarter century’s phenomenal growth. In fact, the United States in 1876 was still recovering from a devastating civil war, and the country was nowhere near a modern and integrated nation-state. Union armies still occupied much of the former Confederacy, and the fate of Reconstruction remained unclear as millions of former slaves faced the daily challenge of enacting and defining their recently won “freedom.” As one author has recently noted, so “incomplete and uncertain was the United States” that “it did not yet have a national anthem.”By 1900, of course, the nation’s future had dramatically changed, and, as scholars now increasingly recognize, the West helped to “reconstruct” America. With its expansive, extractive economies, its growing forms of federal authority, and the creation of single-party Republican territories and states, the West in many ways presaged the development of a modern American state and economy. Moreover, the mythology of the West solidified the ideological narrative of American history. With its presumptions of rugged individualism and freedom from concentrated political power, the West quickly became the most iconic and “imagined” region of the United States. Un-coincidentally, the most celebrated US historian, Frederick Jackson Turner, crafted his famous “frontier thesis” in the late 1800s and delivered it at another world’s fair held in Chicago to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the Columbian Encounter. In his 1893 address, Turner identified the process of US expansion as the most important variable in American history. He also worried about the “closing” of this frontier following the 1890 Census which had identified, for the first time, the absence of available and unincorporated western lands on which immigrant communities could settle. Such processes of frontier settlement, Turner believed, not only defined American history but also provided the self-democratizing impulses that fueled US democracy. In an era in which millions of non-Anglophones amassed upon American seaboards, Turner worried how such newly arrived immigrants might become Americans.In both the historic and mythic West, the United States moved beyond the impasse of sectional conflict and emerged into the twentieth century positioned for global ascendency. The development of the West was of course both cultural and geographic, and few places signal such expansive transformations as clearly Hawaii, which would become America’s most western state. Located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, several weeks’ travel from California, Hawaii remained at the end of the Civil War largely outside the orbit of the United States. Its cultural, linguistic, and political practices confounded American travelers.The Hawaiian Kingdom, an indigenous monarchy, governed the Hawaiian Islands, and like the West as a whole, Hawaii underwent a three-decade process following the Civil War that both led to its incorporation into the American nation and fueled American national development more broadly. As with the Lakota and other Indian communities who viewed the American Union as divided and weak during the Civil War, Hawaiian leaders could not foresee the transformation ushered in by the war’s aftermath. They did, however, try their best to forestall such changes, particularly as the Hawaiian Kingdom saw its economy and land-tenure systems. The monarchy and its supporters staged a lengthy international campaign to protect Hawaiian sovereignty.When Reconstruction officially ended in 1877 following the contested election of Rutherford Hayes, the resulting economic, political, and cultural transformations were felt throughout both the South. The Pacific region underwent a parallel upheaval. By 1876, plantations had become Hawaii’s signature economy, and they were increasingly controlled by naturalized American immigrants and their children, including Sanford Dole, who was born in 1844 in Honolulu. As in the South, Hawaiian planters implemented systems of voter intimidation, disenfranchisement, and property taxes designed to exclude non-whites from the political process. By 1887, Hawaii was ruled by a white planter oligarchy with Asian laborers and Native Hawaiians excluded from participation in a newly formed constitutional government. Moreover, Hawaii possessed increased geopolitical importance. As American economic interests in Asia expanded, control over the largest port in the middle of the Pacific became more important to the American Navy.With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War of 1898, the United States took possession of the former Spanish colonies of the Philippines and annexed Hawaii through a series of Congressional measures that many viewed as illegal. Since Hawaii was never conquered by US military forces, ceded by treaty, nor purchased, its admission to the Union violated the US Constitution’s procedures for accessioning new territories. The last monarch of Hawaii, Queen Lili’uokalani, who was imprisoned in the early 1890s by planter elites, articulated such concerns to the US Congress, delivering thousands of signed petitions protesting the usurpation of Hawaiian sovereignty. American military strategists and plantation leaders across the Hawaiian Islands, however, mobilized against the queen and her supporters. They successfully lobbied the US administration of William McKinley, who had distanced himself from President Grover Cleveland’s previous support for Lili’uokalani. As with the contested election of 1876, the election of 1896 fundamentally remade American interests in the Pacific.The development of the American West then is best viewed through a multiplicity of lenses. With millions of recent Anglophone migrants, the West of the 1870s quickly became a radically different place for those indigenous non-Anglophone communities whose roots in the region stretched back for generations. As the largest and oldest Spanish-speaking community in the West, for example, New Mexico witnessed dramatically different economic and political fortunes than its recently established northern neighbor, Colorado, which had virtually no non-indigenous communities before the Mexican-American War in the 1840s. By contrast, New Mexico was home to tens of thousands of Hispa?os, many of whom prided themselves on their deep connections with the Spanish empire in the region and traced their ancestry to the Spanish conquistadors of New Mexico from the 1500s.Unlike New Mexico, which did not become a state until 1912, Colorado became a state in 1876 and is known as “the Centennial State.” With many of Lincoln and Grant’s administrative appointments filling the state’s leadership ranks, Colorado, like many western states, enjoyed nearly uniform Republican Party affiliation from the 1870s until 1930. It voted for Democratic candidates for president only five out of fourteen times before 1932. Western states added after 1876 became even more uniform in their party affiliation, including, for example, North and South Dakota, which were admitted to the Union in 1892. Together these two states participated in twenty presidential elections before 1932, voting for Democratic candidates only three times. Such relatively uniform Republic affiliation guaranteed congressional and Electoral College support for Republican candidates and created administrative and institutional support for Republican economic, political, and social interests. In matters as mundane as political appointments to massive federal grazing or railroad contracts, for nearly half a century, political accommodation characterized the administrative politics of many western states.The rapid political incorporation of diverse territories, geographies, and cultures into the American Republic after 1876 should not belie the tremendous social and cultural tumult experienced during this quarter-century of development. Mining and labor conflicts gripped newly emergent Anglophone communities from Montana to San Francisco and from Puget Sound to Bisbee, Arizona. Extractive economies particularly fueled social and civil unrest, as tens of thousands of migrants poured into remote locations, competing for employment as well as consuming scarce natural resources. The industrialization of the West remained as arduous and complicated a process as those fueling urban industries, and western industrial development became characterized by more immediately identifiable ecological transformations and increased competition between multi-racial communities. Chinese laborers, in particular, were targeted by civil and state-level exclusionary campaigns. Such extralegal and codified campaigns quickly resulted in the exile of one of the West’s first global migratory labor communities. As several scholars have suggested, such western tensions produced far-reaching federal legacies, as the Congressional 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act became the United States’ first immigration law to target the race and class of any national immigrant community.In terms of race relations, expansion of federal authority, and economic and territorial growth, the West from 1876 to 1900 helped to both develop and reconstruct the United States. The millions of tons of western timber, cattle, minerals, metals, and fish were essential to the development of particularly the Midwest’s manufacturing capabilities. From furniture in Minneapolis to beer in St. Louis to meatpacking throughout the Great Lakes, western resources fueled American growth. After 1898, with the addition of the Philippines, Hawaii, and other Pacific possessions, an empire of US protectorates stretched from Puerto Rico to Southeast Asia, establishing the United States as not only the continental power of North America but increasingly of the globe.Ned Blackhawk, a Western Shoshone, is a professor of history and American Studies at Yale University and the author of Violence over the Land: Indians and Empires in the Early American West (2006), which has received numerous awards including the Frederick Jackson Turner Prize from the Organization of American Historians.Blackhawk, N. (2013). Development of the west. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from . history-by-era/development-west/essays/development-westDay 1According to the text in lines 29 to 35, what impacted Native American life?In which ways, according to the text, did the west aid in the reconstruction of America?According to lines 100 to 109, in which ways was the west affected by industrialization and development?Which tensions and conflicts were caused by industrialization, according to the text in lines 123-137?In which way, according to the text, did the west fuel American growth?Born Modern: An Overview of the Westby Richard White The present American West is a creation of history rather than geography. There has never been a single West; American Wests come and go. At various times places now considered as thoroughly eastern as western Pennsylvania, western New York, or West Virginia have been the West, and over the course of the nineteenth century the term itself proceeded steadily westward. The arguments for defining the modern West as that section of the United States west of the Missouri River or, more narrowly, west of the ninety-eighth meridian, are historical, as are the arguments for pronouncing this region different from the Wests that preceded it. The modern American West is not the product of the arrival at the Pacific of a steadily moving frontier but is instead the result of transformative events and new processes.To a remarkable degree, the modern West is the product of two wars—the Civil War, which brought it into being, and World War II, which utterly transformed it. Any broad overview of the history of the American West, such as this one, must recognize the lasting consequences of these events for the West.Before it became the American West, the region west of the Missouri had for centuries been Indian country and a contested and uncontrolled borderland between empires. Between 1865 and 1869, it underwent a gestation, and a large chunk of it was reborn as a child of the Civil War. By the time this West reached adulthood, it would be fully under American control. Its identity was more than the result of conquest. Americans had been conquering land and dispossessing its prior inhabitants long before they reached the West, but both the pace and processes of conquest—military, political, economic and technological—changed in important ways following the Civil War. As a result, the West evolved differently from lands east of the Missouri River.Before the Civil War there had been two parallel expansions—a northern expansion based on free labor and a southern expansion based on slave labor. Terms like Manifest Destiny disguise the deep tensions and divisions over westward expansion that surfaced again and again in the controversies over the admission of Missouri as a state, the annexation of Texas, and the organization of Kansas as a territory. The Civil War replaced this dual expansion with a unitary expansion. There would be no equivalent of the Mason-Dixon Line or the Ohio River in the West. The West is one of the many places that the South lost and lost badly.There was a second political consequence of the Civil War in the West, and that was the expansion of federal power. Before the Civil War, the federal government was quite weak. The Civil War created, in Richard Bensel’s nice phrase, a “Yankee Leviathan”—a powerful federal government.?And although the power of this state diminished unevenly following the war, it remained strongest in the South during Reconstruction—and afterward was strongest in the West. During the late nineteenth century, the West was the kindergarten of the American state, a place where federal government nurtured its power and produced its bureaucracies. After Reconstruction, most of the American Army was stationed in the West. The federal government controlled most of the West’s lands and an important, if not particularly efficient, bureaucracy disposed of them. With their lives touched by institutions like the agency that became the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Geological Survey, and—late in the century—the emerging Forest Service, westerners, more than inhabitants of any other section, depended on the presence of the federal government.Federal power, in turn, was linked to a distinctive pattern of development. The backcountry or frontier of the early nineteenth century initially had weak and uneven connections with national or international markets. Market connections depended on rivers and eventually canals. Areas newly settled by non-Indians thus were unevenly integrated into regional or national economies, and politics often reflected these connections—or the lack of them.In the West, settlement tended to follow, rather than precede, connections to national and international markets. This was true in California with the Gold Rush and mineral rushes elsewhere, but it was most true after the Civil War when the railroads, funded and subsidized by federal, state, and eventually local governments, penetrated the region. “Population,” in Richard Overton’s words, “followed the rails.” Except for Mormons, Anglo-American settlement of the West really had no pre-market or even weak market phase. There was subsistence agriculture in the West, but it was largely American Indian and Mexican American. The great flood of migration brought commercial farmers who came in on railroads and depended upon them to get their crops to market. This was settlement by a mature commercial and increasingly industrial society, and from the beginning of the period, the West was a place of large and powerful corporations. There was no equivalent to these conditions in the settlement that took place further east.The combination of a strong federal government and an industrial and commercial society had, in turn, further consequences. The first was that after the Civil War, American Indian peoples were badly outmatched. They faced a modern army, shaped by the Civil War, able to move quickly due to the new railroad network, and equipped with ever more powerful weapons. “Experience proves,” Grenville Dodge, a leading figure in the Union Pacific and Texas Pacific railroads, wrote, “the Railroad line through Indian Territory a Fortress as well as a highway.” Or as Charles Francis Adams, president of the Union Pacific, put it, “The Pacific railroads have settled the Indian question.”Until the War of 1812, Indian peoples east of the Mississippi had been formidable opponents of American expansion. They were not only skilled fighters, but could call on European imperial allies. But Indians were warriors, not professional soldiers. They had to feed their families and could not remain in the field all year. The professional soldiers they faced suffered from neither of these liabilities. The soldiers might lose battles, but they did not lose wars. American advantages in numbers, equipment, and logistics were too formidable. Americans’ tactics were too ruthless. The pressures they put on American Indians were relentless.The results of the forces unleashed by the Civil War and the growth of a modern industrial society were, in hindsight, astonishing. New York is roughly 1,150 miles from Omaha, Nebraska, which is on the Missouri River and was the jumping-off place for the Union Pacific Railroad. Omaha, in turn, was roughly 1,421 miles from San Francisco, which was the terminus of the Central Pacific Railroad, the second half of the first transcontinental railroad. It had taken non-Indians roughly three-and-a-half centuries to take control of the land east of the Missouri; it took less than thirty years to secure control of the remaining 55 percent of the continent. The United States had, of course, claimed virtually this entire region since the Mexican American War, but most of it had remained Indian Country beyond practical control by the United States and only marginally connected with national or international markets. This was not true by the turn of the twentieth century. In hindsight, parts of this rapid expansion now seem a mistake. Large areas were repeatedly deserted during nineteenth-century droughts, and large sections of the Great Plains and the interior basins and plateaus saw their populations peak around 1920. For many farmers in the high arid regions, the twentieth century would be a long, slow retreat.The West that had emerged from this rapid conquest and occupation by non-Indians was by the twentieth century a hardscrabble place. Its economy was based on extractive industries such as mining, fishing, and logging or on agriculture and ranching. San Francisco, gradually Los Angeles, and to a lesser extent Seattle developed some manufacturing, but by and large the West produced raw materials and semi-finished goods. Outside of the Great Plains, it was more urban than the country as a whole, and much of it was marked by other distinctive demographic patterns. In many parts of the West men heavily outnumbered women, and immigration from China, and later Japan and Mexico led to a racialization of work and demonization of the Chinese and Japanese.By the time the Depression hit in the 1930s, large parts of the West were already staggering under low commodity prices. This only increased the region’s sense of resentment. It saw itself as the hewer of wood and carrier of water for the East and as exploited by eastern capital and corporations. The New Deal gained immense popularity in the West not only because New Deal policies brought some immediate relief from the Depression but because so many New Deal projects—particularly the dams on western rivers—built up a western infrastructure that while of little use in the 1930s, would prove critical to western development during and after World War II.The Depression shifted public resources westward, but World War II moved them in that direction on a far more massive and enduring scale. The excess hydroelectric power developed during the Depression now provided electricity for factories and aluminum mills, as well as the new atomic works at Hanford, Washington. The West gained a disproportionate share of military bases and government funding. Virtually overnight, the West acquired a shipbuilding industry, and its infant aircraft industry expanded enormously. The West had not produced a single commercial cargo vessel in the 1930s, but during World War II, it accounted for 52 percent of American shipbuilding production. Los Angeles set out to make itself the Detroit of the aircraft industry, and it succeeded. As was the case in the wake of the Civil War, during World War II the government subsidized large corporations such as Boeing, Kaiser, and Lockheed that became critical to the Western economy.Workers, including those who had taken part in the first large-scale African American migration from the South to northern industrial cities, came west to work in relatively high-paying jobs in these factories. On the Pacific Coast, African American migrants often moved into neighborhoods vacated by Japanese Americans and older Japanese immigrants who had been interned after Pearl Harbor. A region that had supported the deportation and eviction of Mexican workers and their Mexican American children in the 1930s urged their return in the 1940s. The West’s population increased roughly three times as quickly as the population of the country as a whole. Much of this growth was on the Pacific Coast and most of it was urban.Westerners feared the boom and growth would end following the war, but with the onset of the Cold War, continued federal support for the new aerospace industry as well as the maintenance of military bases spurred further growth. That expansion was not even, of course, but the old extractive economy was no longer at the core of the West. Politically, the West remained more liberal and more supportive of a strong federal role in the economy into the 1960s, but gradually this changed, and the region grew steadily more conservative as the century went on.In popular culture, the West is seen as dichromatic—with whites and Indians. In reality, the West was more diverse than that, with large-scale immigration from Asia, Mexico, and later other places in Latin America, as well as Europe and Canada.What is perhaps most striking about such a broad overview of the West during the last century and a half is that a region defined in the popular mind by icons of individualism—cowboys, mountain men, gunfighters—can more accurately be seen as the child of government and large corporations. A place that we tend to define in terms of nature and a timeless past is actually probably the most modern section of the country. The West, as defined here, was born modern.Richard White is the Margaret Byrne Professor of American History at Stanford University and a past president of the Organization of American Historians. His books include It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A New History of the American West (1991), The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region 1650–1815 (1991), which won the Parkman Prize, and most recently Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (2011).White, R. (2013). Born modern: An overview of the west. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from .history-by-era/development-west/essays/born-modern-overview-westDay 1Which two factors, according to the text, contributed to the development of the industrialized west?According to the text, what were some negative effects of western industrialization?In which way, according to the text, was the west important for American industrialization, in general?In which way, according to the text, was the west the most modern section of the country and how was this helpful to reconstruction?Transcontinental Railroad Compressing Time and Spaceby Richard White Many of our modern clichés about the impact of technology, particularly about the consequences of the Internet and telecommunications, first appeared as clichés about nineteenth-century railroads, particularly the transcontinental railroads in North America. People remarked on the annihilation of time and space with an enduring sense of wonder whenever a railroad penetrated a new region. When passengers found that they could get to distant places more quickly, they translated reduced time into contracting space and spoke as if distant places had grown closer. The human experience of space depended on the speed of conveyance. With the Atlantic cable and the transcontinentals, Margaret Irvein Carrington wrote in 1869 “with only a single wire to underlie the Pacific, the whole earth will become as a whispering gallery, wherein all nations, by one electric pulsation, may throb in unison, and the continent shall tremble with the rumbling of wheels that swiftly and without interruption or delay transport its gospel and commerce.” By 1869, the Pacific Coast was only four days from Omaha, and Carrington reported that “an officer of the army recently returned in forty hours over a distance which required a march of sixty-four days in 1866.”It was only after the Civil War that the railroads really began to create technologically coherent systems. In 1860 there were 31,286 miles of American railroads, but they could hardly be thought of as a system or even a collection of systems. The main reason was that there was no single standard gauge—the distance between the rails—for tracks. The standard gauge in North America today is 4 feet 8? inches, and by 1860 that was the dominant gauge in much of the eastern United States. It was used in roughly one-half of the total mileage, but it was only one of the more than twenty gauges in use. Five feet was the standard gauge in the South. It was as if hobbyists were trying to connect Lionel tracks with HO tracks, and to make matters worse, lines coming into a city often did not connect. Workers would have to load goods on wagons and transport them across town to another railroad. Trains stopped at rivers where passengers and goods had to be ferried across.The Civil War was not the primary impetus for standardizing gauges, but it quickened the pace of change. The need to transport men and supplies rapidly without unnecessary breaks gave urgency to the complaints of merchants, who had long resented the increased costs of transshipments. Abraham Lincoln’s decision to make the Pacific Railway, the first transcontinental, using a standard gauge (4 feet, 8? inches) ratified a consensus that had already emerged, but the ratification was nonetheless important. It compelled Pacific Coast railways, where the early gauge was 5 feet, to change, and provided an incentive to all lines connecting with the Pacific Railway to adopt the standard gauge. It was a major step toward continental uniformity. Although the South would continue to fight the standard gauge even after the Civil War, it lost that fight as thoroughly as it lost the war.In the years after the Civil War, railroad technology underwent, as Steven Usselman has put it, “virtually perpetual refinement.” Except for the gauge, virtually everything about railroad lines grew larger: the locomotives, the weight of the rails, the bridges, the cars. Iron rails gave way to steel rails that could carry heavier loads, and wooden bridges increasingly yielded to iron. Increases in size and weight brought changes to braking systems and suspension systems, and improvements in these allowed further increases in size of the machinery.This “bulking up” was not so much a necessity for the movement of people as for the movement of things. The ability to move heavy things long distances at relatively cheap rates was the real economic significance of the railroads. In 1869, the year that the first transcontinental railroad was completed, Dan Castello’s Circus and Menagerie stopped in Cheyenne, Wyoming, then a raw railroad town on the Union Pacific. The elephants that disembarked were unlikely beasts in an unlikely place, but elephants in Cheyenne were as apt a symbol as any of the reorganization of the world through steam technology. If a railroad could cross hundreds of miles to deliver elephants and Moroccan acrobats into frontier towns, what couldn’t they deliver across vast and forbidding distances? The presence of elephants signaled the vast reach of American popular culture and the way the railroads could pull once isolated regions into new orbits. The arrival of railroads signaled the creation of a new set of spatial relations and a new set of material connections.Elephants disembarking from a railroad train also symbolized the increased speed with which the flora and fauna of continents could mix and mingle. Railroad technology influenced Americans’ ideas of nature and shaped the ways Americans changed the natural world. We tend to think of technology as antithetical to nature, but this was not a nineteenth-century attitude. The locomotive was, after all, the iron horse. Western railroads were the most modern of industrial products set in midst of what North Americans regarded as primeval nature. This is one reason that they so fascinated Americans. In the United States intellectuals and popular writers had already accepted “the machine in the garden” as a defining symbol of the republic, marking Americans as both a people of progress and a people of nature. Western railroads promoted travel on their western lines as a journey into nature. The 1879 edition of The Pacific Tourist made the transcontinental trip seem both an inspirational immersion in nature and a journey utterly devoid of physical effort or discomfort. Upon seeing the mountains, “[w]ithout scarcely asking the cause the tourist is full of glow and enthusiasm.”To bring passengers into nature, the railroads consumed the raw stuff of nature. Railroads were by the late nineteenth century the largest consumers of wood and coal in the United States. To make the iron and steel that went into the trains, men mined iron ore and coal. Once in operation, these trains caused forests to fall and the earth to be ripped open. In the West, buffalo yielded to cattle, and cattle overgrazed the ranges which allowed invading plants to follow in their footsteps. Farmers transformed vast grasslands into corn and wheat. Industrial towns grew up around mines and consumed vast swaths of timber. None of this could have happened in the way it did or with the speed it did without the railroads carrying buffalo hides, cattle, corn, and wheat to market.Although railroads improved the lives of many Americans, they took a toll on those who operated them. Even though railroad companies moved reasonably quickly to improve safety for passengers with the Westinghouse automatic brake, platforms between cars, and other improvements, they moved much more slowly to protect their workers. Commentators often compared working on the railroads to wars, and the number of deaths and injuries was astonishing. In 1889, 2,000 men were killed working on the railroads and 20,000 were injured. The vast majority did not die in spectacular accidents but rather in the everyday work of coupling cars, laboring in crowded yards full of moving machinery, and balancing on the top of moving railroad cars to tighten hand brakes. Most railroad companies did not put automatic brakes on freights until the early twentieth century. In a very real sense in the late nineteenth century, railroad companies found it cheaper to kill and maim workers than to install available, safer technologies. President Benjamin Harrison called these deaths and injuries “a reproach to our civilization.” Dead bodies, severed hands and fingers, and legs lost as trains ran over them formed the final grim connection between technology and nature.Such preventable deaths were another reason Americans loved this new technology but did not love the men who owned the railroads. Anthony Trollope declared that among Americans “the railway is everything. It is the first necessity of life, and gives the only hope of wealth.” The locomotive had “been taken to the bosoms of them all as a domestic animal.” But railroad corporations in the late nineteenth century were reviled as monopolies whose control over movement and thus over space were undemocratic and unsuited to the lives of free people. Nineteenth-century Americans made a distinction somewhat akin to our distinction between hardware and software. The tracks, locomotives, cars, and bridges were the hardware, and the rate tables and schedules were the software. How the trains and the technology affected people’s lives depended on the rates and schedules. Critics of the railroads maintained that the railroads routinely discriminated against some people, places, and things in favor of others.Charges of discrimination had resonance because they touched both the material interests of millions and basic notions of republican equity. Because railroads were chartered by the state, because the government used its powers of eminent domain to aid the railroads, because governments granted land to railroads and loaned some railroads credit, and because the railroads were public highways under common law, they had greater obligations to the public than normal businesses. It was unjust, critics argued, for railroad corporations to set rates that discriminated against the citizens of the government which gave them life. The railroads should not be allowed to use their control over technology to choose winners and losers by controlling rates. In fact, the railroads often did choose winners and losers. In the western United States, it was as if all towns were on wheels. When rates changed, space changed. When railroad rates made it more expensive to ship goods from Chicago to Spokane than from Chicago to Seattle, which was farther away, it was as if all the merchants in Seattle moved closer to Chicago and all the merchants in Spokane moved farther away.In the nineteenth century, like today, new technologies changed the way that Americans lived. Then, as now, some people had far more control over technological changes than others. Railroads spurred a long contest over technology—its public purposes and consequences and its private ownership—that is with us still.Richard White is the Margaret Byrne Professor of American History at Stanford University and a past president of the Organization of American Historians. His books include It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A New History of the American West (1991), The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region 1650–1815 (1991), which won the Parkman Prize, and most recently Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (2011).White, R. (2013). Transcontinental railroads: Compressing time and space. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from transcontinental-railroads-compressing-time-and-space?Day 1In which way, according to the text, did the transcontinental railroad bring America closer?In which ways, according to the text, did standardization of gauges help lower the cost and ease of transportation?According to the text, in which way was the economy aided by the transcontinental railroad?Which controversies arose from railroads, according to the text?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)”Week 2Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionIn which way, primarily, did industrialization fuel labor conflicts and division in America?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Farmers AllianceKnights of LaborPopulistsPeople’s PartyEloquentInsurgencyHeydayPeople’s PartyMonotonousautomatonsalmshousesMichael Kazin, “ Populism and Agrarian Discontent” (2013)Henry George, “Social Problems” (1880)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.d.5.CUnit 5- Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)Week 2 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of how industrialization fueled labor conflicts and division in America. Students will investigate how industrialization changed the life of the American worker and ways in which monopolization negatively impacted Americans. Students will also examine ways in which unions attempted to seek better treatment and compensation for workers, while fighting against monopolies. Industrialization united the country in some ways, but divided the country in others. While owners of industries were doing very well, farmers, skilled workers, and unskilled workers were hit hard by industrialization. The owners did not compensate workers enough and the conditions in the work place were drastically altered. Unions were formed to combat working conditions and compensation. Meanwhile, small businesses continued to be swallowed by monopolies and farmers struggled to maintain their farms, as big industry owners continued to prosper. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore ways in which monopolies hindered the average American. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of how disunity was fueled by industrialization.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-151 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 114 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 115-286 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five: Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent, was the industrial revolution responsible for creating inequality and division in America?Populism and Agrarian Discontentby Michael KazinToday, the Gilded Age evokes thoughts of “robber baron” industrialists, immigrants toiling long hours in factories for little pay, massive strikes that were often put down by force, and political corruption in both big cities and the halls of Congress. But there were also serious problems in rural America, where most of the population lived. And many small farmers turned to social movements and politics to remedy those ills.For example, during the 1880s, the population of Nebraska doubled to one million, a faster rate of growth than that of any other state in the Union. Taking advantage of cheap land offered by the railroads, Civil War veterans and European immigrants rushed in to start farms or launch small businesses to supply all the new residents, whether they lived on the land or in cities like Lincoln and Omaha.Then, near the end of the decade, a nasty mix of calamities put an end to the boom. A massive blizzard in 1888 killed stock animals across the northern plains, ruining Nebraskans who had invested nearly everything they had in pigs and cattle. Then in 1889, a bumper harvest of corn—Nebraska’s largest crop—resulted in the lowest prices in memory. Some farmers resorted to burning their corn for fuel instead of selling it to buy coal. City newspapers blamed the crisis on too many ears chasing too few buyers; they blandly predicted the market would readjust itself in time. But a hundred weekly papers from the rural counties told a more dramatic story, and skilled lecturers from the Farmers Alliance helped drive it home. A year later the worst drought since the Civil War destroyed millions of acres of corn, wheat, and oats. The health of Nebraska’s urban economy depended upon the bounty of its farms. Bankrupt businesses and unfinished buildings scarred the streets of Lincoln and Omaha.[1]A growing number of Nebraskans had already begun to rail at a human scourge as deadly as the elements. They called it by a variety of names—“monopoly,” “the money power,” “Wall Street,” or “organized wealth.” But their indictment was simple enough: A powerful conspiracy was robbing small farmers of the fruits of their labors. They accused the railroads of imposing sharp and unfair hikes in freight rates, bankers of committing a legal form of usury, and the political establishment of serving the rich and the cities at the expense of productive families in the countryside. Men and women who had broken the prairie sod, expecting it to yield them an independent life, if not always a comfortable one, were forced to mortgage their farms and sometimes even their plows and animals to stay in business.[2]Children who sensed their parents’ anger began to sing:When brokers are freed from all their harmAnd lobbyists are deadThe banker’ll bow unto the farmAnd come to us for bread.[3]Since 1880, a state branch of the Farmers Alliance had been attempting to mobilize these discontents. Like its counterparts in states to the north and south, the Nebraska Alliance did not begin as a political insurgency. Organizers launched cooperative stores and sold hail insurance and life insurance at rates lower than commercial firms were offering. For most of the decade, good crop prices and the rush of optimistic newcomers kept its membership in the low thousands, but by 1890, the Farmers Alliance boasted over two million members nationwide.Similar events and a similar kind of outrage were present in farming states all across the South and Great Plains. Foreign competition and commodity speculators at home were driving down prices for cotton, wheat, and corn. Neither major party, wedded to a doctrine of laissez-faire, was willing to do anything much about it. And many wage earners had their own reasons to protest: railroad companies, mine operators, and big manufacturers routinely fired men for trying to organize unions, making it difficult to win either job security or a living wage. The nation’s largest union group, the Knights of Labor, sympathized with the agrarian rebellion.Thus, in 1892, farmers and labor insurgents came together in Omaha to organize a new People’s Party, also known as the Populists. “We believe,” proclaimed Ignatius Donnelly, a 61-year-old former congressman from Minnesota who also dabbled in science fiction, “that the powers of government—in other words, of the people—should be expanded .?.?. as rapidly and as far as the good sense of an intelligent people and the teachings of experience shall justify, to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land.” Most of the party’s rank-and-file belonged to the Farmers Alliance, whose huge network of local papers and lecturers who stumped through rural America gave it a base that no other third party in US history could match.But the Populists also knew they would never transform the nation from the agrarian hinterland alone. Their Omaha Platform proposed a number of ways to restrain and regulate corporate America so that “the plain people” would once again feel the government was standing up for their interests: a graduated income tax, a “flexible” currency based on silver as well as gold, the nationalization of the railroads and the telegraph, the initiative and referendum which allowed voters to place their own measures on the ballot or vote down a bill already passed by the state legislature, and a ban on aliens owning land targeting wealthy European investors. The Omaha Platform also preached that “the interests of rural and civil labor are the same; their enemies are identical” and backed it up with demands for an eight-hour day for public workers and abolition of the Pinkerton Agency, a notorious strikebreaking firm.With such proposals, Populists won the votes of large numbers of miners in the Rocky Mountains and urban craftsmen in the cities of the Mississippi Valley and the Far West—as well as from small farmers in the South and West. From 1892 to 1896, as an economic depression wracked the nation, the new party elected forty-five congressmen and six senators, as well as governors and a majority of state legislators in Colorado and Kansas, and a mayor of San Francisco. Populist candidates were competitive nearly everywhere outside the industrial Northeast. In 1892, the Populist James Weaver ran a courageous campaign for president, braving rocks and rotten eggs in the Democratic South and a blackout of coverage by Republican papers in the Midwest. Despite such animus, he gained over a million ballots—almost 9 percent of the total—and twenty-two electoral votes.The involvement of women in the movement put the older parties to shame. Female Populists organized camp meetings on the prairies and the fields, spoke widely at rallies, and wrote for the movement press. The veteran reformer Mary Elizabeth Lease became famous for allegedly telling Kansans in 1890 to “raise less corn and more hell.” When Populists took charge of Colorado’s government in 1892, one of their first acts was to place a referendum on woman suffrage before the voters. It passed easily, with big majorities coming from the same counties that had recently delivered the state to the insurgent party.[4]The Populists also moved, in halting steps, from their white core to the black periphery. They first welcomed the formation of a separate Colored Farmers Alliance—only to shun it in 1891 when thousands of black cotton-pickers staged a strike at harvest time against employers who included members of the white Alliance. Still, African Americans joined the People’s Party in states from North Carolina to Kansas, and the party’s ability to persuade black men to switch from the Republican Party was crucial to electing scores of third-party candidates, all of them white, in the former Confederacy. During the 1892 campaign in Georgia, two thousand white supporters rushed to stop the lynching of the Reverend Henry S. Doyle, a black Populist leader. “We propose to wipe the Mason and Dixon line out of geography,” stated Ignatius Donnelly, “to wipe the color-line out of politics.” For a few exhilarating years, it did not seem impossible.[5]Most Populists wrapped their aspirations in the Social Gospel, a theology that held that Christians should apply their faith to such worldly problems as poverty, war, and the exploitation of labor. Given the size and range of the movement, quite different versions of the worldly faith commingled within it. Southerners of both races, reared in Biblical literalism, tended to believe that “God has promised to hear the cry of the oppressed,” and insisted that “No man in this nation can live a consistent Christian life” unless he threw himself into the agrarian insurgency. Black Populists were usually faithful church members, and ordained ministers became the most trusted and eloquent leaders of the “colored” insurgency. But no one attempted to bar believers in evolution, spiritualism, or freethinking from taking part in the smaller Populist parties that sprouted in the urban West and Northeast. For Populists, the virtue of one’s motivation eclipsed the details of one’s theology. Such an ecumenical attitude was notable at a time when the Supreme Court was unanimously hailing the United States as “a Christian nation” that respected the Sabbath and financed “Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.”[6]But the heyday of the People’s Party was brief. Its first presidential campaign in 1892 was its last as a serious contender. Part of the reason is that the Populists drew fear and hostility from economic elites and well-placed conservatives. “The present assault upon capital is but the beginning,” warned Supreme Court Justice David Field in 1894. “It will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political conditions will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing in intensity and bitterness.”[7] Field was opposed to such Populist ideas as a guaranteed income tax. But he was also alarmed by inflammatory remarks made by such figures as Davis Waite, the Populist governor of Colorado. In 1893, Waite had declared, “It is better, infinitely better that blood should flow to the horses’ bridles rather than our national liberties should be destroyed.” No wonder the prospect of the third party gaining power, alone or in fusion with a faction of a major party, horrified the custodians of social order.In 1896, the People’s Party split apart over the question of whether to endorse William Jennings Bryan for president. The young, charismatic Bryan was already the Democratic nominee for president, and he was sympathetic to many of their ideas and had campaigned for James Weaver four years earlier. But if the Populists fused with the Democrats, they would no longer pose a radical alternative to the two-party system. In the end, a majority of delegates to the Populist convention supported Bryan, in the hope that his election would be the first step toward liberating the nation from the rule of big business.But Bryan was a reform-minded Democrat, not a Populist. He wanted to cleanse the system of the corrupting influence of big money, not destroy it and build a new one. Still, his presidential campaign, one of the most dramatic in US history, provoked the business establishment and most big-city newspapers to warn that victory for the “Popocrats” would lead to “anarchy” and bankrupt the nation. Bryan’s loss to Republican nominee William McKinley doomed the third party to a slow but certain demise.The Democrat from Nebraska did achieve one lasting success: he effectively remade his party into a strong supporter of union rights and the strict regulation of corporations. On Labor Day, 1896, Bryan offered a crowd of fifteen thousand workers and their families a metaphor for what would become the progressive approach to business from his campaign. Bryan recalled that, during his youth in southern Illinois, he had been in charge of tethering the family swine so they would not tear up the land. “And then it occurred to me that one of the most important duties of government is to put rings in the noses of hogs.”[8]So the eclipse of the People’s Party opened the way for a different kind of triumph. The powerful critiques of “monopoly” and “the money power” voiced by the populist insurgency helped persuade major-party presidential nominees from Bryan to Theodore Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson—and the thousands of candidates who followed their lead—to put an end to the freebooting capitalism of the nineteenth century. Some did so because they feared a failure to act could lead to a revolution. Others sympathized with discontented Americans and believed, as had the Populists, that a strong national government would be the best protector of the welfare of small farmers and wage earners. The policies they enacted included crop subsidies, the protection of union organizers, and the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for an income tax. Thus was born an enduring truism of twentieth-century American politics: the disruptive potential and moral critique of radical movements helped powerful progressives to transform the nation.[1] For succinct accounts of these events and their relationship to the growth of the state, see James C. Olson and Ronald C. Naugle, History of Nebraska, 3rd edition (Lincoln, 1997).[2] For rich accounts of these charges, see Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (NY, 1976); Robert McMath, American Populism: A Social History (NY, 1993); Charles Postel, The Populist Vision (NY, 2007).[3] Quoted by a woman who remembered the song from her childhood on a farm in Lancaster County. Mary Louise Jeffery, “Young Radicals of the Nineties,” Nebraska History 38 (March 1957): 31. On the Nebraska Farmers Alliance, see Olson and Naugle, History, 221–225.[4] Rebecca Edwards, “Mary Elizabeth Lease: Advocate for Political Reform,” in John Brown to Bob Dole: Movers and Shakers in Kansas History, ed. Virgil W. Dean (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006), 127–139; Marilley, Woman Suffrage, 124–158.[5] On Doyle and black populism generally, see Omar Ali, Black Populism in the New South (forthcoming, University of Mississippi Press), 138–140. Donnelly quote from ibid., 159.[6] Quotes from Robert C. McMath Jr., Populist Vanguard: A History of the Southern Farmers’ Alliance (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975), 68; Joseph W. Creech Jr., “Righteous Indignation: Religion and Populism in North Carolina, 1886–1906,” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2000, 230–231; Postel, Populist Vision, 264; Holy Trinity v. United States 143 US 457 (1892).[7] Field quoted in Josephson, The Politicos, 57[8] William Jennings Bryan, The First Battle (Chicago, 1896), 378.Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and co-editor of Dissent magazine. He is the author of American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation (2011); A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (2006); The Populist Persuasion: An American History (1995); Barons of Labor: The San Francisco Building Trades and Union Power in the Progressive Era (1987), co-author of America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s (fourth edition, 2012), and editor-in-chief of The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History (2010).Karzin, M. (2013). Populism and agrarian discontent. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1Why according to the text, did agrarian societies blame their failure on monopoly? According to the text, why was the Populist Party formed?What was the major goal of the Omaha Platform, according to the text?To what degree did the Populist Party protect the rights of African Americans?To what extent, according to the text, was the People’s Party successful in their endeavor?Henry George 1883 - Social ProblemsThere is in all the past nothing to compare with the rapid changes now going on in the civilized world. It seems as though in the European race, and in the nineteenth century, man was just beginning to live–just grasping his tools and becoming conscious of his powers. The snail's pace of crawling ages has suddenly become the headlong rush of the locomotive, speeding faster and faster. This rapid progress is primarily in industrial methods and material powers. But industrial changes imply social changes and necessitate political changes. Progressive societies outgrow institutions as children outgrow clothes. Social progress always requires greater intelligence in the management of public affairs; but this the more as progress is rapid and change quicker…?A civilization which tends to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a fortunate few, and to make of others mere human machines, must inevitably evolve anarchy and bring destruction. But a civilization is possible in which the poorest could have all the comforts and conveniences now enjoyed by the rich in which prisons and almshouses would be needless, and charitable societies unthought of. Such a civilization waits only for the social intelligence that will adapt means to ends. Powers that might give plenty to all are already in our hands. Though there is poverty and want, there is, yet, seeming embarrassment from the very excess of wealth producing forces. "Give us but a market," say manufacturers, "and we will supply goods without end!" "Give us but work!" cry idle men….?The tendency of all the inventions and improvements so wonderfully augmenting productive power is to concentrate enormous wealth in the hands of a few, to make the condition of the many more hopeless; to force into the position of machines for the production of wealth they are not to enjoy, men whose aspirations are being aroused. Without a single exception that I can think of, the effect of all modern industrial improvements is to production upon a large scale, to the minute division of labor, to the giving to the possession of large capital an overpowering advantage. Even such inventions as the telephone and the typewriter tend to the concentration of wealth, by adding to the ease with which large businesses can be managed, and lessening limitations that after a certain point made further extension more difficult.?? ?The tendency of the machine is in everything not merely to place it out of the power of the workman to become his own employer, but to reduce him to the position of a mere attendant or feeder to dispense with judgment, skill and brains, save in a few overseers; to reduce all others to the monotonous work of automatons, to which there is no future save the same unvarying round.?Under the old system of handicraft, the workman may have toiled hard and long, but in his work he had companionship, variety, the pleasure that comes of the exercise of creative skill, the sense of seeing things growing under his hand to finished form. He worked in his own home or side by side with his employer. Labor was lightened by emulation, by gossip, by laughter, by discussion. As apprentice, he looked forward to becoming a journeyman ; as a journeyman, he looked forward to becoming a master and taking an apprentice of his own. With a few tools and a little raw material he was independent. He dealt directly with those who used the finished articles he produced. If he could not find a market for money he could find a market in exchange. That terrible dread –the dread of having the opportunities of livelihood shut off; of finding himself utterly helpless to provide for his family– never cast its shadow over him.?? ?Consider the blacksmith of the industrial era now everywhere passing–or rather the " black and white smith," for the finished workman worked in steel as well. The smithy stood by roadside or street. Through its open doors were caught glimpses of nature; all that was passing could be Been. Wayfarers stopped to inquire, neighbors to tell or hear the news, children to see the hot iron glow and watch the red sparks fly. Now the smith shoed a horse; now he put on a wagon tire; now he forged and tempered a tool; again he welded a broken andiron, or beat out with graceful art a crane for the deep chimney-place, or, when there was nothing else to do, he wrought iron into nails.?? ?Go now into one of those enormous establishments covering acres and acres, in which workmen by the thousands are massed together, and, by the aid of steam and machinery, iron is converted to its uses at a fraction of the cost of the old system. You cannot enter without permission from the office, for over each door you will find the sign, " Positively no admittance." If you are permitted to go in, you must not talk to the workmen ; but that makes little difference, as amid the din and the clatter, and whir of belts and wheels, you could not if you would. Here you find men doing over and over the selfsame thing - passing, all day long, bars of iron through great rollers; presenting plates to steel jaws; turning, amid clangor in which you can scarcely "hear yourself think," bits of iron over and back again, sixty times a minute. for hour after hour, for day after day, for year after year. In the whole great establishment there will be not a man, save here and there one who got his training under the simpler system now passing away, who can do more than some minute part of what goes to the making of a salable article. The lad learns in a little while how to attend his particular machine. Then his progress stops. He may become gray-headed without learning more. As his children grow, the only way he has of augmenting his income is by setting them to work. As for aspiring to become master of such an establishment, with its millions of capital in machinery and stock, he might as well aspire to be King of England or Pope of Rome. He has no more control over the conditions that give him employment than has the passenger in a railroad car over the motion of the train. Causes which he can neither prevent nor foresee may at any time stop his machine and throw him upon the world, an utterly unskilled laborer, unaccustomed even to swing a pick or handle a spade. When times are good, and his employer is coining money, he can only get an advance by a strike or a threatened strike. At the least symptoms of harder times his wages are scaled down, and he can only resist by a strike, which means, for a longer or shorter time, no wages.?? ?I have spoken of but one trade; but the tendency is the same in all others. This is the form that industrial organization is everywhere assuming, even in agriculture. Great corporations are now stocking immense ranges with cattle, and bonanza farms " are cultivated by gangs of nomads destitute of anything that can be called home. In all occupations the workman is steadily becoming divorced from the tools and opportunities of labor; everywhere the inequalities of fortune are becoming more glaring. And this at a time when thought is being quickened; when the old forces of conservatism are giving way: when the idea of human equality is growing and spreading…?? ?The same great agencies–steam and machinery–that are thus massing population in cities are operating even more powerfully to concentrate industry and trade. This is to be seen wherever the new forces have had play, and in every branch of industry, from such primary ones as agriculture, stock-raising, mining and fishing, up to those created by recent invention, such as railroading, telegraphing, or the lighting by gas or electricity…How, in the face of these figures, the Census Bureau can report a decline in the average size of farms in the United States from 153 acres in 1870 to 134 acres in 1880 I cannot understand. Nor is it worth while here to inquire. The incontestable fact is that, like everything else, the ownership of land is concentrating, and farming is assuming a larger scale. This is due to the improvements in agricultural machinery, which make farming a business requiring more capital, to the enhanced value of land, to the changes produced by railroads, and the advantage which special rates give the large over the small producer. That it is an accelerating tendency there is no question. The new era in farming is only beginning. And whatever be its gains, it involves the reduction of the great body of American farmers to the ranks of tenants or laborers. There are no means of discovering the increase of tenant farming in the United States during the last decade, as no returns as to tenantry were made prior to the last census ; but that shows that there were in the United States in 1880 no less than 1,024,601 tenant farmers. If, in addition to this, we could get at the number of farmers nominally owning their own land, but who are in reality paying rent in the shape of interest on mortgages, the result would be astounding.?? ?How in all other branches of industry the same process is going on, it is scarcely necessary to speak. It is everywhere obvious that the independent mechanic is becoming an operative, the little storekeeper a salesman in a big store, the small merchant a clerk or bookkeeper, and that men, under the old system independent, are being massed in the employ of great firms and corporations. But the effect of this is scarcely realized. A large class of people, including many professed public teachers, are constantly talking as though energy, industry and economy were alone necessary to business success - are constantly pointing to the fact that men who began with nothing are now rich, as proof that any one can begin with nothing and get rich. ?? ?That most of our rich men did begin with nothing is true. But that the same success could be as easily won now is not true. Times of change always afford opportunities for the rise of individuals, which disappear when social relations are again adjusted. We have been not only overrunning a new continent, but the introduction of steam and the application of machinery have brought about industrial changes such as the world never before saw.The rich men of the first generation in a new country are always men who started with nothing, but the rich men of subsequent generations are generally those who inherited their start. In the United States, when we hear of a wealthy man, we naturally ask, How did he make his money?" for the presumption, over the greater part of the country, is that he acquired it himself. In England they do not ordinarily ask that question - there the presumption is that he inherited it. But, though the soil of England was parceled out long ago, the great changes consequent upon the introduction of steam and machinery have there, as here, opened opportunities to rise from the ranks of labor to great wealth. Those opportunities are now closed or closing.?? ?When a railroad train is slowly moving off, a single step may put one on it. But in a few minutes those who have not taken that step may run themselves out of breath in the hopeless endeavor to overtake the train. It is absurd to think that it is easy to step aboard a train at full speed because those who got on board at starting did so easily. So is it absurd to think that opportunities open when steam and machinery were beginning their concentrating work will remain open.?? ?An English friend, a wealthy retired Manchester manufacturer, once told me the story of his life. How he went to work at eight years of age helping make twin, when twine was made entirely by hand. How, when a young man, he walked to Manchester, and having got credit for a bale of flax, made it into twine and sold it. How, building up a little trade, he got others to work for him. How, when machinery began to be invented and steam was introduced, he took advantage of them, until he had a big factory and made a fortune, when he withdrew to spend the rest of his days at ease, leaving his business to his son.?? ?"Supposing you were a young man now," said I," could you walk into Manchester and do that again?"?? ?"No," replied he;" no one could. I couldn't with fifty thousand pounds in place of my five shillings."?? ?So in every branch of business in which the new agencies have begun to reach anything like development. Leland Stanford drove an ox-team to California; Henry Villard came here from Germany a poor boy, became a newspaper reporter, and rode a mule from Kansas City to Denver when the plains were swarming with Indians - a thing no one with a bank account would do. Stanford and his associates got hold of the Central Pacific enterprise, with its government endowments, and are now masters of something like twelve thousand miles of rail, millions of acres of land, steamship lines, express companies, banks and newspapers, to say nothing of legislatures, congressmen, judges, etc. So Henry Villard, by a series of fortunate accidents, which he had energy and tact to improve, got hold of the Oregon Steam Navigation combination, and of the Northern Pacific endowment, and has become the railroad king of the immense domain north of the Stanford dominions, having likewise his thousands of miles of road, millions of acres of land, his newspapers, political servitors, and literary brushers off of flies, and being able to bring over a shipload of lords and barons to see him drive a golden spike.?? ?Now, it is not merely that such opportunities as these which have made the Stanfords and Villards so great, come only with the opening of new countries and the development of new industrial agents; but that the rise of the Stanfords and Villards makes impossible the rise of others such as they. Whoever now starts a railroad within the domains of either must become subordinate and tributary" to them”. The great railroad king alone can fight the great railroad king, and control of the railroad system not only gives the railroad kings control of branch roads, of express companies, stage lines, steamship lines, etc., not only enables them to make or unmake the smaller towns, but it enables them to "size the pile" of anyone who develops a business requiring transportation, and to transfer to their own pockets any surplus beyond what, after careful consideration, they think he ought to make. The rise of these great powers is like the growth of a great tree, which draws the moisture from the surrounding soil, and stunts all other vegetation by its shade.?? ?So, too, does concentration operate in all businesses. The big mill crushes out the little mill. The big store undersells the little store till it gets rid of its competition. On the top of the building of the American News Company, on Chambers Street, New York, stands a newsboy carved in marble. It was in this way that the managing man of that great combination began. But what was at first the union of a few sellers of newspapers for mutual convenience has become such a powerful concern, that combination after combination, backed with capital and managed with skill, have gone down in the attempt to break or share its monopoly. The newsboy may look upon the statue that crowns the building as the young Englishman who goes to India to take a clerical position may look upon the statue of Lord Clive. It is a lesson and an incentive, to be sure ~ but just as Clive's victories, by establishing the English dominion in India, made such a career as his impossible again, so does the success of such a concern as the American News Company make it impossible for men of small capital to establish another such business.?? ?So may the printer look upon the Tribune building or the newspaper writer upon that of the Herald. A Greeley or a Bennett could no longer hope to establish a first-class paper in New York, or to get control of one already established, unless he got a Jay Gould to back him. Even in our newest cities the day has gone by when a few printers and a few writers could combine and start a daily paper. To say nothing of the close corporation of the Associated Press, the newspaper has become an immense machine, requiring large capital, and for the most part it is written by literary operatives, who must write to suit the capitalist that controls it.?Under any condition of things short of a rigid system of hereditary caste, there will, of course, always be men who, by force of great abilities and happy accidents, win their way from poverty to wealth, and from low to high position; but the strong tendencies of the time are to make this more and more difficult. Jay Gould is probably an abler man than the present Vanderbilt. Had they started even, Vanderbilt might now have been peddling mousetraps or working for a paltry salary as some one's clerk, while Gould counted his scores of millions. But with all his money-making ability Gould cannot overcome the start given by the enormous acquisitions of the first Vanderbilt. And when the sons of the present great money-makers take their places, the chances of rivalry on the part of anybody else's sons will be much less.?? ?All the tendencies of the present are not merely to the concentration, but to the perpetuation, of great fortunes. There are no crusades; the habits of the very rich are not to that mad extravagance that could dissipate such fortunes high play has gone out of fashion, and the gambling of the Stock Exchange is more dangerous to short than to long purses. Stocks, bonds, mortgages, safe-deposit and trust companies aid the retention of large wealth, and all modern agencies enlarge the sphere of its successful employment.?? ?On the other hand, the mere laborer is becoming more helpless, and small capitals find it more and more difficult to compete with larger capitals. The greater railroad companies are swallowing up the lesser railroad companies ; one great telegraph company already controls the telegraph wires of the continent, and, to save the cost of buying up more patents, pays inventors not to invent. As in England, nearly all the public houses have passed into the hands of the great brewers, so here, large firms start young men, taking chattel mortgages on their stock. As in Great Britain, the supplying of railway passengers with eatables and drinkables has passed into the hands of a single great company, and in Paris one large restaurateur, with numerous branches, is taking the trade of the smaller ones, so here, the boys who sell papers and peanuts on the trains are employees of companies, and bundles are carried and errands run by corporations.?? ?I am not denying that this tendency is largely to sub. serve public convenience. I am merely pointing out that it exists. A great change is going on all over the civilized world similar to that infeudation which, in Europe, during the rise of the feudal system, converted free proprietors into vassals, and brought all society into subordination to a hierarchy of wealth and privilege. Whether the new aristocracy is hereditary or not makes little difference. Chance alone may determine who will get the few prizes of a lottery. But it is not the less certain that the vast majority of all who take part in it must draw blanks. The forces of the new era have not yet had time to make status hereditary, but we may clearly see that when the industrial organization compels a thousand workmen to take service under one master, the proportion of masters to men will be but as one to a thousand, though the one may come from the ranks of the thousand. Master! We don't like the word. It is not American! But what is the use of objecting to the word when we have the thing? The man who gives me employment, which I must have or suffer, that man is my master, let me call him what I will.An acquaintance of mine died in San Francisco recently, leaving $4,000,000, which will go to heirs to be looked up in England. I have known many men more industrious, more skillful, more temperate than he - men who did not or who will not leave a cent. This man did not get his wealth by his industry, skill or temperance. He no more produced it than did those lucky relations in England who may now do nothing for the rest of their lives. He became rich by getting hold of a piece of land in the early days, which, as San Francisco grew, became very valuable. His wealth represented not what he had earned, but what the monopoly of this bit of the earth's surface enabled him to appropriate of the earnings of others.?? ?A man died in Pittsburgh, the other day, leaving $3,000,000. He may or may not have been particularly industrious, skillful and economical, but it was not by virtue of these qualities that he got so rich. It was because he went to Washington and helped lobby through a bill which, by way of "protecting American workmen against the pauper labor of Europe," gave him the advantage of a sixty-per-cent. tariff. To the day of his death he was a stanch protectionist, and said free trade would ruin our "infant industries." Evidently the $3,000,000 which he was enabled to lay by from his own little cherub of an "infant industry" did not represent what he had added to production. It was the advantage given him by the tariff that enabled him to scoop it up from other people's earnings.?? ?This element of monopoly, of appropriation and spoliation will, when we come to analyze them, be found largely to account for all great fortunes.?Take the great Vanderbilt fortune. The first Vanderbilt was a boatman who earned money by hard work and saved it. But it was not working and saving that enabled him to leave such an enormous fortune. It was spoliation and monopoly. As soon as he got money enough he used it as a club to extort from others their earnings. He ran off opposition lines and monopolized routes of steamboat travel. Then he went into railroads, pursuing the same tactics. The Vanderbilt fortune no more comes from working and saving than did the fortune that Captain Kidd buried. ?? ?Or take the great Gould fortune. Mr. Gould might have got his first little start by superior industry and superior self-denial. But it is not that which has made him the master of a hundred millions. It was by wrecking railroads, buying judges, corrupting legislatures, getting up rings and pools and combinations to raise or depress stock values and transportation rates….?? ?So, likewise, of the great fortunes which the Pacific railroads have created. They have been made by lobbying through profligate donations of lands, bonds and subsidies, by the operations of Credit Mobilier and Contract and Finance Companies, by monopolizing and gouging. And so of fortunes made by such combinations as the Standard Oil Company, the Bessemer Steel Ring, the Whisky Tax Ring, the Lucifer Match Ring, and the various rings for the "protection of the American workman from the pauper labor of Europe."?Through all great fortunes, and, in fact, through nearly all acquisitions that in these days can fairly be termed fortunes, these elements of monopoly, of spoliation, of gambling run. The head of one of the largest manufacturing firms in the United States said to me recently, "It is not on our ordinary business that we make our money; it is where we can get a monopoly." And this, I think, is generally true.?I am not denouncing the rich, nor seeking, by speaking of these things, to excite envy and hatred; but if we would get a clear understanding of social problems, we must recognize the fact that it is due to monopolies which we permit and create, to advantages which we give one man over another, to methods of extortion sanctioned by law and by public opinion, that some men are enabled to get so enormously rich while others remain so miserably poor.?? ?If we look around us and note the elements of monopoly, extortion and spoliation which go to the building up of all, or nearly all, fortunes, we see on the one hand how disingenuous are those who preach to us that there is nothing wrong in social relations and that the inequalities in the distribution of wealth spring from the inequalities of human nature; and on the other hand, we see how wild are those who talk as though capital were a public enemy, and propose plans for arbitrarily restricting the acquisition of wealth. Capital is a good; the capitalist is a helper, if he is not also a monopolist. We can safely let anyone get as rich as he can if he will not despoil others in doing so. There are deep wrongs in the present constitution of society, but they are not wrongs inherent in the constitution of man nor in those social laws which are as truly the laws of the Creator as are the laws of the physical universe.?The wealth-producing powers that would be evoked in a social state based on justice, where wealth went to the producers of wealth, and the banishment of poverty had banished the fear and greed and lusts that spring from it, we now can only faintly imagine. Wonderful as have been the discoveries and inventions of this century, it is evident that we have only begun to grasp that dominion which it is given to mind to obtain over matter. Discovery and invention are born of leisure, of material comfort, of freedom. These secured to all, and who shall say to what command over nature man may not attain??? ?It is not necessary that anyone should be condemned to monotonous toil; it is not necessary that anyone should lack the wealth and the leisure which permit the development of the faculties that raise man above the animal. Mind, not muscle, is the motor of progress, the force which compels nature and produces wealth. In turning men into machines we are wasting the highest powers. Already in our society there is a favored class who need take no thought for the morrow -what they shall eat, or what they shall drink, or wherewithal they shall be clothed. And may it not be that Christ was more than a dreamer when he told his disciples that in that kingdom of justice for which he taught them to work and pray this might be the condition of all?...?Let us consider the matter. The equal, natural and unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does it not involve the right of each to the free use of his powers in making a living for himself and his family, limited only by the equal right of all others? Does it not require that each shall be free to make, to save and to enjoy what wealth he may, without interference with the equal rights of others; that no one shall be compelled to give forced labor to another, or to yield up his earnings to another; that no one shall be permitted to extort from another labor or earnings? All this goes without the saying. Any recognition of the equal right to life and liberty which would deny the right to property -the right of a man to his labor and to the full fruits of his labor- would be mockery.?? ?But that is just what we do. Our so-called recognition of the equal and natural rights of man is to large classes of our people nothing but a mockery, and as social pressure increases, is becoming a more bitter mockery to larger classes, because our institutions fail to secure the rights of men to their labor and the fruits of their labor.?? ?That this denial of a primary human right is the cause of poverty on the one side and of overgrown fortunes on the other, and of all the waste and demoralization and corruption that flow from the grossly unequal distribution of wealth, may be easily seen.George, H. (2013). Social problem. Google. Retrieved from /search?q=cache:ojmv_OD_zmcJ:Henry-George_Social-Problems_half/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usDay 1The author states, “It seems as though in the European race, and in the nineteenth century, man was just beginning to live–just grasping his tools and becoming conscious of his powers. The snail's pace of crawling ages has suddenly become the headlong rush of the locomotive, speeding faster and faster. This rapid progress is primarily in industrial methods and material powers. But industrial changes imply social changes and necessitate political changes. Progressive societies outgrow institutions as children outgrow clothes. Social progress always requires greater intelligence in the management of public affairs; but this the more as progress is rapid and change quicker”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?The author states, “Though there is poverty and want, there is, yet, seeming embarrassment from the very excess of wealth producing forces. "Give us but a market," say manufacturers, ‘and we will supply goods without end!’ ‘Give us but work!’ cry idle men”. According to the text, what is the author referring to when he makes this statement?In which ways, according to the text, in lines 18 to 26, does industrialization seem to only aid the rich?The author states, “The tendency of the machine is in everything not merely to place it out of the power of the workman to become his own employer, but to reduce him to the position of a mere attendant or feeder to dispense with judgment, skill and brains, save in a few overseers; to reduce all others to the monotonous work of automatons, to which there is no future save the same unvarying round”. What does the author mean by this, according to the text?In which way, according to the text, was industrialization harmful to craftsmen, farmers, and unskilled workers?Day 2?The author states, “When a railroad train is slowly moving off, a single step may put one on it. But in a few minutes those who have not taken that step may run themselves out of breath in the hopeless endeavor to overtake the train. It is absurd to think that it is easy to step aboard a train at full speed because those who got on board at starting did so easily. So is it absurd to think that opportunities open when steam and machinery were beginning their concentrating work will remain open”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this statement?According to the text, in which ways does industrialization favor families that are already wealthy, while hindering laborers?The author states, “The forces of the new era have not yet had time to make status hereditary, but we may clearly see that when the industrial organization compels a thousand workmen to take service under one master, the proportion of masters to men will be but as one to a thousand, though the one may come from the ranks of the thousand. Master! We don't like the word. It is not American! But what is the use of objecting to the word when we have the thing? The man who gives me employment, which I must have or suffer, that man is my master, let me call him what I will”. What is he referring to when he makes this statementIn which ways, according to the text, does monopolization interfere with Constitutional rights?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)”Week 3Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent is the Industrial revolution responsible for American imperialism, while creating national and international conflicts?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)James J. HillStanford, Collis P. Huntington, Charles Crocker, and Mark HopkinsJohn Pierpont MorganAndrew CarnegieRockefellerHenry Miller and his partner, Charles LuxGustavus SwiftInterstate Commerce Act in 1887Sherman Antitrust ActForaker Act SewardUlysses GrantJohn TylerMcKinleyRobert Cherney “Entrepreneurs and Bankers: The Evolution of Corporate Empires” (2013)Robert Cherney “ Empire Building” (2013)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.C.5.aUnit 5- Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)Week 3 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of how the industrial revolution led to imperialism, while creating national and international conflicts. Students will investigate how American reliance of manufacturing and commerce governed national and international policies and decisions.John Pierpont Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and Rockefeller are very familiar names, as they built some of the most successful businesses. Transportation, communication, and restructuring of manufacturing led to their fortunes. Small businesses were swallowed by monopolies and a large portion of Americans worked in the manufacturing business. Small business owners called for laws against monopolies, while the depression led many factory workers to lose their jobs, as more goods were being produced than were consumed. The need to expand the American market and technological advances led to American imperialism.By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore the role industrialization played in American imperialism. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of the degree to which industrialization was responsible for national and international conflicts.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-204 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 290 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 291-395 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: In which ways did the industrial revolution lead to American imperialism?Entrepreneurs and Bankers: The Evolution of Corporate Empiresby Robert W. ChernyJames J. Hill enjoyed being called “the Empire Builder,” taking it as a compliment for his work as president of the Great Northern Railway. Hill’s railway company, which ran through the northern Great Plains and Pacific Northwest, worked at building up the economy along its tracks, assisting farmers and small-town businesses. Hill reasoned that the more prosperous they were, the more they would ship on his railroad. By the time of his death, he ruled a corporate empire fully in keeping with his nickname as “the Empire Builder.”During the late nineteenth century, dozens of other entrepreneurs had also created corporate empires, though some were called names much less complimentary. The “Big Four”—Leland Stanford, Collis P. Huntington, Charles Crocker, and Mark Hopkins—led the Southern Pacific Railroad (the SP), and their company was often reviled as “the Octopus,” with its many tentacles grasping for control over all transportation in California and the Southwest. The SP was reputed to charge local shippers as much as possible, to the point where local businessmen told of bringing their ledgers to the SP so the railroad could determine the maximum it could charge without bankrupting them.Whether “Empire Builder” or “Octopus,” powerful corporate entrepreneurs transformed the nation’s economy during the thirty-five years following the Civil War. At the war’s end (1865), the large majority of American manufacturing was carried on by small businesses serving a local market. Relatively few manufacturers thought in terms of a national market, partly because of limited transportation facilities. Few major rivers had been bridged, railroads still operated on various gauges (the distance between the rails), which meant that cars could not be easily switched from one line to another, and most rails were still of iron, which limited the weight that they could carry.All that changed within a single generation.One revolution was in transportation and communication. Between 1865 and 1890, railroads grew from 35,000 miles of track to 167,000 miles. By the 1880s, the nation had an elaborate network of steel rails, with a common gauge, connecting all major population centers. Technological advances improved the power of locomotives, the safety of braking systems, and the carrying capacity of freight trains. Technological advances in communication came not only from high-speed mail trains but also from expansion of the pre-war telegraph system and the introduction of telephones beginning in the late 1870s. Improved transportation and communication permitted ambitious entrepreneurs to think in terms of a national market.A second revolution was in the financing of railroads and other new industrial corporations. Building railroads was expensive—more so than almost any other business. Railroad executives soon came to rely on investment bankers to assist in raising capital. By the late 1880s, John Pierpont Morgan had emerged as the nation’s leading investment banker. Son of a successful banker, young Morgan was educated in Europe, began working in his father’s bank in London, then moved to a bank in New York. Railroads had a voracious appetite for funds, but Morgan’s investors wanted to put their money where it would be safe and provide a reliable return. Morgan therefore tried to stabilize the railroad business. When companies came to Morgan for funds, he often insisted on reorganization to simplify corporate structures and combine separate lines into larger, centrally controlled systems. He also often insisted that a representative of the House of Morgan be added to the company’s board of directors, so that the company would continue to follow policies that would provide a safe and reliable return on Morgan’s investment. Some began to call this process “Morganization,” and “Morganized” lines included some of the largest in the country. A few other investment bankers followed similar patterns. By the early 1900s, such reorganization had created twelve large railroad systems that controlled more than half of all the country’s railroad mileage, and twenty others that operated most of the rest. The largest systems were interlocked with each other into a half dozen massive networks, each affiliated with a leading New York banking house. By then, Morgan had already turned his attention to other industries, especially steel.A third revolution was in the size and structure of manufacturing. The career of Andrew Carnegie in the steel industry provides an example. He was born in Scotland in 1835, and his penniless parents brought him to the United States in 1848. After a short time working in a textile mill, he became a messenger in a telegraph office, then a telegraph operator, then the personal telegrapher for a high official of the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the largest in the country. At the age of 25, he moved into a high management position with the railroad. After five years there, he went into the iron and steel industry, where he applied the management lessons he had learned with the railroad.Carnegie’s motto was “Cut the prices; scoop the market; run the mills full”—that is, set prices low enough to undercut his competitors and always run his plants at full capacity so that his capital investment produced the highest possible return. He took every opportunity to cut costs so that he might show a profit while charging less than his rivals. In 1864, steel rails sold for $126 per ton; by 1875, Carnegie was selling them for $69 per ton. Driven by improved technology and Carnegie’s competitiveness, steel prices continued to fall, reaching less than $20 in the late 1890s. By then, the nation led the world in steel production.Carnegie’s steel plants stood at one end of a long chain of operations that he owned outright or controlled through partnerships: iron ore mines, ships that transported iron ore across the Great Lakes, railway lines, coal lands, ovens to produce coke (coal treated to burn at high temperatures), and plants for turning iron ore into iron and steel. Bringing together all these operations under one company is called?vertical integration—and it was something new to American manufacturing. Control over the sources and transportation of raw materials guaranteed a reliable flow of crucial supplies at predictable prices—and may also have denied raw materials to competitors. Carnegie and other leading entrepreneurs saw technology as another competitive device, permitting the production of better quality goods at lower prices. In 1901, Carnegie sold his company to J.P. Morgan who then combined Carnegie’s operations with other steel companies he had invested in, creating United States Steel, the country’s first corporation capitalized at more than a billion dollars.Carnegie’s company was larger and more complex than any manufacturing enterprise in pre–Civil War America but was by no means unique in the late nineteenth century. Other companies also operated large and complex plants—by 1900, three steel plants each employed between 8,000 and 10,000 workers, and seventy other factories employed more than 2,000 workers, producing everything from locomotives to processed meat. Some companies operated more than one giant factory. Carnegie Steel ran two of the seventy largest factories, as did General Electric and Western Electric.Where Carnegie Steel sold his steel mostly to other large companies, Standard Oil sold mostly to final consumers. Standard Oil, run by John D. Rockefeller and his partners, revolutionized the petroleum industry. At the time, the major product of oil refining was kerosene, used primarily for home lighting. Rockefeller, in 1863, invested in a refinery in Cleveland, Ohio, then the center of petroleum refining—a business relatively easy to enter but highly competitive. Like Carnegie, Rockefeller was an aggressive competitor. He usually sought to persuade his competitors to join the cartel he was creating. Failing that, he would try to drive them out of business.By 1881, Rockefeller and his associates controlled some forty oil refineries, accounting for about 90 percent of the nation’s refining capacity, giving them a monopoly (monopoly?means “one seller”) over refining. Monopolizing one step in the manufacturing process is also called?horizontal integration. In the 1880s, Standard moved to vertical integration by gaining control of oil fields, building its own transportation facilities (including pipelines and oceangoing tanker ships), and creating its own marketing operations. By the early 1890s, Standard Oil had achieved virtually complete vertical and horizontal integration of the American petroleum industry—something unusual in American business. Standard’s monopoly proved to be short-lived, however. With the discovery of new oil fields in Texas and elsewhere, new companies tapped those fields and quickly followed the path of vertical integration.By the early 1880s, Rockefeller and his partners controlled companies in several states, but state laws required companies to operate only in the state in which they were chartered. To centralize decision-making in all their holdings, they created the Standard Oil trust, a new organizational form. Rockefeller and his partners who held shares in the individual companies exchanged their stock for trust certificates issued by Standard Oil. Standard Oil thus controlled all the individual companies, though technically it did not own them. Having centralized decision-making, Standard Oil consolidated its operations by closing more than half of its refineries and building several larger plants that incorporated the newest technology. One outcome was greater efficiency—the cost of producing petroleum products fell significantly, as did prices paid by consumers. Soon, new laws in New Jersey permitted corporations chartered there to own stock in other companies. So Rockefeller set up Standard Oil of New Jersey as a holding company for all the companies in the trust. Though the trust was only a temporary expedient for Rockefeller, the term?trust?quickly became synonymous with monopoly and then was applied to any large industrial enterprise.Rockefeller retired from active participation in business in the mid-1890s. By then, Standard Oil no longer had a monopoly, but the “Rockefeller interests” (companies dominated by the Rockefeller family) had become highly diverse and even more powerful. They included the National City Bank of New York (an investment bank second only to the House of Morgan), railroads, mining, real estate, steel plants, steamship lines, and other industries.Other entrepreneurs followed the paths marked out by Carnegie and Rockefeller, creating vertically integrated manufacturing enterprises and seeking to monopolize whole industries. Few such entrepreneurs managed to achieve a monopoly, but dozens created powerful corporations. Henry Miller and his partner, Charles Lux, for example, created a meat-packing empire in the western United States. Both began as retail butchers, attracted to San Francisco by the gold rush that began in 1848. From selling meat to customers, they integrated backwards to establish a slaughterhouse and packing plant, preparing meat for sale to many retail butchers. Then they integrated backward another step to establish huge cattle ranches in California’s San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere. Their company eventually owned or leased thousands of square miles of land in three states. By 1900, it was the largest vertically integrated cattle-raising and meat-packing company in the country, and the only agricultural corporation among the country’s 200 largest industrial corporations. Other entrepreneurs in Chicago, notably Gustavus Swift, developed meatpacking companies that were vertically integrated from the packing plant forward to the retail butcher. None of them had a monopoly, but the meatpacking industry was dominated by a small number of companies, a situation called an?oligopoly?(oligopoly?means “few sellers”). Other industries had also become oligopolistic by the early twentieth century.Eventually, as the original empire-builders passed from the scene, most of these companies passed under the control of managers, chosen by the company’s board of directors, and usually unknown to most Americans. Today, few Americans can name the president of US Steel, Exxon (formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey), or Swift and Company.As these new corporate empires emerged and came to public attention, some Americans began to become apprehensive about the degree of power they had. State laws had long regulated the activity of companies, but there were virtually no such laws at the federal level. On the other hand, some railroad companies received generous subsidies from the federal government in the form of land grants and loans. And, as companies grew larger, accounts soon emerged about their political activities. One of the earliest involved the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad, an early recipient of a generous federal subsidy. Its owners had created a construction company, the Credít Mobilier, to actually build the railroad, so that they could pay themselves handsomely for building their own tracks. To protect this arrangement from congressional scrutiny, the company sold shares secretly and at low prices to key members of Congress, so that they could share in the company’s inflated profits. News of the arrangement became public in 1872. Later, in 1883, the widow of David Colton, an associate of the SP’s Big Four, published letters her husband had received from Collis P. Huntington, the SP’s representative in Washington. In the letters, Huntington made clear that he considered members of Congress to be for sale; in one letter, from 1876, for example, he stated, “It costs money to fix things so that I would know his bill [a bill pushed by Tom Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad] would not pass. I believe with $200,000 I can pass our bill, but I take it that it is not worth that much to us.” Henry Demarest Lloyd, a journalist who published a scathing attack on Standard Oil in 1881, claimed, “The Standard has done everything with the Pennsylvania legislature, except refine it.” Whether or not Lloyd was accurate, many Americans became convinced that “the trusts” had corrupted politics. A famous cartoon from 1889 showed the US Senate as tiny figures at desks, dwarfed by gigantic moneybags with human heads looming over them, each moneybag labeled with the name of a trust; the title of the cartoon was “The Bosses of the Senate.”Beyond their worries about the corruption of politics, increasing numbers of Americans became concerned that the new corporate giants were manipulating their business to benefit a few but to exploit most they dealt with. Railroads were a special concern, since so many Americans were dependent on them to carry their produce to markets or to bring them supplies for their businesses. In the early 1870s several states passed laws prohibiting railroads from discriminating in their freight rates. In 1886, however, the US Supreme Court struck down such state laws on the basis that states could not regulate railroads that were part of interstate commerce. Partly in response, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887, but it proved ineffective in regulating railroads. Concern over the monopoly power of Standard Oil and other large companies caused Congress, in 1890, to pass the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibited “every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” However, when the Justice Department tried to prevent formation of a monopoly over sugar refining, it was blocked by the US Supreme Court on the grounds that manufacturing took place?within?a state and that the Constitution granted Congress authority only over?interstate?commerce. Not until the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, in 1901–1909, did the federal government begin to regulate big business and secure the dissolution of business combinations found to be “in restraint of trade or commerce.”Americans disagreed over the accomplishments of these corporate empire builders. Some accepted them as benefactors of the nation. Others agreed with E.?L. Godkin, a journalist at the time, who compared one railroad tycoon to a medieval robber baron—a feudal lord who robbed all travelers who passed through his domain. Subsequent historians have also disagreed. Some point out that many corporate empire builders of the late nineteenth century were unscrupulous, greedy, exploitative, and antisocial, and that some of them bribed public officials to get what they wanted. Looking at only such deeds or misdeeds of individuals does tell us something about both the economy and the public morality of the time, and helps us understand the public anger that eventually led to federal regulation. However, understanding the larger economic changes of the era requires more than an examination of individual behavior, whether despicable or praiseworthy. We need, instead, to seek to understand the ways that their activities transformed the economy. We need to understand the new corporate structures that they created, that usually survived the individual entrepreneur who created them, and that came to dominate the national economy in the twentieth century. We need to understand, too, that, in the process of building their individual empires and accumulating vast personal wealth, these entrepreneurs made the United States the most powerful nation in the world by the beginning of the twentieth century.Robert W. Cherny?is a professor of history at San Francisco State University. His books include?California Women and Politics: From the Gold Rush to the Great Depression?(2011) with co-editors Mary Ann Irwin and Ann Marie Wilson;?American Politics in the Gilded Age, 1868–1900?(1997);?San Francisco, 1865–1932?(1986), with?William Issel; and?A Righteous Cause: The Life of William Jennings Bryan?(1985, reprint 1994).Cherney,R. (2013). Entrepreneurs and bankers: The evolution of corporate empires. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from 1In which ways, according to the text, did the three revolutions aid in the creation of industrial empires?In which way did vertical integration aid monopolization, according to the text?According to the text, in which way did horizontal integration contribute to monopolies?According to the text, what attempts were made to stop monopolies?In which ways, according to the text, were empire builders beneficial to America?Empire Building by Robert W. ChernyThe years between the end of the Civil War, in 1865, and the end of the century witnessed rapid and far-reaching change in the economic and social life of the United States. During those years, the nation was transformed from rural and agricultural to urban and industrial. Manufacturing developed at a rapid pace and on a dramatic scale. The number of miles of railroad tracks increased more than 600?percent, giving the US a nationwide transportation network; the new railroads also integrated the West into the national economy and accelerated that region’s economic development. Cities burgeoned as thousands of people moved from rural areas and many more thousands poured in from around the world, especially Europe, attracted by the promise (though not always the reality) of economic opportunity. By 1900, the United States had emerged as the most vigorous economy in the world—it was the world’s largest producer of steel, petroleum products, and food.Despite these rapid changes in the social and economic life of the nation, its domestic politics changed very slowly, and its relations with the rest of the world remained minimal. During most of those years, the United States was focusing on its internal expansion and took only a small role in world affairs. Then, in 1898–1900, the US engaged in a brief but decisive war with Spain, acquired island territories stretching nearly halfway around the world, and took part in a military action in China—announcing to all that the United States was now a major world power. Though the change seemed to come almost overnight, the origins of that change began well before.Early Endeavors, 1865–1885Though most Americans paid little attention to foreign affairs until the late 1890s, there were some throughout the years after the Civil War who hoped for a greater role for the United States outside its borders. William H. Seward, Secretary of State during and after the Civil War (1861–1869), believed the US was destined to expand across the North American continent. When, in 1866, Tsar Alexander II of Russia offered to sell Russian holdings in North America, Seward acted quickly. In 1867, for slightly over $7 million, Alaska was in US hands. The Alaska treaty, unlike previous treaties, carried no promise of eventual statehood, a step that foreshadowed later patterns of acquisition.Seward also paid close attention to events on the southern border of the United States. In 1861, as the United States plunged into civil war, France, Spain, and Britain sent troops into Mexico. Spain and Britain soon withdrew, but French troops remained. With support from French troops, Archduke Maximilian of Austria became emperor of Mexico. Benito Juarez, the elected president, led the resistance. Involved in its own civil war, the US government could do little more than recognize Juarez as the legitimate head of state. When the Civil War ended, however, Seward demanded withdrawal of the French troops, and the Army moved 50,000 battle-hardened troops near the border. The French troops left Mexico, Juarez returned to power, and Seward’s actions bolstered respect for the U.S. in Europe.Some Americans had long regarded the Caribbean and Central America as potential areas for expansion. The Ostend Manifesto of 1854 had proposed acquiring Cuba. Another vision was a canal through Central America to shorten the coast-to-coast shipping route around South America. After the Civil War, both the Caribbean and the Pacific attracted attention as sites where the Navy might need bases. In 1867, seeking naval bases, Seward negotiated treaties to buy part of the Danish West Indies and to secure a base site in Santo Domingo, but both efforts failed to win the approval of the Senate.In 1870, with Ulysses Grant in the White House, the dictator of Santo Domingo offered either to annex his entire country to the United States or to lease a major bay for a naval base. Grant opted for a treaty of annexation, but approval required support of two-thirds of the Senate. The treaty failed by a vote of 28 to 28.Americans also had long-standing commercial interests in eastern Asia. Trading with China dated to 1784, and American missionaries began to preach there in 1830. Though they gained few converts, their lectures back home stimulated public interest in eastern Asia. At the same time, some Americans began to dream of selling American manufactured goods in east Asia, especially China. Japan and Korea had long refused to engage in trade, as a way of deflecting Western influences and power rivalries. In 1854, however, an American naval force convinced the Japanese government to open its ports to foreign trade, beginning the process of modernization that led to Japan’s emergence as a major power. A similar naval action opened Korea to trade in 1882.Redefining the American Role in World Affairs, 1885–1898Despite such efforts to expand America’s role in world affairs, in fact little changed during the twenty years or so after the Civil War. During the late 1880s and early 1890s, however, America’s involvement in world affairs did begin to change. One element revolved around the US Navy and the construction of modern ships capable of traveling long distances. Another related to the emergence and acceptance of new concepts of America’s global status.After the Civil War, most federal decision-makers defined the role of the Navy as protecting American coasts, and Congress spent little on it. Finally, in the mid-1880s, under President Chester Alan Arthur, Congress authorized construction of a few modern ships. Major changes in naval thinking began about the same time, especially through the efforts of Alfred Thayer Mahan, president of the Naval War College. Through lectures and publications, Mahan advocated a large, modern navy centered on steel battleships, capable of carrying American power to distant seas. He also stressed the need for a canal through Central America and naval bases at key points, especially in the Pacific. In 1889, under President Benjamin Harrison, Congress approved expenditures to modernize and significantly expand the Navy.Other Americans also began, in Mahan’s phrase, to “look outward.” Advocacy came from many sources, including Protestant ministers, scholars, business figures, and politicians. Though each had their own ideas and goals, the outcome was a change in the way many Americans, and especially American policy makers, viewed the nation’s role in world affairs. Josiah Strong, for example, offered the perspective of a Protestant minister and missionary. His book Our Country (1885) argued that expansion of American Protestant ideals to the world constituted a Christian duty. “The world is to be Christianized and civilized,” Strong predicted, adding that “commerce follows the missionary.”By the early 1890s, others also looked abroad for commercial reasons. A major depression struck the United States in 1893, resulting in many factories closing their doors and laying off their employees. Unemployed workers, for the first time ever, marched on Washington, demanding jobs. The specter of mass unemployment and the accompanying social unrest caused some political leaders consider the importance of maintaining or increasing access to foreign markets for American manufactured goods as a way to keep American industry operating and thereby reduce unemployment and labor strife.By the 1880s, popular books claimed that Anglo-Saxons—the people of England and their descendants elsewhere in the world—had demonstrated a unique capacity for civilization and had a duty to enlighten and uplift other peoples. Rudyard Kipling, an English poet, expressed these views when he urged the United States to “take up the white man’s burden,” a phrase that came to describe a self-imposed obligation to go into distant lands, bring the supposed blessings of Anglo-Saxon civilization to their peoples, Christianize them, and sell them manufactured goods. Today historians understand Anglo-Saxonism and the “white man’s burden” as imbued with racism. Such views assumed that some people, by virtue of race, possessed a superior capability for self-government and cultural accomplishment. This thinking elevated only one cultural pattern as “civilization,” dismissing others as inferior and ignoring their cultural accomplishments.Mahan argued that the Pacific Ocean would have great strategic significance in the twentieth century and such views coincided with growing trade between eastern Asia and the United States to fuel Americans’ interest in the Pacific, especially the independent kingdom of Hawai’i. As early as 1842, President John Tyler announced that the United States would not allow the islands to pass under the control of another power. A treaty in 1875 gave Hawaiian sugar free access to the United States, producing rapid growth of the Hawaiian sugar industry and tying the economies of the two nations closely together. In the process, haoles (non-Hawaiians) gained significant economic power and political influence. On January 17, 1893, a group of haole plotters proclaimed a republic and announced they would seek annexation by the United States. John L. Stevens, the US minister to Hawai?i, ordered the landing of 150 US Marines, prompting Queen Lili?uokalani to surrender, as she put it, “to the superior force of the United States.” Stevens recognized the new republic, declared it a protectorate of the United States, and raised the American flag.The Harrison administration disavowed Stevens’s actions, but also negotiated a treaty of annexation with the new Hawaiian republic and sent it to the Senate for ratification shortly before Grover Cleveland became president. Cleveland withdrew the annexation treaty to study it and learned of the crucial role of US Marines in the success of the revolution. Disturbed by this improper use of American military force, Cleveland scrapped the treaty of annexation, because he was convinced that it did not represent the wishes of the Hawaiian people.In 1895 and 1896, however, Cleveland took the nation to the edge of war over a boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana. In July 1895, Secretary of State Richard Olney cited the Monroe Doctrine and demanded that Britain submit the dispute to arbitration. When Britain refused, Cleveland asked Congress for authority to determine the boundary and enforce it. Given this assertion of American power, and increasingly concerned about the rising power of Germany, the British government agreed to arbitration. Cleveland’s action may have had some effect in persuading European imperial powers that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits in the ongoing scramble for colonies.Cuba presented a very different situation for Cleveland. Cuba and Puerto Rico were all that remained of the Spanish empire in the Western Hemisphere. Cubans had repeatedly rebelled against Spain, and in 1894 a new insurrection erupted seeking Cuba libre (“free Cuba”). Sympathizers in the United States sent assistance to the insurgents. In response to guerrilla warfare by the rebels, the Spanish commander, General Valeriano Weyler, established a reconcentration policy—the civilian population was ordered into fortified towns or camps and anyone outside these areas was considered an insurgent, subject to military action. Disease and starvation swept through the crowded camps, killing many Cubans.American newspapers—especially Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal—denounced Spanish atrocities, sometimes exaggerating and sensationalizing their stories (a practice called yellow journalism). Some Americans began clamoring to rescue the Cubans. Cleveland, however, sought to avoid American involvement. When some members of Congress pushed Cleveland to seek Cuban independence, he only urged Spain to grant concessions to the insurgents. Just as he had earlier opposed annexation of Hawai?i, Cleveland now resisted intervention in Cuba, fearing it might lead to annexation regardless of the will of the Cuban people.War and Empire, 1897–1900There the Cuban question stood when William McKinley became president in March 1897. At first, he moved cautiously, stepping up diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Cubans. In response, Spain softened its reconcentration policy and offered limited self-government but not independence.Relations between the two countries worsened significantly in February 1898. First Cuban insurgents pilfered a letter from Enrique Dupuy de L?me, the Spanish minister to the United States, and gave it to the New York Journal. In the letter, Dupuy de L?me belittled President McKinley and hinted that the Spanish commitment to reform in Cuba was not serious. The letter contributed significantly to a growing antipathy toward Spain among many Americans. A few days later, on February 15, an explosion ripped open the USS Maine, anchored in Havana Harbor. The battleship quickly sank, killing more than 260 Americans. Though lacking any evidence, the yellow press immediately accused Spain. Years later, an investigation concluded that the blast probably resulted from an accidental fire within the ship. Regardless of the cause, advocates for intervention now rallied with the cry: “Remember the Maine!”On March 17, Senator Redfield Proctor of Vermont, a respected and thoughtful Republican, delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate, reporting on his recent trip to Cuba and confirming the extreme distress of many Cubans. Public opinion and opinion among Republican party leaders now swung even more strongly in the direction of intervention.McKinley made a final effort at a diplomatic solution. In late March, he sent a message to the Spanish government demanding an immediate end to the fighting, an end to reconcentration, and measures to relieve the suffering. He also specified that he would serve as mediator between the insurgents and the Spanish government, and that Cuban independence could result from such mediation. The Spanish government replied by offering reforms, an end to reconcentration, and an armistice if the insurgents requested one, but said nothing about mediation or independence.On April 11, McKinley asked Congress for authority to act. Congress approved four resolutions on April 19: (1) Cuba was and should be independent, (2) Spain should withdraw “at once,” (3) the president was authorized to use force to accomplish Spanish withdrawal, and (4) the United States would not annex the island. The first three resolutions amounted to a declaration of war. The fourth is usually called the Teller Amendment for its sponsor, Senator Henry M. Teller, a Silver Republican from Colorado. The US Navy launched a blockade of Cuba on April 21. Spain declared war two days later.Thus the United States went to war with Spain. Most Americans wholeheartedly approved a war to relieve the suffering Cubans and establish a Cuban republic. Some, however, distrusted the McKinley administration’s motives. The Teller Amendment reflected suspicions that the administration might make Cuba an American possession. And, in fact, there were those, including some in the administration, who saw the war with Spain as an opportunity to seize territory and acquire an American colonial empire.Americans were surprised to read in their morning newspapers that the first engagement in the war occurred in the Philippine Islands—nearly halfway around the world from Cuba. The Philippines had been a Spanish colony for three hundred years, but had rebelled repeatedly, most recently in 1896. Some Americans understood the islands’ strategic location with regard to eastern Asia—including Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt. In February 1898, six weeks before McKinley’s war message to Congress, Roosevelt drew upon planning exercises by the Naval War College when he cabled George Dewey, the American naval commander in the Pacific, that Dewey should crush the Spanish fleet at Manila if war broke out. At sunrise on Sunday, May 1, Dewey’s squadron did exactly that—they steamed into the harbor at Manila and quickly destroyed or captured the Spanish fleet. On June 20, a naval taskforce took possession of Guam, another Pacific possession of Spain. These easy victories immediately raised the prospect of a permanent American presence in the western Pacific, and that, in turn, revived interest in the Hawaiian Islands as a potential base halfway to the Philippines. The McKinley administration had been committed to annexation of Hawai’i, but had not been able to muster the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate on a treaty of annexation. The administration now proposed to annex the islands through a joint resolution of Congress, which took only a simple majority and was accomplished on July 7.Dewey’s victory clearly demonstrated American naval superiority, but the state of the American Army was less imposing. The Spanish army in Cuba outnumbered the entire American Army by five to one and had years of experience on the island. Volunteers flocked to enlist. The Army was poorly prepared to train and supply them, but managed to land troops in Cuba two months later. Inexperienced, poorly equipped, and unfamiliar with the terrain, the American forces set out to capture the port of Santiago, where the Spanish fleet had taken refuge.Theodore Roosevelt had resigned as assistant secretary of the navy to organize a volunteer cavalry unit known as the Rough Riders. At Kettle Hill, he led a successful charge of Rough Riders and regular Army units, including parts of the 9th and 10th Cavalry, made up of African Americans. All but Roosevelt were on foot because their horses had not yet arrived. Driving the Spanish from Kettle Hill cleared a serious impediment to the assault on nearby San Juan Heights and San Juan Hill, overlooking Santiago. Journalists loved Roosevelt—and newspapers all over the country declared him the hero of the Battle of San Juan Hill.Once American troops gained control of the high ground around Santiago harbor, the Spanish fleet tried to escape. The American fleet met them and duplicated Dewey’s rout at Manila—every Spanish ship was sunk or run aground. Their fleet destroyed, surrounded by American troops, the Spanish in Santiago surrendered on July 17. A week later American forces occupied Puerto Rico. Spanish land forces in the Philippines surrendered when the first American troops arrived in mid-August. The war was over in only sixteen weeks—John Hay, the US ambassador to Great Britain, gleefully called it a “splendid little war.”On August 12, the United States and Spain agreed to stop fighting and hold a peace conference in Paris. The major question for the conference centered on the Philippines. Finley Peter Dunne, a popular humorist, parodied the national debate in a discussion between his fictional characters, Mr. Dooley (a Chicago saloonkeeper) and a customer named Hennessy. Hennessy insists that McKinley should take the islands. Dooley retorts that “it’s not more than two months since you learned whether they were islands or canned goods,” then confesses his own indecision: “I can’t annex them because I don’t know where they are. I can’t let go of them because someone else will take them. .?.?. It would break my heart to think of giving people I’ve never seen or heard tell of back to other people I don’t know. .?.?. I don’t know what to do about the Philippines. And I’m all alone in the world. Everybody else has made up his mind.”[1]McKinley voiced almost as many doubts as Mr. Dooley. At first, he seemed to favor only a naval base, leaving Spain in control elsewhere. However, Spanish authority collapsed everywhere but Manila by mid-August as Filipino insurgents took charge throughout the islands. Other nations, including Japan and Germany, seemed likely to step in if the United States did not do so. McKinley and his advisers concluded that a secure naval base on Manila Bay would require control of the entire island group. No one seriously considered the Filipinos’ desire for independence.McKinley and his advisors were well aware of the political and strategic importance of the Philippines for eastern Asia. To have a major naval base there would make the United States a full member of the balance of power in east Asia, able to negotiate on a basis of equality with such powers as Japan, Britain, Russia, and Germany over such regional questions as the future of China. McKinley invoked other reasons, however, when he explained his decision to a group of visiting Methodists. He repeatedly prayed for guidance on the Philippine question, he told them. Late one night, he said, it came to him that “there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them.” In fact, most Filipinos had been Catholics for centuries, but no one ever expressed more clearly the concept of the “white man’s burden.”Spain resisted giving up the Philippines, but McKinley would accept nothing else. By the Treaty of Paris, signed in December 1898, Spain surrendered its claim to Cuba, ceded Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States, and sold the Philippines for $20 million. For the first time in American history, a treaty acquiring new territory failed to confer US citizenship on the residents. Nor did the treaty mention future statehood. (The same was true of the annexation of Hawai‘i.) Thus these acquisitions represented a new kind of expansion—the United States had become a colonial power.The Treaty of Paris dismayed Democrats, Populists, and some conservative Republicans, sparking a public debate over acquisition of the Philippines in particular and imperialism in general. An anti-imperialist movement quickly formed, with William Jennings Bryan, Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland, Carl Schurz, and Mark Twain among its outspoken proponents. For the United States to deny self-government to the newly acquired territories, they claimed, threatened the very concept of democracy. “The Declaration of Independence,” warned Carnegie, “will make every Filipino a thoroughly dissatisfied subject.” Others voiced racist arguments, claiming that Filipinos were incapable of self-government and that the United States would be corrupted by ruling such people.Those who defended acquisition of the Philippines echoed McKinley’s lofty pronouncements about America’s duty, and never used the terms imperialism or colonies to describe the new acquisitiions. Albert Beveridge, senator from Indiana, among others, cited economic benefits: “We are raising more than we can consume, making more than we can use. Therefore we must find new markets for our produce.” Such “new markets” were not limited to the new possessions. A strong naval and military presence in the Philippines would make the United States a leading power in eastern Asia, thereby supporting access for American business to markets in China.Now the United States set about organizing its new possessions. The Teller Amendment required independence for Cuba, but the McKinley administration refused to recognize the insurgents as the legitimate government. Instead, the US Army took control and, among other charges, developed sanitation projects to reduce disease, especially yellow fever. After two years of Army rule, the McKinley administration permitted Cuban voters to hold a constitutional convention.The convention met in 1900 and drafted a constitution modeled on that of the United States, but it did not define relations between Cuba and the United States. In response, the McKinley administration drafted, and Congress adopted, terms for Cuba to adopt before the Army would withdraw. An amendment to the Army Appropriations Act of 1901, sponsored by Senator Orville Platt, set the terms for withdrawal: (1) Cuba was not to make any agreement with a foreign power that impaired the island’s independence, (2) the United States could intervene in Cuba to preserve Cuban independence and maintain law and order, and (3) Cuba was to lease facilities to the United States for naval bases and coaling stations. Cubans reluctantly agreed, added an annex to their constitution, and signed a treaty with the United States incorporating the Platt conditions—and effectively making Cuba a protectorate of the United States.The Teller Amendment applied only to Cuba. The Army governed Puerto Rico until 1900, when Congress approved the Foraker Act. That act made Puerto Ricans citizens of Puerto Rico but not citizens of the United States. Puerto Rican voters could elect a legislature, but final authority rested with a governor and council appointed by the president of the United States. In 1901, in the Insular Cases, the US Supreme Court confirmed the colonial status of Puerto Rico and, by implication, the other new possessions. The Court ruled that they were not equivalent to earlier territorial acquisitions and that their people did not possess the constitutional rights of citizens—though the McKinley administration avoided the term “colony,” there was no mistaking the reality that the new possessions were, in fact, colonies.The Philippines presented a difficult problem. Between Dewey’s victory and arrival of the first American soldiers three months later, a Philippine independence movement led by Emilio Aguinaldo established a provisional government and took control everywhere but Manila. Aguinaldo and his government wanted independence. When the United States determined to keep the islands, the Filipinos resisted.Suppressing what American authorities called the “Philippine insurrection” required three years (1899–1902), took the lives of 4,196 American soldiers, and perhaps 700,000 or more Filipinos (most through disease and other noncombat causes), and cost $400 million (twenty times the price of the islands). When some Filipinos resorted to guerrilla warfare, US troops adopted practices similar to those Spain had used in Cuba. Both sides committed atrocities, and anti-imperialists pointed to brutal behavior by American troops as proof that a colonial policy was corrupting American values. Resistance continued into mid-1902.Congress finally set up a government for the Philippines similar to that of Puerto Rico. Filipinos became citizens of the Philippine Islands, but not of the United States. The president of the United States appointed the governor. Filipino voters elected one house in the two-house legislature, and the governor appointed the other. The governor or the US Congress could veto laws passed by the legislature. William Howard Taft, governor from 1901 to 1904, worked hard to develop support for American control, put through some reforms, and started to build schools, hospitals, and sanitary facilities. However, when the first elected legislature met, in 1907, more than half of its members favored independence.Late in 1899, Britain, Germany, and the United States divided the Samoan islands between Germany and the United States. The new Pacific acquisitions of the United States—Hawai?i, the Philippines, Guam, and Samoa—all contained excellent sites for naval bases. Combined with the modern navy, these acquisitions greatly strengthened American ability to assert power throughout the region and protect Americans’ commercial access to eastern Asia. The United States now had the military and naval basis to claim full participation in the East Asian balance of power, and soon announced its intent to do so by calling upon all concerned powers to respect the “Open Door” in China.After losing a war with Japan in 1894–1895, the Chinese government found itself unable to resist European nations’ demands for territory. Britain, Germany, Russia, and France all carved out exclusive spheres of influence—areas where they claimed special rights, usually a monopoly over trade, and sought to exclude other powers. The McKinley administration began to fear that China might be broken up into separate European colonies and that Americans would lose the opportunity to engage in trade. In 1899, with encouragement from British sources, Secretary of State John Hay circulated a letter to Germany, Russia, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, asking them to preserve Chinese sovereignty and not to discriminate against citizens of other nations engaged in commerce within their spheres. Hay’s objective was both to prevent the dismemberment of China and to maintain commercial access for American business throughout China. Although some replies were less than fully supportive, Hay nonetheless announced that all had agreed to his “Open Door” principles.Soon after, in 1900, a Chinese secret society tried to expel all foreigners from China. Because the rebels used a clenched fist as their symbol, Westerners called them Boxers. The Boxers laid siege to the section of Beijing, the Chinese capital, that housed foreign legations. Hay feared that other powers would use the rebellion as a pretext for military intervention that would permanently divide China. To block such a move, the United States took full part in an international military expedition to rescue the besieged foreigners (including future president Herbert Hoover) and to crush the Boxer Rebellion. Thus, the United States not only asserted its right to full participation in the east Asian balance of power, but also demonstrated that it had the naval and military capability to back up its assertion.The American EmpireAfter the acquisition of Hawai‘i, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines in 1898, and of eastern Samoa in 1899, the United States sought few additional territorial acquisitions, the exceptions being the Panama Canal Zone, acquired in 1904, and the Danish West Indies, now called the Virgin Islands, in 1916. Nonetheless, the United States established hegemony in the Caribbean during the years immediately following the war with Spain, in part by its acquisition of Puerto Rico and a naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba, and in part by creating protectorates over the new nations of Cuba and Panama and the older nations of Santo Domingo, Haiti, and Nicaragua. As protectorates, these nations remained ostensibly independent but were, in fact, closely limited in their relations with other nations and even in their internal policies. All, at various times, were occupied by US forces.Making the Caribbean an “American lake” was, in significant part, a strategic move, motivated by the need to protect American control of the Panama Canal (constructed 1904–1914) against any European power that might seek a foothold in the Caribbean that could be used to attack the canal. American dominance in the region also promoted American investment there, investment sometimes encouraged by US authorities. The presence of significant American investments, in turn, encouraged the continuation of US dominance.The hegemony established in the Caribbean in the years after 1898 was not attempted elsewhere, in part because there was no American interest elsewhere as commanding as the Panama Canal and in part because American naval and military power was too limited. Elsewhere in Latin America, the United States often took an interest but rarely attempted to intervene militarily in nations’ internal affairs. The major exception came in Mexico during the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, but that intervention was unsuccessful, demonstrating the limits of American military power.In east Asia, the United States continued to act as a part of the regional balance of power, seeking especially to limit the expansionary efforts of Japan and to continue to defend the territorial integrity of China as the surest means of permitting continued access by American business. In Europe, the United States generally followed previous patterns of maintaining diplomatic relations with all but avoiding any involvement in the complex and highly charged European balance of power. A minor exception came in 1906, when the administration of Theodore Roosevelt cited an old treaty to assert American rights to participate in a conference in Algeciras, Spain, to determine the future roles of France and Germany in Morocco. Roosevelt directed the US representative to mediate between France and Germany in such a way as to limit Germany’s efforts to expand. More generally, under Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, the United States participated in efforts to promote arbitration or mediation of international disputes as an alternative to war. Following the Venezuelan boundary crisis, successive British governments, anxious over the rising naval and military power of Germany, sought to cultivate better relations with the United States, diplomatically removing causes for disagreement and removing most of their naval and military forces from North America and the Caribbean.This pattern of increased involvement in world affairs, but without treaty commitments to support or defend other nations, has been called unilateral internationalism. That is, the United States was thoroughly involved in world affairs—t dominated the Caribbean, held possessions stretching halfway around the world, nurtured even more widespread commercial activities by its citizens, and participated fully in the east Asian balance of power. But that involvement was unilateral, that is, the United States did not ally itself with any other nation. That pattern persisted, with some modifications, through the 1920s and 1930s, giving way to a multilateral approach during World War II and the Cold War. The territorial acquisitions of 1867–1916 have developed in various ways. Alaska and Hawai‘i have become states. The Philipppines became an independent nation allied with the Unites States. The residents of Puerto Rico are US citizens, and its constitution describes its status as a commonwealth or “Estado Libre Asociado” (translated as Associated Free State); though it remains a dependency of the United States, Puerto Rico is self-governing, but, like American states, within the overall supremacy of US law. Control over the Canal Zone has been transferred to Panama. Guam, American Samoa, and the American Virgin Islands remain US possessions, and are listed by the United Nations among the sixteen non-self-governing territories remaining in the world.[1]?Finley Peter Dunne, Mr. Dooley in Peace and in War (Boston: Small, Maynard and Co., 1898), 43–47.?“Irish” dialect removed.Robert W. Cherny is a professor of history at San Francisco State University. His books include California Women and Politics: From the Gold Rush to the Great Depression (2011) with co-editors Mary Ann Irwin and Ann Marie Wilson; American Politics in the Gilded Age, 1868–1900 (1997); San Francisco, 1865–1932 (1986), with William Issel; and A Righteous Cause: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (1985, reprint 1994).Cherny, R. (2013). Empire Building. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from .org/history-by-era/rise-industrial-america-1877-1900/empire-buildingDay 1In which way, according to lines 2 to 12 of the text, did the industrial revolution stimulate the national economy?According to the text, to what extent did industrialization motivate America to become more internationally involved?To what extent did the depression, specifically, force Americans to create international relationships, according to the text?In which way, according to the text in lines 260 to 255, was imperialism justified by the need for new markets?To what extent did power technologies that were developed during industrialization, encourage the expansion of America?Day 2According to lines 311 to 318 of the text, in which way was imperialism encouraged by commerce?In which way did the dependence of foreign commercial interests play a role in diplomatic relations? To what extent was unilateral internationalism economically beneficial to the United States?What was the purpose of this text, according to the text?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)”Week 4Formative AssessmentText dependent questions that follow the primary source document.Focus QuestionTo what extent was nativism and racial tensions caused by the industrial revolution?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.-Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Henderson v. the Mayor of New YorkMyriadChinese Exclusion ActForan ActAegisBureau of ImmigrationImmigration Restriction LeagueRutherford B. HayesUnbridledCastigatedHull HouseCondemnationabetDiner, H “ Immigration and migration” (2013)Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882Loomis. A. “Letter: San Francisco, Calif.: to Henry Wm. Moulton: ALS” (1870)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.1.b, 6.1.12.B.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.a, 6.1.12.C.1.b, 6.1.12.D.1.aUnit 5- Industrial Revolution (1870-1900)Week 4 OverviewLearning Objective: In this unit, students will gain an understanding of how the industrial revolution led to nationalism and racial tensions. As industrialism skyrocketed in America, many immigrants were lured to the United States by the perspective of jobs. With this influx of immigrants came new religions, languages, and traditions. Americans saw these immigrants as a threat to their way of life and were fearful of losing their jobs to them. Competition also lowered salary prices. Americans pushed for legislative actions, which limited immigration. By reading and rereading the passages closely, combined with classroom discussion about it, students will explore racial tensions which were fueled by the industrial revolution. Students will need to consider the emotional context of words and how diction (word choice) affects an author’s message. When combined with writing about the passage and teacher feedback, students will form a deeper understanding of the degree to which nativism was a product of the industrial revolution.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summary of Close Reading ActivitiesDay One:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1-138 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text. Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text.Day Two:Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then reads lines 1- 126 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Three: Teacher introduces the day’s passage with minimal commentary and students read it independently. Teacher or a skillful reader then paragraphs 1-5 of the passage out loud to the class as students follow along in the text.Returning to the text, the teacher asks students a small set of guiding reading questions about the text. Day Four:Socratic seminars are named for their embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate. Socratic seminars acknowledge the highly social nature of learning and align with the work of John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Paulo Friere. Elfie Israel succinctly defines Socratic seminars and implies their rich benefits for students: The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on the text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly. (89) Israel, Elfie. “Examining Multiple Perspectives in Literature.” In Inquiry and the Literary Text: Constructing Discussions in the English Classroom. James Holden and John S. Schmit, eds. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2002.In a Socratic Seminar, the participants carry the burden of responsibility for the quality of the discussion. Good discussions occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support their ideas. The discussion is not about right answers; it is not a debate. Students are encouraged to think out loud and to exchange ideas openly while examining ideas in a rigorous, thoughtful, manner.Day Five:Teacher then assigns a culminating writing assignment that asks students to synthesize the entire readings such as: To what extent did the industrial revolution contribute to racial tensions and nativism in America? Immigration and Migrationby Hasia Diner The United States emerged in the last third of the nineteenth century as an industrial powerhouse, producing goods that then circulated around the world. People in distant countries used American-made clothes, shoes, textiles, machines, steel, oil, rubber, and tools, among other finished products. They also ate foods grown in American soil and relied upon America’s iron ore, coal, and lumber, all transported from the hinterlands to the great shipping ports by American-built railroads. This frenzy of production transformed the United States in the decades following the Civil War, making it the most dynamic economic engine in the world.None of this could have happened without a work force that sewed the clothing, dug the coal, forged the steel, operated the railroads, and stoked the fires of the many thousands of factories, mills, mines, and workshops that spread over the United States. The industrialization of America stimulated the vast expansion of its own domestic business and agricultural sectors as well. Workers in factories and mines needed food, housing, and a range of consumer goods. As factory employment grew and the population expanded, businesses responded by selling their wares to the workers, enabling them to then go out and work and keep the economy on its course. Not limited to the Northeast, which had been the center of industry earlier in the nineteenth century, industrialization transformed America, in no small measure as a result of massive immigration.Those newcomers came primarily from Europe and constituted the bulk of the laborers who made industrialization possible. Statistics tell part of the story. In the decade from 1871 until 1880 more than 2,800,000 arrived, while the following ten-year period brought in over 5,000,000. In the subsequent two decades well over thirteen million arrived, with the period from 1901 to 1910 being the single largest decade of immigration. Clearly with numbers like this immigration was a serious issue in American life and became the focus of much political debate and contention. These numbers have to be thought of in percentage terms as well. As a point of contrast, in 1850, the foreign born made up 9.7 percent of the American population; by 1890 that figure stood at 14.7 percent.The story of immigration to the United States in the industrial era also should be thought of in terms of where the immigrants came from. In the 1870s migration tended to come primarily from central and northern Europe, the countries of Scandinavia, Germany, England, Ireland (which although part of Great Britain had a unique and separate immigration history), and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. By 1900 migration gradually shifted to the east and the south and most immigrants hailed from Italy, the Czarist empire, Roumania, and other places in southern and eastern Europe. Catholics predominated, with a significant influx of Eastern Orthodox also adding to America’s religious diversity. Immigration of the industrial era also saw the size of America’s Jewish population grow exponentially. In 1870 about 250,000 Jews lived in the United States, but the new migration that extended into the 1920s brought in an additional 3,000,000 Jews.Not only Europeans made their way to the United States in these decades. Immigrants from Mexico, even from its more remote regions, began to arrive in the late nineteenth century, primarily to work on the railroads, and they created small enclaves as far north as Chicago before the beginning of the twentieth century. Women and men from Syria and Lebanon, mostly Christians, also arrived in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Few of them flocked to industrial work, but as peddlers and small shopkeepers they provided consumer goods to industrial workers and farmers, both native born and immigrant. Immigrants from the Punjab region, primarily Sikhs, arrived in the Pacific Northwest in the late 1800s as well, and they joined railroad crews and logging camps. Some became farmers. Small numbers of immigrants also came from the Philippines, Japan, and various islands of the Caribbean.The two largest non-European immigrant groups in this period included French Canadians, streaming south into New England from Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, and the Chinese. The two groups resembled each other in some ways. They each gravitated to a specific geographic region in the United States, the former to New England with its textile industry and the latter to California, and formed visible ethnic enclaves. But they had very different histories in the United States. French Canadian immigration was never restricted and even after the imposition of quotas in the 1920s, they could come and go as they chose across a largely porous border.The Chinese story followed a very different course. The Chinese in fact were the only immigrants to ever be excluded specifically by nationality. When Congress enacted across-the-board immigration restriction in the 1920s, it did not exclude any one group. When Japanese immigration came to an end in 1908, it happened through a diplomatic agreement known as the Gentlemen’s Agreement.The history of the Chinese stands in a class of its own. Between the end of the Civil War and 1882, about 300,000 Chinese immigrants had entered the United States. Anti-Chinese sentiment had been running high in California since the 1850s, and in 1882 the United States Congress passed the first piece of immigration restriction, of any kind, in the history of the nation. The Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese immigrants from coming to the United States, although there were a few exempted categories, including students, merchants, and the children of naturalized citizens. The imposition of such a restriction ushered in a new era in American history, one in which the federal government moved, slowly, toward curtailing the uncapped flood of newcomers from abroad.To many native-born Americans the influx of so many millions of foreigners, mostly Catholics and Jews, and most relatively poor and speakers of myriad languages, seemed threatening to the way of life they considered authentically American. A quick summary of the major developments of the years from the middle of the 1870s until 1900 shows how much the concern over immigration came to dominate national politics.The trend toward government action vis-à-vis immigration may be said to have started with a US Supreme Court case in 1875, Henderson v. the Mayor of New York, as the opening salvo in a debate that raged in America over immigration. In that case the Court ruled that the various states could not regulate immigration individually from abroad as they chose, but that this power lay in the hands of Congress. Thus, the long-established practice of leaving immigration to the states it was overturned. Congress soon passed the first act of restriction, banning convicts and prostitutes from entering the United States. The first, and only, restriction of a specific group on the basis or national origin or race came in 1882 with the passage of a temporary Chinese Exclusion Act, which became permanent in 1900 by congressional act. In 1885 Congress passed the Foran Act, which prohibited the migration of contract labor, that is, women and men hired abroad and whose fare had been paid by an American employer. In order for these restrictions and regulations to work Congress had to create a bureaucracy and in 1891, under the aegis of the Treasury Department, it founded the Bureau of Immigration. So, too, in 1892 the immigrant-receiving station at Ellis Island opened its doors (with smaller stations in Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Galveston, and San Francisco) making visible the regulatory process.The 1890s saw not only the march toward regulation coordinated by the government, but also the emergence of organized citizen action against immigration. In 1895 a group of elite women and men in Boston founded the Immigration Restriction League with the goal of preserving the historic ethnic make-up of America—as defined by this group. They pushed for a literacy test, which passed in Congress in 1896, although President Grover Cleveland vetoed the measure. In the early twentieth century during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, a few more categories of potential immigrants got added to the list of the undesirables, including the “feeble-minded,” “imbeciles,” carriers of various diseases, and anarchists.This last category, anarchists, had a very specific origin, and tells us much about the rise of industrial America. In 1901 Leon Czolgosz, the son of immigrants and an anarchist, assassinated President William McKinley. This shocking event stoked American fears about political turbulence and radicalism, which they saw as a threat to the basic stability of the nation, and one associated with foreigners. As more and more Americans worked for industrial employers who could force their employees to endure whatever conditions the boss wanted, at whatever rate of pay the market could bear, more and more workers sought forms of action and organization to address their plight.One event from each decade of this era can demonstrate the escalation of labor and radical action. In 1877—dubbed “the year of violence”—tens of thousands of workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, and elsewhere shut down the rail system for more than forty days in the Great Railway Strike. Local police across the strike regions used force to quell the strikes, and President Rutherford B. Hayes called in the Army to assist in this effort. A decade later, on May 4, 1886, a gathering in Haymarket Square in Chicago ended when a bomb was tossed into a group of police officers trying to break up the crowd. The police fired into the crowd and in the process created a group of martyrs to the cause of labor. In 1892 a strike at the Homestead, Pennsylvania, steel mills of Carnegie Steel pitted the police and armed Pinkerton detectives against workers who had taken over the plant.While immigrants alone did not participate in these strikes and in the labor and radical movements, many Americans in fact equated the two, and growing numbers of them and their political representatives were convinced that continued immigration harmed the country, threatening the coherence and stability of the nation.Not all Americans, however, put the blame on the immigrants; some saw unbridled capitalism as the source of the social unrest. While some in the Progressive movement harbored anti-immigrant sentiment, many in the movement believed that the fault lay with the system and not with the women and men who had come to the United States to make a living and who fueled the nation’s industrial output and made its wealth possible.In 1890 a New York journalist, himself an immigrant from Denmark, Jacob Riis, castigated the greed of landlords and employers for immiserating the lives of the city’s cigar workers, garment shop employees, and other laborers. His expose How the Other Half Lives, on conditions among the poor in New York City, complete with photographs, was widely read and led to legislative action in New York. A year earlier two women in Chicago, Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr, had opened up a settlement house, Hull House, in the packinghouse district where large numbers of Polish, Italian, and eastern European Jews lived and labored. Starr and Addams experimented with various ways to both improve the lives of the immigrant poor and advocate for them. Settlement houses like Hull House sprang up in Boston, Baltimore, New York, Buffalo, Milwaukee, and in all the large cities to which immigrants had gone, drawn by the magnet of the jobs available in American industry. Those immigrant workers and the others across the country played a pivotal role in providing the labor necessary to create industrial America.Hasia Diner is the Paul S. and Sylvia Steinberg Professor of American Jewish History and director of the Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History at New York University. Among her publications are From Arrival to Incorporation: Migrants to the US in a Global Age (2007) and We Remember with Reverence and Love: American Jews and the Myth of Silence after the Holocaust, 1945–1962 (2009).Diner, H. (2013). Immigration and migration. Gilder Lehrman. Retrieved from history-by-era/rise-industrial-america-1877-1900/immigration-and-migrationDay 1According to the text, why were immigrants drawn to the United States?Why did Americans perceive immigrants as threats to America, according to the text?In which way, according to the text, was immigration limited in the United States?According to the text, to what extent were immigrant workers treated fairly in America?To what extent did racism and discrimination affect American immigration policies?Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese.Whereas in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days to remain within the United States.SEC. 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and maybe also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.SEC. 3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and who shall produce to such master before going on board such vessel, and shall produce to the collector of the port in the United States at which such vessel shall arrive, the evidence hereinafter in this act required of his being one of the laborers in this section mentioned; nor shall the two foregoing sections apply to the case of any master whose vessel, being bound to a port not within the United States, shall come within the jurisdiction of the United States by reason of being in distress or in stress of weather, or touching at any port of the United States on its voyage to any foreign port or place: Provided, That all Chinese laborers brought on such vessel shall depart with the vessel on leaving port.SEC. 4. That for the purpose of properly identifying Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and in order to furnish them with the proper evidence of their right to go from and come to the United States of their free will and accord, as provided by the treaty between the United States and China dated November seventeenth, eighteen hundred and eighty, the collector of customs of the district from which any such Chinese laborer shall depart from the United States shall, in person or by deputy, go on board each vessel having on board any such Chinese laborers and cleared or about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and on such vessel make a list of all such Chinese laborers, which shall be entered in registry-books to be kept for that purpose, in which shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks of peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of each of such Chinese laborers, which books shall be safely kept in the custom-house.; and every such Chinese laborer so departing from the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive, free of any charge or cost upon application therefor, from the collector or his deputy, at the time such list is taken, a certificate, signed by the collector or his deputy and attested by his seal of office, in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, which certificate shall contain a statement of the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, persona description, and facts of identification of the Chinese laborer to whom the certificate is issued, corresponding with the said list and registry in all particulars. In case any Chinese laborer after having received such certificate shall leave such vessel before her departure he shall deliver his certificate to the master of the vessel, and if such Chinese laborer shall fail to return to such vessel before her departure from port the certificate shall be delivered by the master to the collector of customs for cancellation. The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States upon producing and delivering the same to the collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer shall seek to re-enter; and upon delivery of such certificate by such Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at the time of re-entry in the United States said collector shall cause the same to be filed in the custom-house anti duly canceled.SEC. 5. That any Chinese laborer mentioned in section four of this act being in the United States, and desiring to depart from the United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive, free of charge or cost, a certificate of identification similar to that provided for in section four of this act to be issued to such Chinese laborers as may desire to leave the United States by water; and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Chinese laborer desires to go to issue such certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the same upon registry-books to be kept by him for the purpose, as provided for in section four of this act.SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of articles one and two of the treaty in this act before mentioned, every Chinese person other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government in each case, such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said government, which certificate shall be in the English language or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come, and which certifi- cate shall state the name, title or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profes- sion, and place of residence in China of the person to whom the certificate is issued and that such person is entitled, conformably to the treaty in this act mentioned to come within the United States. Such certifi- cate shall be prima-facie evidence of the fact set forth therein, and shall be produced to the collector of customs, or his deputy, of the port in the district in the United States at which the person named therein shall arrive.SEC.7. That any person who shall knowingly and falsely alter or substitute any name for the name written in such certificate or forge any such certificate, or knowingly utter any forged or fraudulent certificate, or falsely personate any person named in any such certificate, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not more than five years.SEC.8. That the master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place shall, at the same time he delivers a manifest of the cargo, and if there be no cargo, then at the time of making a report of the entry of the vessel pursuant to law, in addition to the other matter required to be reported, and before landing, or permitting to land, any Chinese passengers, deliver and report to the collector of customs of the district in which such vessels shall have arrived a separate list of all Chinese passengers taken on board his vessel at any foreign port or place, and all such passengers on board the vessel at that time. Such list shall show the names of such passengers (and if accredited officers of the Chinese Government traveling on the business of that government, or their servants, with a note of such facts), and the names and other particulars, as shown by their respective certificates; and such list shall be sworn to by the master in the manner required by law in relation to the manifest of the cargo. Any willful refusal or neglect of any such master to comply with the provisions of this section shall incur the same penalties and forfeiture as are provided for a refusal or neglect to report and deliver a manifest of the cargo.SEC. 9. That before any Chinese passengers are landed from any such line vessel, the collector, or his deputy, shall proceed to examine such passenger, comparing the certificate with the list and with the passengers ; and no passenger shall be allowed to land in the United States from such vessel in violation of law.SEC.10. That every vessel whose master shall knowingly violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to seizure and condemnation in any district of the United States into which such vessel may enter or in which she may be found.SEC. 11. That any person who shall knowingly bring into or cause to be brought into the United States by land, or who shall knowingly aid or abet the same, or aid or abet the landing in the United States from any vessel of any Chinese person not lawfully entitled to enter the United States, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.SEC. 12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. And any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the President of the United States, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.SEC.13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that govern- ment, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and house- hold servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.SEC.15. That the words "Chinese laborers", wherever used in this act shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.Approved, May 6, 1882.Transcript of Chinese Exclusion Act. (2013). Our Documents. Retrieved from 1According to the text, why was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 enacted?What were the penalties for aiding the illegal entry of a Chinese laborer, according to the text?According to the text, in which way was Chinese immigration controlled?The author states, “That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed”. According to the text, what does the author mean by this?According to the text, what was the purpose of the text?Day 1In which way, according to the text, does this letter demonstrate racial tensions between immigrants in America?Why, according to the text are the Chinese threatened by other groups?The author states, “At present the worst enemies of the Chinamen appear to be the State Legislators, which you will see by a reference to the variety of Bills introduced into one another of the houses, some of which have passed. Those which have passed will doubtlessly be contested in the courts as unconstitutional.” According to the text, what does the author mean by this?In which ways, according to the text, does the text foreshadow the Chinese Exclusion Act?According to the text, what are the authors’ sentiments regarding Chinese immigrants in America?Newark Public SchoolsUnited States History I“ Industrial Revolution (1870-1900) ” Week 5Summative AssessmentStudents will take an assessment analyzing primary and secondary source documents of the Industrial Revolution Era and write an argument citing evidence from those source documents which they select and defend a position about whether the industrial revolution was more beneficial than detrimental to the United States.Focus QuestionIn what way, if at all, was the industrial revolution more beneficial than detrimental to the United States?Learning Objectives-Use historical thinking skills such as sourcing, contextualizing, close reading, and corroborating to answer historical questions.Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.-Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. -Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.-By the end of grade 10, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 9–10 text complexity band independently and proficiently. -Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content by introducing precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establishing the significance of the claim(s), distinguishing the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and creating an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.-Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.-Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic and convey a style appropriate to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely readers.-Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.Possible Activities and SupportPolitical Cartoon Analysis- Locate political cartoons from the era and ask students to analyze the symbolism of the cartoon as it pertains to the documents being reviewed.Document Analysis Forms from the National Archives to assist students in reading and analyzing the documents.Content-Specific Vocabulary/TermsSuggested Text(s)Ned Blackhaw, “Development of the West” (2013)Richard White, “ Born Modern: An Overview of the West” (2013)Richard White, “Transcontinental Railroads: Compressing Time and Space” (2013)Michael Kazin, “ Populism and Agrarian Discontent” (2013)Henry George, “Social Problems” (1880)Robert Cherney “Entrepreneurs and Bankers: The Evolution of Corporate Empires” (2013)Robert Cherney “ Empire Building” (2013)Diner, H “ Immigration and migration” (2013)Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882Loomis. A. “Letter: San Francisco, Calif.: to Henry Wm. Moulton: ALS” (1870)Standards Alignment:CCSS RH.9-10.1, RH.9-10.2, RH.9-10.4, RH.9-10.10, WHST.9-10.1a, WHST.9-10.2b, WHST.9-10.2d, WHST.9-10.9, WHST.9-10.10NJCCCS 6.1.12.A.5.a, 6.1.12.A.5.b, 6.1.12.A.5.c, 6.1.12.B.5.a, 6.1.12.C.5.a, 6.1.12.C.5.b, 6.12.D.5.bIndustrial Revolution (1870-1900)Week 5 OverviewLearning Objective: The goal of this week long plan is to give students the opportunity to synthesize the readings of the past four weeks.Reading Task: Students will silently read the passage in question on a given day—first independently and then following along with the text as the teacher and/or skillful students read aloud. Depending on the difficulties of a given text and the teacher’s knowledge of the fluency abilities of students, the order of the student silent read and the teacher reading aloud with students following might be reversed. What is important is to allow all students to interact with challenging text on their own as frequently and independently as possible. Students will then reread specific passages in response to a set of concise, text-dependent questions that compel them to examine the meaning and structure of the document used. Therefore, rereading is deliberately built into the instructional unit. Vocabulary Task: Most of the meanings of words in the exemplar text can be discovered by students from careful reading of the context in which they appear. Teachers can use discussions to model and reinforce how to learn vocabulary from contextual clues, and students must be held accountable for engaging in this practice. Sentence Syntax Task: On occasion students will encounter particularly difficult sentences to decipher. Teachers should engage in a close examination of such sentences to help students discover how they are built and how they convey meaning. While many questions addressing important aspects of the text double as questions about syntax, students should receive regular supported practice in deciphering complex sentences. It is crucial that the help they receive in unpacking text complexity focuses both on the precise meaning of what the author is saying and why the author might have constructed the sentence in this particular fashion. That practice will in turn support students’ ability to unpack meaning from syntactically complex sentences they encounter in future reading. Discussion Task: Students will discuss the exemplar text in depth with their teacher and their classmates, performing activities that result in a close reading of the texts. The goal is to foster student confidence when encountering complex text and to reinforce the skills they have acquired regarding how to build and extend their understanding of a text. A general principle is to always reread the passage that provides evidence for the question under discussion. This gives students another encounter with the text, helping them develop fluency and reinforcing their use of text evidence.Writing Task: Students will write an explanatory paragraph using their understanding of the word choice and emotions expressed in the selection to present their opinions about what the texts are trying to explain. Teachers might afford students the opportunity to revise their paragraphs after participating in classroom discussion or receiving teacher feedback, allowing them to refashion both their understanding of the text and their expression of that understanding. Outline of Lesson Plan: This lesson can be delivered in a week of instruction and reflection on the part of students and their teacher.Summative AssessmentThe Industrial Revolution was beneficial to the reconstruction of America. America became a powerful empire, with many job opportunities that lured immigrants. This did not come without a cost. Small businesses were swallowed by monopolies and agrarian societies could barely survive. Labor conflicts and international conflicts were created, because of industrialization. Considerations:What is your evaluation of this? In what way, if at all, was the industrial revolution more beneficial than detrimental to the United States? Why? What other evidence would you need to strengthen your claim?Writing TaskCiting evidence from various texts read in this unit, defend a position about whether the industrial revolution was more beneficial than detrimental to the United States. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download