View the step-by-step solution to:

Be sure to briefly explain who you are (social status/profession) and where you live.

n this assignment I want you to take on the persona of a Patriot.  Be sure to briefly explain who you are (social status/profession) and where you live. Choose to be a member of one of the groups listed below

1. Elite merchants 

2. Elite planters

3. Artisans

4. yeoman farmer

5. frontier settler (CHOOSE ONE)

cites:

CORBETT TEXTBOOK READING chapter 6, 7,8,11


In the late 1760s and early 1770s (between the end of the Seven Years War and the beginning of the Revolution) you were upset with the imperial/colonial government.  It is now a quarter-century down the road from your youth, you are well into your middle-aged years, with idealistic children, and a grandchild or two, of your own.  You and your generation have sacrificed much to bring about the United States and its new government under the Constitution.  President George Washington's Administration is in place, Congress has been elected, and the form of the new government is taking shape.  Are you satisfied with the new government under the recently ratified Constitution?  Do you think your 20-something year old self (the protester from the 1760s) would be happy with the way things turned out?  You have decided to write a treatise (a fancy word for an essay) upon this subject as a gift to your grandchildren.  In it you will think about your main social, political, and economic grievances from the 1760s in relation to your current beliefs.   Have things turned out well for you and your group?  Have your grievances from the 1760s been redressed (or are no longer relevant)?  Have new political, economic, or social issues replaced them for your socioeconomic group in the 1780s? Has your group met their social responsibilities to the new nation, have they compromised where needed for the greater good or selfishly looked after their own interests?  What, if anything, is left to be done for your group?   Most importantly, would your 1760s self believe that you held onto your ethics even as war raged around you; have you remained true to the ethical stands you took in the 1760s or have you grown more pragmatic with age and experience? 


Be sure to use the Rule of Three in this assignment.  You should have an intro with thesis statement, at least three paragraphs in the body (one old for each point of the thesis) and a conclusion.  The best way to organize is to use political, economic, and social as your thesis points.

This essay should be a minimum of 5 paragraphs long.  The first paragraph is your introduction with thesis statement.  The second through fourth paragraphs (the body) will discuss social, economic, and political reforms (you should organize in this way, minimum of one paragraph on economic, one paragraph on social, and one on political).  Each paragraph of the body must have its own thesis statement and there should be at least three pieces of evidence (properly cited in Turabian format) in support (the "rule of three" for analytical writing).  The last paragraph is the conclusion.

You will be using modified Turabian FOOTNOTES in this assignment.  You must provide the footnote, including locating information, for each of your three pieces of evidence per body paragraph (so a minimum of 9 footnotes required).

Congress Prohibits Importation of Slaves (1807) President Thomas Jeferson strongly supported the congressional bills to prohibit the importation oF slaves. Ironically, Jeferson himselF was a slave owner. The bills were an outgrowth oF the section oF the Constitution that stated "The importation oF persons as any oF the States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808. ...." At Jeferson's behest, both the House oF Representatives and the Senate introduced bills outlawing the importation oF slaves. The Following excerpt outlines the law and the penalties regarding the importation oF slaves. SOURCE: Henry Steele Commager, Documents oF American History (New York: Appleton-Century-CroFts, 1948). An Act to prohibit the importation oF Slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction oF the United States, From and aFter the ±rst day oF January, in the year oF our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight. Be it enacted, That from and after the Frst day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any Negro, mulatto, or person of color, as a slave, or to be held to service or labor. Sec. 2. That no citizen of the United States, or any other person, shall, from and after the Frst day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, for himself, or themselves, or any other person whatsoever, either as master, factor, or owner, build, Ft, equip, load or to otherwise prepare any ship or vessel, in any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, nor shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port or place within the same, for the purpose of procuring any Negro, mulatto, or person of color, from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, to be transported to any port or place whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the United States, to be held, sold, or disposed of as slaves, or to be held to service or labor: and if any ship or vessel shall be so Ftted out for the purpose aforesaid, or shall be caused to sail so as aforesaid, every such ship or vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, shall be forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to be seized, prosecuted, and condemned in any of the circuit courts or district courts, for the district where the said ship or vessel may be found or seized. ... Sec. 4. If any citizen or citizens of the United States, or any person resident within the jurisdiction of the same, shall, from and after the Frst day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, take on board, receive or transport from any of the coasts or kingdoms of Africa, or from any other foreign kingdom, place, or country, any Negro, mulatto, or person of color in any ship or vessel, for the purpose of selling them in any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States as slaves, or to be held to service or labor, or shall be in any ways aiding or abetting therein, such citizen or citizens, or person, shall severally forfeit and pay Fve thousand dollars, one moiety thereof to the use of any person or persons who shall sue for and prosecute the same to e±ect. .. Sec. 6. That if any person or persons whatsoever, shall, from and after the Frst day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, purchase or sell any Negro, mulatto, or person, of color, for a slave, or to be held to service or labor, who shall have been imported, or brought from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, or from the dominions of any foreign state, immediately adjoining to the United States, after the last day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seven, knowing at the time of such purchase or sale, such Negro, mulatto, or person of color, was so brought within the jurisdiction of the United States, as aforesaid, such purchaser and seller shall severally forfeit and pay for every Negro, mulatto, or person of color, so purchased or sold as aforesaid, eight hundred dollars. ... Sec. 7. That if any ship or vessel shall be found, from and after the Frst day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, in any river, port, bay, or harbor, or on the high seas, within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or hovering on the coast thereof, having on board any Negro, mulatto, or person of color, for the purpose of selling them as slaves, or with intent to land the same, in any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, contrary to the prohibition of the act, every such ship or vessel, together with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and the goods or e±ects which shall be found on board the same, shall be forfeited to the use of the United States, and may be seized, prosecuted, and condemned, in any court of the United States, having jurisdiction thereof. And it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, and he is hereby authorized, should he deem it expedient, to cause any of the armed vessels of the United States to be manned and employed to cruise on any part of the coast of the United States, or territories thereof, where he may judge attempts will be made to violate the provisions of this act, and to instruct and direct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States, to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States all such ships or vessels; and moreover to seize, take, or bring into any port of the U.S. all ships or vessel of the U.S. wheresoever found on the high seas, contravening the provisions of this act, to be proceeded against according to law. ...
Background image of page 1
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Background image of page 2
George Washington, Farewell Address (1796) Although George Washington was sufering From the con±ict between what would soon become the ²ederalist and Republican parties as well as his Faltering health, many Americans looked to him to continue For a third term as president in 1796. However, the idea oF remaining in o³ce and creating the image oF a monarch did not appeal to Washington. Consequently, he chose to step down, thereby establishing a precedent For Future presidents. In his Farewell address, Washington warned against various threats to the emerging national government, including political parties, involvement in Foreign afairs, and the debate over economic policy. Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.… In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that, in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its aFection either of which is su±cient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest…. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject…. So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justi²cation…. As avenues to foreign in³uence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they aFord to tamper with domestic factions to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to in³uence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign in³uence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign in³uence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government…. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be ful²lled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have no, or a very remote, relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by arti²cial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships and enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a diFerent course. If we remain one people, under an e±cient government, the period is not far oF when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such as attitude as well cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Background image of page 1
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it. For let me not be understood as capable of patronizing in±delity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim of less applicable to public than to private a²airs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preference; … constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favor, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Background image of page 2
John Humphrey Noyes and Bible Communism (1845 and 1849) John Noyes was a Christian minister who is perhaps most famous for founding the Oneida Community in New York in 1848. Oneida was one of several 19th-century utopian communities. Some, like Oneida, were religious, whereas others were secular. However, they all emphasized collective ownership of property and wealth, although the interpretations of daily living in a communal setting varied from group to group. Noyes and his followers believed in perfectionism, the idea that people could live without sin if their physical environment approached the perfection of the Garden of Eden. The particular form of marriage practiced at Oneida was called "communal marriage," a system in which every adult female was married to every adult male and vice versa. Not surprisingly, this practice was soundly criticized by outsiders. By 1879, Noyes had Fed to Canada to avoid prosecution for immorality. The practice of communal marriage was ended, and the Oneida colony broke up by 1881, although several of its members formed a successful company that became famous for its silverware. John Humphrey Noyes, Speech to the Convention of Perfectionists (1845) Dear Brethren: As I am prevented from meeting with you in person I will place at your disposal a contribution to the deliberations of the convention in writing. My attention has been turned of late to the symptoms of advancing conviction on the subject of holiness which are manifesting themselves in the churches, and I see much occasion for rejoicing and hope. . . . Charles G. Finney, the center of the revival spirit, was ±rst a²ected and compelled to take an advanced position. He drew after him a large body of in³uential followers and a theological seminary. Now Dr. Beecher, the leader that stands next after Finney in spiritual power, has submitted partially to the truth; and he too draws after him a large body of in³uential followers and a theological seminary. I am well aware that Finney and Beecher have not come in line with us and with the Primitive Church on the high grounds of the new covenant. Their advance is but half way; but no hope and expectation are that the work of conviction will forward to conversion. Let us now ask ourselves, brethren, what line of conduct is marked out for us. I will brie³y give my judgment on the question. In the ±rst place I think we ought to feel that the post assigned to us is that of the body-guard of the gospel. We must stand ±rm for perfect freedom from sin, for security, and for confession. These are the essentials of the new covenant. If we steadfastly abide by the gospel which proclaims these victories of faith, the masses that have begun to move will sure come to it at last. In the next place we must purge our own ranks of semi-Perfectionism. I have seen many indications within the last year, that there is a class bearing the name of Perfectionist claiming fellowship among us and even assuming to be inspired leaders and teachers, who exert their in³uence more or less openly and directly against justi±cation, security and confession of salvation from sin. Such men have no right to a place among us. They are not with us in spirit, but with the half converted masses that are moving toward us. Let us draw the line between them and us, that we may fully discharge our responsibilities as God's banner-guard in the coming con³ict. Finally it behooves us to take away all stumbling-blocks from the path of those who are approaching the gospel; to put away childish things; to frown on disorder, fanaticism and licentiousness; to give place among us as fast as possible to the order and discipline of the Primitive Church. In the Kingdom of God, marriage does not exist. On the other hand there is no proof in the Bible nor in reason that the distinction of sex will ever be abolished. Matt. 22:29-30. John Humphrey Noyes, "Bible Communism" (1849) In the Kingdom of God the intimate union that in the world is limited to the married pair extends through the whole body of communicants; without however excluding special companionships founded on special
Background image of page 1
adaptability. John 17:21. The situation on the day of Pentecost shows the practical tendency of heavenly inFuences. "All that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need." Communism on the day of Pentecost extended only to goods, it is true. But the same spirit that abolished property in goods would, if allowed full scope, abolish property in persons. Paul expressly places property in goods and property in persons in the same category, and speaks of them together as ready to be abolished by the Kingdom of God. The Communism of the day of Pentecost is not to be regarded as temporary and circumstantial. The seed of heavenly unity fell into the earth and was buried for a time, but in the harvest at the second coming of Christ it was reproduced and became the universal, eternal principle of the invisible church. The abolishment of appropriation is involved in the very nature of a true relation to Christ. Appropriation is a branch of egotism. But the grand mystery of the gospel is vital union with Christ, which is the extinguishment of egotism at the center. The abolishment of worldly restrictions on sexual union is involved in the anti-legality of the gospel. It is incompatible with the perfected freedom, toward which Paul's gospel of "grace without law" leads, that a person should be allowed to love in all directions, and yet be forbidden to express love except in one direction. The abolishment of marriage is involved in Paul's doctrine of the end of ordinances. Marriage is a worldly ordinance. Christians are dead to the world by the death of Christ. The same reasoning which authorized the abolishment of the Jewish ordinances makes also an end of marriage. . . . The plea that marriage is founded in nature will not bear investigation. Experience testi±es that the human heart is capable of loving more than one at the same time. It is not the loving heart but the green-eyed claimant of the loving heart that sets up the one-love theory. A system of Complex Marriage will open the prison doors to the victims both of marriage and celibacy: to the married who are oppressed by lust, tied to uncongenial nature separated from their natural mates; to the unmarried who are withered by neglect, diseased by unnatural abstinence, plunged into prostitution by desires that ±nd no lawful outlet. . . . The chain of evils which holds humanity in ruin has four links: ±rst, a breach with God; second, a disruption of the sexes, involving a special curse on woman; third, oppressive labor, bearing specially on man; fourth, death. The chain of redemption begins with reconciliation with God, proceeds to a restoration of true relations between the sexes, then to a reform of the industrial system, and ends with victory over death. It was the special function of the Apostolic Church to break up the worldly ecclesiastical system and reopen full communication with God. It is the special function of the present church, availing itself ±rst of the work of the Apostolic Church by union with it and a re-development of its theology, to break up the worldly social system and establish true sexual and industrial relations. ²rom what precedes it is evident that no one should attempt to revolutionize sexual morality before settlement with God. Holiness, communism of love, association in labor, and immortality must come in their true order. . . . Sexual shame is factitious and irrational. The more reform that arises from the sentiment of shame attempts hopeless war with nature. Its policy is to prevent pruriency keeping the mind in ignorance of sexual subjects, while nature is constantly thrusting those subjects upon the mind. The only way to elevate love is to clear away the false, debasing associations that usually crowd around it, and substitute true, beautiful ones. The foregoing principles furnish motives for Association. They develop in a larger partnership the same attraction that draw and bind together a marriage partnership. A Community home, where love is honored and cultivated, will be much more attractive than an ordinary home as the Community outnumbers a pair. . . . The men and women are called to usher in the Kingdom of God will be guided not merely by theoretical truth but by direct communication with the heavens, as were Abraham, Moses, David, Paul. This will be called a fanatical principle. But it is clearly a Bible principle, and we must place it on high above all others as the palladium of conservatism in the introduction of the new social order.
Background image of page 2
Show entire document
Marbury v. Madison (1803) The Marbury versus Madison case revolved around William Marbury, who had been appointed a justice of the peace by President John Adams two days before Adams ended his term. The new President, Thomas Jefferson, denied Marbury the position by directing the Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commission. Marbury filed a lawsuit, asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, forcing Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the court was not authorized to issue writs of mandamus and more importantly, in the following excerpt from the decision, made it clear that the Supreme Court did, however, have the power to declare legislation unconstitutional, thereby maintaining the balance of power in government. This is one of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court, giving them more authority than they had previously held. [CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.] In the order in which the Court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided: 1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? 2d. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of this country afford him a remedy? 3d. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? . . . It is . . . the opinion of the Court: 1st. That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the President of the United States appointed him a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years. 2d. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy. 3d. It remains to be inquired whether he is entitled to the remedy for which he applies? . . . This . . . is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be inquired, whether it can issue from this court? The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court, "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of this description; and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional . . . The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. . . . In the distribution of this power, it is declared that "the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a
Background image of page 1
party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction." . . . If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, . . . It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect . . . To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction . . . The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court, by the Act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the Constitution . . . Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Background image of page 2
Avalo n Home Document Collection s Ancient 4000bce - 399 Medieva l 400 - 1399 15 th Centur y 1400 - 1499 16 th Centur y 1500 - 1599 17 th Centur y 1600 - 1699 18 th Centur y 1700 - 1799 19 th Centur y 1800 - 1899 20 th Centur y 1900 - 1999 21 st Century 2000 - The Avalon Project at Yale Law School Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address First Inaugural Address March 4, 1801 FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS, Called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye -- when I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world. During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution , all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to
Background image of page 1
measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter -- with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety. I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate
Background image of page 2
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

Kindly find your enclosed essay. The... View the full answer

a treatise.doc

Surname: 1 The Treatise of a Frontier Settler: America and its Social, Economic and Political Stability Name
Institution
Course
Professor
Date Surname: 2 America, being the great nation she has...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online