U. S. History Sourcebook - Basic

U.S. History Sourcebook Basic by Rob Lucas - HTML preview
Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online U. S. History Sourcebook - Basic file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with U. S. History Sourcebook - Basic book. Happy reading U. S. History Sourcebook - Basic Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF U. S. History Sourcebook - Basic at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF U. S. History Sourcebook - Basic Pocket Guide.

For people not going to town meetings. The English have contributed much to their misfortunes, for they first taught the Indians the use of arms, and let them attend trainings, and showed them how to handle and fix their muskets. The loss to the English in the several colonies, in their habitations and stock, is reckoned to amount to , pounds. About houses have been burned, head of cattle, great and small, killed, and many thousand bushels of wheat and other grain burned, and over Indians, men, women, and children destroyed.

When was it written and by whom? Does that make it more or less trustworthy? Corroboration: On what points do the two documents agree? On what points do they conflict?

Student Resources

Corroboration: Where the documents conflict, which one do you find more trustworthy? Corroboration: Considering both documents, what were the causes of King Phillip's War? They described feeling sharp pains and the sensation of being choked. The second was his niece, Abigail Williams. Reverend Parris believed the sickness was the result of witchcraft. The girls accused three women of being witches, including the Parris family's Indian slave, Tituba.

Tituba confessed to being a witch and accused more women. The parade of accusations continued until 20 women had been convicted of witchcraft and executed, and more were in prison. Why did the girls make these www. The documents below provide clues to Salemites' beliefs about witchcraft and about the context in which the events took place.

Mather argues for the existence of witchcraft. I will prove that Witchcraft exists. Those who deny it exists argue that they never saw any witches, therefore there are none. That would be as if you or I said: We never met any robbers, therefore there are none. I have two pieces of evidence that witchcraft exists: First, the Scripture mentions witchcraft.

Secondly, many people have experienced the horrors of witchcraft. Witchcraft is a most monstrous and horrid evil. Witchcraft denies all that is Holy, and Just and Good. Witchcraft is siding with Hell against Heaven and Earth. What was his perspective? Close Reading: Judging from this document, why might the people of Salem have believed the girls' accusations? Judge: Abigail Hobbs, you are brought before Authority to answer to various acts of witchcraft. What say you? Are you guilty, or not? Speak the truth. Abigail Hobbs: I will speak the truth. I have seen sights and been scared.

I have been very wicked. I hope I shall be better, if God will help me. Judge: What sights did you see? Abigail Hobbs: I have seen the Devil. Judge: How often, many times? Abigail Hobbs: But once. Judge: What would he have you do? Abigail Hobbs: Why, he would have me be a witch. Judge: Would he have you make a covenant with him? Abigail Hobbs: Yes.

Close Reading: According to this document, why did the people of Salem believe the girls' accu- sations? The most popular preacher of the period, George Whitefield, traveled across the country holding revival meetings attended by thousands. Nathan Cole's account below shows how intense the movement was. Nathaneal Henchman's letter to Whitefield shows that some traditional ministers did not welcome the revival. He blamed Whitefield for breaking up all of New England's churches. This document is a letter to the newspaper in which he addresses Whitefield. By supporting the new churches, by claiming that our Ministers are unacquainted with Christ, you have stopped the spread of the Gospel, and hurt the Peace and good Order.

You have hurt the very being of our Churches. I ask you not to preach in this parish I do not expect that you will pay attention to what I have written, but I still choose to declare that you are a dangerous man, harmful to the religion of Jesus Christ. Nathanael Henchman, Pastor of the first Church in Lynn Questions: Opening Up the Textbook: Before answering these questions, students should read an account of the Great Awakening from a typical textbook.

Contextualization: What else was going on at the time this document was written? Using this document, what can we say about the Great Awakening that goes beyond the textbook account? The experience convinced Cole to find salvation and become born-again. When I heard that Mr. Whitefield was coming to preach in Middletown, I was in my field at work. I dropped my tool and ran home to my wife and told her to hurry. My wife and I rode my horse as fast as I thought the horse could bear When we neared Middletown, I heard a noise like a low rumbling thunder and soon saw it was the noise of horses' feet.

As I came closer it seemed like a steady stream of horses and their riders, all of a lather and foam with sweat, their breath rolling out of their nostrils with every www. When we got to the meeting house there were 3 or people assembled. I turned and looked back and the land and banks of the river looked black with people and horses all along the 12 miles. When I saw Mr. Whitfield he looked almost angelic; a young, slim, slender, youth.

And hearing how God was with him everywhere put me into a trembling fear. I saw that my righteousness would not save me Questions: Opening Up the Textbook: Before answering these questions, students should read an account of the Great Awakening from a typical textbook. Would you add anything from these documents to the textbook account? Public Domain. Virginia and Maryland. The British argued that the tax was needed to pay off debts that they had incurred while protecting the American colonists during the French and Indian War.

The British thought that it was fair for the Americans to pay higher taxes. The Americans disagreed. Read the documents below and try to determine why the Americans were upset about the Stamp Act. Boston Editorial Source: This letter appeared as an editorial in a Boston newspaper on October 7, The author is unknown. Awake, my Countrymen and defeat those who want to enslave us. Do not be cowards. It is your duty to fight this tax. Future generations will bless your efforts and honor the memory of the saviors of their country. I urge you to tell your representatives that you do not support this terrible and burdensome law.

Let them know what you think. They should act as guardians of the liberty of their country. I look forward to congratulating you on delivering us from the enemies of truth and liberty. For what purpose? What was the audience? Contextualization: What was going on at the time the document was written? The Stamp Act was passed in March and went into effect November Philadelphia January 13th My Lords, The colonists have been insulting His Majesty, saying that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, and oppressive.

It is apparent to many people here, that the Presbyterians, who are very numerous in America, are at the head of these riots. The leaders, and the Clergy, fill every newspaper with inflammatory pieces, so that the minds of the common people are kept in a continual ferment No one dares write anything that would calm the people down. Doing so would put the writer's life and fortune in danger. I conclude with praying, that the Almighty may secure the allegiance of America to the Crown of Britain, by destroying the seeds of rebellion, and by punishing the ringleaders of these riots. Sourcing: Who wrote this and what is his job?

Does he side with England or with the colonists? How do you know? Contextualization: Based on his account, what is happening in America in ? How has the Stamp Act affected the author personally? Provide evidence from the document to support your answer. Do you believe this account? Give one reason why you would trust his account, and one reason why you might not. It shows that the British could not understand why the people of Boston were so upset about the Stamp Act.

From a London paper, January 27, The riotous behavior of the people in Boston is remarkable. I would have been less surprised by their behavior if we had taxed their beer, because everyone drinks beer. But the Stamp Act is a tax on none of the necessities of life. It does not affect the poor. And even a poor person can afford this little amount of money. The tax on newspapers only affects the rich — common people do not purchase newspapers. Isn't it surprising, then, that the mob in Boston has begun to riot against this tax even before it has officially gone into effect?

Sourcing: What newspaper does this come from? What would you predict the author's perspective will be on the Stamp Act? Was this written before or after the Stamp Act went into effect? Contextualization: What happened in Boston? Why is the author surprised? Who reads the newspapers, according to the author? Corroboration: Where do the documents agree and where do they conflict? Corroboration: Was the Stamp Act fair? How were the colonists treated by the British?

Corroboration: How did the colonists feel about their treatment? On April 19, , British troops marched from Boston to the nearby towns Lexington and Concord to arrest the militia's leaders, John Hancock and Sam Adams, and to confiscate their weapons. The militias learned in advanced that the British were coming, and about 70 militiamen, also called minutemen, assembled before dawn on the central green of the town of Lexington. As dawn was breaking, a shot rang out which set off the first battle of the American Revolution. But who fired the shot? The historical sources disagree.

Read the documents below and attempt to determine which side fired first. Then analyze the two paintings of the battle and decide which is a more accurate representation of the battle. At 2 o'clock we began our march by wading through a very long stream up to our middles. About 5 miles away from a town called Lexington, we heard there were some hundreds of people collected together intending to oppose us.

At 5 o'clock we arrived there and saw a number of people, I believe between and , formed in a common in the middle of the town. We still continued advancing, prepared for an attack though without intending to attack them. As we came near them, they fired one or two shots, upon which our men without any orders, fired and put them to flight. We then formed on the Common, but with some difficulty, the men were so wild they could hear no orders; we waited a considerable time there, and at length proceeded on our way to Concord.

Contextualization: Imagine the scene. What might the soldiers have been thinking? Close Reading: According to this document, which side fired first? All of lawful age, and inhabitants of Lexington Some of our men were coming to the Green, and others had reached it, at which time, they began to disperse. While our backs were turned on the British troops, they fired on us, and a number of our men were instantly killed and wounded, not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the British soldiers to our knowledge before they fired on us, and continued firing until we had all made our escape.

Lexington, April 25, Do you trust it more or less than a diary entry? When was this written? Whose side does this document represent? Close reading: What is the significance of the phrase "to our knowledge? Corroboration: Where do Barker's and Mullikan's accounts disagree? Are there any facts that both accounts agree on? Doolittle was an engraver and silversmith from Connecticut who visited the site of the battle and interviewed participants and witnesses.

Figure 3. Sourcing: When was this document created? By whom? Which figures in this image are British? Which figures are American? How can you tell? Look closely at the image. Which side appears to be firing first? Sourcing: When was this image created? According to this image, who fired first? Corroboration: Which of the first two texts seems more reliable — Mullikan or Barker? Why might they differ? Corroboration: Which of the images probably presents a more accurate representation of the Battle of Lexington?

Why might the creator of the other image have wanted to portray the battle differently? The representatives, called the Continental Congress, met in Philadelphia. The Declaration was adopted on July 4, 1 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 to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated abuses intended to establish tyranny over the colonies. Vocabulary self-evident obvious endowed given inalienable cannot be taken away to secure to get instituted established deriving getting consent agreement Questions For questions 1 and 2, restate the indicated paragraph in your own words.

We believe in these obvious truths: that all men are created equal, that they In order to protect these rights, governments are set up. These governments get their powers from Close Reading: Do these grievances seem to be things that upset rich people, or both rich and poor? Do you think these complaints would give people reason to go to war and possibly die? The colonists believed they saw a clear pattern in the events that followed They believed they saw an evil and deliberate conspiracy to crush liberty in America.

They saw evidence of this conspiracy in the Stamp Act and in the Coercive Acts. They also believed that America was destined to play a special role in history. They believed that America would become "the foundation of a great and mighty empire, the largest the world ever saw to be founded on such principles of liberty and freedom, both civil and religious. What evi- dence does he use to support his claims? It seemed clear to the educated, upper-class colonists that something needed to be done to per- suade the lower class to join the revolutionary cause, to direct their anger against England.

The solution was to find language inspiring to all classes, specific enough in its listing of grievances to fill people with anger against the British, vague enough to avoid class conflict, and stirring enough to build patriotic feelings. Everything the Declaration of Independence was about - popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, fury at political tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks - was well suited to unite large numbers of colonists and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.

Some Americans were clearly omitted from those united by the Declaration of Independence: Indians, black slaves, and women. What evidence does he use to support his claims? Which historian, Bailyn or Zinn, do you find more convincing? Printed in a Pennsylvania newspaper, it lists all the advantages of being British.

Pennsylvania Packet January 2, My Friends and Countrymen, This howling wilderness has been converted into a flourishing and populous country. But, is this not due to the way in which the colonies have been treated from the beginning? Isn't our growth a result of Great Britain's willingness to encourage our industry and protect us from foreign countries?

If so, surely some degree of gratitude, such as becomes a free and liberal people, would be appropriate. The peace and security we have already enjoyed under Great Britain's protection, before the mistaken system of taxation took place, must make us look back with regret to those happy days whose loss we mourn, and which every rational man must consider as the golden age of America.

Let us then, my friends and countrymen, be patient and avoid all inflammatory publications that are disrespectful to our most gracious Sovereign. Let us look forward to a happy termination of our present disputes, and a cordial reconciliation with our mother country. Rusticus Vocabulary Flourishing rapidly growing Rational reasonable Inflammatory arousing violent feelings Cordial warm and friendly Reconciliation existing in harmony Loyalist Letter — Charles Inglis Source: The following letter was written by Reverend Charles Inglis, an Anglican minister.

He was trying to sway colonists not to follow the Patriot leaders who were leading Americans into war. New York Gazette September 19, To the Inhabitants of North America: Brethren, Friends and Fellow Subjects, In case these people in Massachusetts succeed in convincing other colonies to break from Great Britain, let us calmly consider how prepared we are for such a war. I will not exaggerate, but represent things as they really are.

Do we have a fleet to look this power in the face and defend our coasts? No — not one ship. The inevitable consequence then must be, that all our seaport towns will be taken and all our trade and commerce destroyed. Have we disciplined troops to encounter those British soldiers that are now in America, or that may be sent here? We will need to leave our farms, our shops, our trades and begin to learn the art of war at the very same time we are called to practice it.

If we turn our eyes west to our back-country the situation is no better. Every man in Canada is a soldier, and may be commanded whenever government pleases. In the case of our civil war with Britain, all these Canadians and Indians would be let loose on our back-settlements, to scalp, ravage and lay everything to waste. Shall we, then, madly pursue violent measures that will plunge our country into all the horrors of a civil war? Shall we desperately risk our lives, liberties and property and recklessly drench this happy country with the blood of its inhabitants?

Forbid it loyalty, reason and common sense! A New York Freeholder landowner 3. Since the colonists were fighting to free themselves from monarchical rule, they created a very weak central government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government could not tax, could not make laws that would be binding in all 13 states, had no executive branch, and could not raise a national army.

Shays's Rebellion was a violent protest held by farmers in western Massachusetts. You will learn more about it by reading the first document below, an excerpt from a recent U. History textbook. According to the textbook, Shays's Rebellion made Americans realize that they needed a stronger government. As you read that documents that follow, try to understand the connection between Shays's Rebellion and the Articles of Confederation and then determine whether all Americans drew the same lessons from the Rebellion.

History textbook published in Shay's Rebellion The property owners' fears seemed justified when a full-scale rebellion, known as Shays's Rebellion, erupted in Massachusetts in The rebellion started when the government of Massachusetts decided to raise taxes instead of issuing paper money to pay off its debts. The taxes fell most heavily on farmers, particularly poor farmers in the western part of the state. As the recession grew worse, many found it impossible to pay their taxes as well as their mortgages and other debts.

Those who could not pay often faced the loss of their farms. Angry at the legislature's indifference to their plight, in late August , farmers in western Massachusetts rebelled. They closed down several county courthouses to prevent farm foreclo- sures, and then marched on the state supreme court. At this point, Daniel Shays, a former 29 www. In January , Shays and about 1, farmers headed to a state arsenal intending to seize weapons before marching on Boston.

In response, the governor sent more than 4, volunteers under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln to defend the arsenal. Before they arrived, Shays attacked, and the militia defending the arsenal opened fire. Four farmers died in the fighting. The rest scattered. The next day Lincoln's troops arrived and ended the rebellion. The fears the rebellion had raised, however, were harder to disperse. A Call for Change People with greater income and social status tended to see the rebellion, as well as inflation and an unstable currency, as signs that the republic itself was at risk.

They feared that as state legislatures became more democratic and responsive to poor people, they would weaken property rights and vote to take property from the wealthy. As General Henry Knox, a close aide to George Washington, concluded: "What is to afford our security against the violence of lawless men? Our government must be braced, changed, or altered to secure our lives and property. The confederation's failure to deal with conditions that might lead to rebellion, as well as the problems with trade and diplomacy, only added fuel to their argument.

Close Reading: According to this document, how was Shays's rebellion related to the Articles of Confederation? Close Reading: According to this document, how did people respond to Shays's Rebellion? Paris, November 13, The British have so long hired their newspapers to repeat every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, and we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist?

Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Shays' rebellion? God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. What country before ever existed without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let the people take arms. The remedy is to present them with the facts, pardon and pacify them.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Our Constitutional Convention has [made too much of Shays' rebellion]: and in the spur of the moment [I believe they are over-reacting]. What else do you know about his views on a strong central government?

Contextualization: According to Jefferson, have the colonies been peaceful or chaotic? Support your answer with evidence from the document. Close Reading: What does Jefferson mean when he says "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants? Opening Up the Textbook: How does this document challenge or expand the information you read in the textbook? Two camps developed — Federalists who favored a strong central government and Anti- Federalists, who favored a weak one. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were strongest among Northerners, city dwellers, and merchants.

The documents below show the Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions on Congressional representation and the impact of the new Constitution upon the states. Ex- perience has shown that this idea is false. The ancient democracies of Greece were characterized by tyranny and run by mobs. The Antifederalists also argue that a large representation is necessary to understand the inter- ests of the people. This is not true. Why can't someone understand thirty [thousand] people as well as he understands twenty people? I also think it's dangerous to assume that men become more wicked as they gain wealth and education.

Look at all the people in a community, the rich and the poor, the educated and the ignorant. Which group has higher moral standards? Both groups engage in immoral or wicked behavior. But it would seem to me that the wealthy overall have the advantage. Their immoral behavior often benefits the general wealth of the country, and it's less wicked and sinful.

What type of Congressional representation did the federalists prefer?

  • Main navigation.
  • Us History Sourcebook- Basic.
  • Customer Reviews.
  • Videobug.
  • U.S.-History-SourcebookBasic_b_v2_ore_s2 (4).pdf | Religion And Belief | Religion & Spirituality;
  • Shunned (The Amish Bloodsuckers Trilogy Book 2).

Representatives should be a true picture of the people. They should understand their circum- stances and their troubles. Therefore, the number of representatives should be so large that both rich and poor people will choose to be representatives. If the number of representatives is small, the position will be too competitive. Ordinary people will not attempt to run for office. A middle-class yeoman farmer will never be chosen. So, the government will fall into the hands of the few and the rich. This will be a government of oppression. The rich consider themselves above the common people, entitled to more respect.

They believe they have the right to get anything they want. What kind of Congressional representation did the Anti-Federalists favor? Which argument do you find more convincing, Federalist or Anti-Federalist? It is unfair to presume that the representatives of the people will be tyrants in the federal government, but not in the state government.

If we are convinced that the federal government will pass laws that go against the interests of the people, then we should have no federal government at all. But if we unite, we can accomplish great things. What reasonable man would establish a system that would reduce his friends and children to slavery and ruin? No reasonable man would want to establish a government that is unfriendly to the liberty of the people. Do not assume, gentlemen, that the advocates of this Constitution are motivated by their ambition.

It is an unjust and uncharitable view. Did the Federalists want the states or the Federal government to have more power? In a country where most people live more than twelve hundred miles from the center, I don't think one [government] body can legislate for the whole. Can such a government design a system of taxation that will be beneficial for everyone?

Won't such a centralized taxation system lead to swarms of officers, infesting our country and taking our money? People will be taxed beyond their means, and their complaints will never reach the government. It is not possible to find a set of representatives who are familiar with all parts of the continent. Can you find men in Georgia who know what's happening in New Hampshire, who know what taxes will best suit its inhabitants, and how much they can afford? Can the best men make laws for the people they know nothing about?

We have no reason to eliminate our state governments, or think they are incapable of acting wisely. Our state governments should be the guardians of our rights and interests. Did the Anti-Federalists want the states or the Federal government to have more power? Whose arguments do you find more convincing, the Federalists or Anti- Federalists?

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration included a grievance condemning slavery and blaming the King for in- troducing it into the Americas. That grievance was deleted before the final version was adopted, but the Declaration did include the phrase "all men are created equal. The documents below include Jefferson's slavery grievance and statements from several framers of the Constitution explaining their decision not to abolish slavery.

As you read, think about why slavery persisted in the Constitution, despite the fact that the Declaration declared all men equal. As chairman of the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote a paragraph condemning slavery in his first draft of the Declaration. Before the final version of the Declaration was adopted, this paragraph was deleted. He has taken away the most sacred rights of Life and Liberty from a distant people who never offended him. He did this by captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere if they did not die a miserable death in their transportation to this new world.

He has stopped every attempt to prohibit or to restrain the disgusting business of slavery. He is determined to keep open a market where men are bought and sold. Sourcing: When was this passage written? Close Reading: How does Jefferson describe slavery? Who does he blame for the continuation of the slave trade? Close Reading: Why do you think Jefferson italicizes the word 'Christian' at the end of the first paragraph? Contextualization: What else was going on at this time? Why do you think that Thomas Jefferson included a paragraph about slavery when he first wrote the Declaration of Independence?

Why do you think it was removed? Repre- sentatives from the 13 colonies gathered at the Constitutional Convention to write the new constitution. These are some of their comments about the issue of slavery. The comment by Franklin is taken from a published speech he delivered in Philadelphia just before the Constitutional Convention. The true question at present is whether the Southern states shall or shall not be a part of the Union. If the Northern states think about their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves because they will profit by selling the goods that slaves produce.

The morality or wisdom of slavery are decisions belonging to the states themselves.

  • Internet History Sourcebooks Project.
  • | CK Foundation.
  • First Responder Refresher: National Standard Curriculum Instructor Course Guide - Airway, Circulation, Illness and Injury, Childbirth and Children, EMS Operations.
  • U.S. History Sourcebook Basic, by Rob Lucas: FREE Book Download?
  • 50 Ethics Ideas You Really Need to Know (50 Ideas You Really Need to Know series).

What enriches a part enriches the whole. It is wrong to force any thing that is not absolutely necessary, and which any state must disagree to. When you assemble a large group of men, you will inevitably find that they will disagree with each other about their local interests, and their selfish views. We have to accept some of these disagreements in order to build a national government.

Did each of these men consider slavery to be immoral? What other issues do they believe to be more important than slavery? A Necessary Evil? The men at the Constitutional Convention never considered getting rid of slavery. The Revo- lutionary talk of freedom and equality had been left behind; Americans in general and the men at the Convention in particular wanted a united, well-ordered, and prosperous society in which private property — including slave property — would be secure.

According to Kaminski, why didn't the authors of the Constitution abolish slavery? The Founding Fathers' racism [was] a barrier to antislavery. Here again Jefferson typified the age. Jefferson suspected that blacks had greater sexual appetites and lower intellectual abilities than did whites. These suspicions, together with Jefferson's fear that free blacks and free whites could not live harmoniously in America, made him and others think that the only way Africans could be free was if they were sent back to Africa. According to Freehling, why didn't the authors of the Constitution abolish slavery?

Slavery hung over the Philadelphia Convention, threatening to divide northern and southern delegates. Even though slavery existed by law in some of the northern states in , most people there favored its end. Southerners were more unsure about whether to end slavery, both because they had significantly greater numbers of slaves to deal with and because an end to [slavery] had important economic implications. The result was compromise. The Founding Fathers were more determined to fashion a new nation than they were to bring an end to slavery. According to Hall, why didn't the authors of the Constitution abolish slavery?

Based on the information from the primary sources above, which of the historians' explanations do you find most convincing? Hamilton had been George Washington's aide-de-camp during the Revolutionary War and was a leading advocate for a strong central government during the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence and an influential leader of the other political faction, the Anti-Federalists. Hamilton was a New Yorker and an advocate for merchants and city-dwellers.

Jefferson came from rural Virginia and envisioned the United States as a nation of farmers. Despite their disagreements, President Washington brought both men into his cabinet, Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury and Jefferson as Secretary of State. The letters below show one of their squabbles.

As you read, note phrases that show each man's personality. Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury in Washington's administration. I sincerely regret that you have been made to feel uneasy in your administration. I will do anything to smooth the path of your administration, and heal the differences, though I consider myself the deeply injured party.

I know that I have been an object of total opposition from Mr. I know from the most authentic sources, that I have been the frequent subject of most unkind whispers by him. I have watched a party form in the Legislature, with the single purpose of opposing me. I believe, from all the evidence I possess, that the National Gazette [a newspaper] was instituted by Jefferson for political purposes, with its main purpose to oppose me and my department.

Nevertheless, I can truly say that, besides explanations to confidential friends, I never directly or indirectly responded to these attacks, until very recently. But when I saw that they were determined to oppose the banking system, which would ruin the credit and honor of the Nation, I considered it my duty to resist their outrageous behavior. Nevertheless, I pledge my honor to you Sir, that if you shall form a plan to reunite the members of your administration, I will faithfully cooperate. And I will not directly or indirectly say or do a thing to cause a fight.

With the most affectionate and faithful attachment, etc. Jefferson was Secretary of State in Washington's administration. You note that there have been internal tensions in your administration. These tensions are of great concern to me. I wish that you should know the whole truth. I have never tried to convince members of the legislature to defeat the plans of the Secretary of Treasury. I value too highly my friendships with them to.

I admit that I have, in private conversations, disapproved of the system of the Secretary of Treasury. However, this is because his system stands against liberty, and is designed to undermine and demolish the republic. I would like for these tensions to fade away, and my respect for you is enough motivation to wait to express my thoughts until I am again a private citizen.

At that point, however, I reserve the right to write about the issues that concern the republic. I will not let my retirement be ruined by the lies of a man who history — if history stoops to notice him — will remember a person who worked to destroy liberty. I trust that you know that I am not an enemy to the republic, nor a waster of the country's money, nor a traitor, as Hamilton has written about me.

Section Questions: Use both the Hamilton and Jefferson letters to answer the following questions. Sourcing: When were these letters written? What do you predict they will say? Based on both of these letters, what seems to have been happening in George Washington's administration?

Close reading: Which letter is angrier? What specific words and phrases support your claim? What do the letters indicate about each man's personality? What specific quotations support your claim? Corroboration: Who do you believe "started" the fight? Based on what they wrote, whom do you trust more: Hamilton or Jefferson? The land stretched from the Mississippi river to present-day Montana and covered some , square miles. France had originally explored the land, but ceded it to Spain in President Jefferson sent diplomats to France to attempt to 37 www.

In need of money to finance its other wars, France sold the whole of Louisiana to the U. The Louisiana Purchase doubled the land area of the United States, but not all Americans supported Jefferson's decision. Read the following documents to learn why Jefferson's Federalist rivals opposed the Louisiana Purchase. The purchase of New Orleans is essential to the peace and prosperity of our Western country, and opens a free and valuable market to our commercial states.

This purchase will probably make it seem like Mr. Jefferson is brilliant. Any man, however, who possesses any amount of intelligence, will easily see that the purchase is the result of lucky coincidences and unexpected circumstances and not the result of any wise or thoughtful actions on the part of Jefferson's administration. As to the vast region west of the Mississippi, it is a wilderness with numerous tribes of Indians. And when we consider the present territory of the United States, and that not one-sixteenth is yet under occupation, the possibility that this new purchase will be a place of actual settlement seems unlikely.

If our own citizens do eventually settle this new land, it would weaken our country and central government. On the whole, we can honestly say that this purchase is at best extremely problematic. But can the President sign treaties forcing Congress to do so? According to the Louisiana Treaty, the territory must be formed into states and admitted into the Union.

Will Congress be allowed to set any rules for their admission? Since slavery is legal and exists in Louisiana, and the treaty states that we must protect the property of the inhabitants, won't we be forced to admit the new states as slave states? Doing so will worsen the problem of unequal representation from slave and free states. Timothy Pickering to Rufus King. March 4, I am disgusted with the men who now rule us. The coward at the head [Jefferson] is like a French revolutionary. While he talks about humanity, he enjoys the utter destruction of his opponents. We have too long witnessed his general wickedness — his cruel removals of faithful officers and the substitution of corruption and immorality for honesty.

Corroboration: Where do the documents agree? Where do they conflict? Corroboration: Based on all of the documents, what can you say about why the Federalists opposed the Louisiana Purchase? Lewis, Clark, and the rest of their team left in f , returned in , and kept extensive records of their journey. Read the documents below to determine how the party interacted with the Native Americans they met.

The letter gives detailed instructions on how Lewis and Clark should treat Native Americans. To Captain Meriwether Lewis, In all your interactions with the natives, treat them in the most friendly and peaceful manner. Assure them that the purpose of your journey is innocent, that the U. Tell them we wish to trade peacefully with them, and find out what articles would be most desirable for both of us to trade. If a few of their chiefs wish to visit us, arrange such a visit for them.

If any of them wish to have some of their young people schooled by us and taught things that might be useful to them, we will receive, instruct and take care of them. Carry with you some smallpox medicine and explain to them how to use it and encourage them to use it, especially in the winter. Thomas Jefferson Pr. Diary Entries of William Clark Source: All the men on the journey kept diaries about their experiences.

Below are two entries from William Clark's diary. The first describes the ritual of the "Buffalo Dance" among the Mandan Indians. The second entry describes setting up camp near The Dalles Indians in present day Oregon. January 5, 39 www. We sent a man to this Buffalo Dance last night, and they gave him 4 girls. She brought with her 6 young women I believe for the purpose of gratifying the passions of the men of our party. According to Clark, what happens at the Buffalo Dance?

According to these diary entries, what is one way that Lewis and Clark's men interacted with the Native American tribes they met? Diary Entries on Sacagawea - William Clark Source: Many people have heard the name of Sacagawea, the Native American woman who with her husband and newborn baby accompanied Lewis and Clark on their journey and served as a translator.

Below are Clark's diary entries about Sacagawea. May 11, The tribe surrounded us in the lodge. When the chief arrived, we gave him a small medal and spoke to the Indians through Sacagawea. We informed them who we were, where we were came from, and our friendly intentions towards them, which pleased them very much.

August 17, We said goodbye to our interpreters Shabono and his wife, Sacagawea , who accompanied us on our route to the Pacific Ocean. I offered to take his little son, a beautiful, promising child who is 19 months old. They agreed and said that in one year the boy would be sufficiently old to leave his mother and he would then take him to me.

I agreed to raise the child as my own, in such a manner as I thought proper. Based on these two passages, how would you describe the relationship between Sacagawea's family and Lewis and Clark? Some advocated civilizing them — converting them to Christianity and a European- American way of life. Others, including President Andrew Jackson, favored forcible removal of the Indians to lands in the west. Removal won out.

Publisher Description

The taxes fell most heavily on farmers, particularly poor farmers in the western part of the state. Look at the lists and determine what information is available about the passengers. Corroboration: On what points do the two documents agree? Let us then, my friends and countrymen, be patient and avoid all inflammatory publications that are disrespectful to our most gracious Sovereign. But if we unite, we can accomplish great things. Search this Guide Search. What proof does he provide to illustrate that Turner is this type of person?

Some tribes signed treaties to leave, others fought and were defeated. The Cherokee tribe, however, was removed by an illegitimate treaty. In several Cherokee, who did not represent the tribe as a whole, signed the Treaty of New Echota, agreeing to vacate the land. Other members of the tribe signed a petition protesting that that they had not authorized the men to negotiate — but Congress ignored their requests.

By only 2, Cherokee had left and 16, remained. The U. During this march, which became known as the Trail of Tears, 4, Cherokee died of cold, starvation, and disease. The letter is to John Ross, the leader of the opposition. For many years, Boudinot opposed Georgia's attempt to take Cherokee land. But by , he decided that it would be best to sign a treaty supporting removal. Look at our people! They are wretched! Look, my dear sir, around you, and see the progress that vice and immorality have already made!

See the misery! If the darker picture which I have described here is a true one, can we see a brighter possibility ahead? In another country, and under other circumstances, there is a better prospect. Removal, then, is the only remedy, the only practical remedy. Our people may finally rise from their very ashes, to become prosperous and happy, and a credit to our race.

I would say to my countrymen, fly from your life here that is destroying our nation. What is your John Ross plan of relief? It is dark and gloomy beyond description. You want the Cherokee to live according the laws of Georgia, no matter how unfair they are? Instead of 41 www. The final destiny of our race, under such circumstances is too revolting to think of. Take my word, it is the sure end of our race if you succeed in preventing the removal of your people.

There will come a time when there will be few of us left as reminders of this brave and noble race. May God protect us from such a destiny. Close Reading: What does Boudinot hope will happen if the Cherokees move west? December 6, It gives me great pleasure to announce to Congress that the Government's benevolent policy of Indian removal has almost been achieved. We have wept over the fate of the natives of this country, as one by one many tribes have disappeared from the earth.

However, we must accept this the way we accept when an older generation dies and makes room for the younger We would not want to see this continent restored to the condition in which our forefathers found it. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and occupied by a few thousand savages to our great Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, decorated with art and industry, occupied by more than 12, , happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?

The United States will pay to send the natives to a land where they may live longer and possibly survive as a people. No doubt it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but how is this different from what our ancestors did and what our children are doing now? Can it be cruel when this Government offers to purchase the Indian's land, give him new and extensive territory, pay the expense of his removal, and support him for the first year in his new home? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of moving West under such conditions!

The policy of the Government towards the red man is not only liberal, but generous. The Indian is unwilling to follow the laws of the States and mingle with the population. To save him from utter annihilation, the Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement. Close Reading: Why would he say, "We have wept over the fate of the natives of this country," if he supports Indian Removal?

Close Reading: Why does Jackson think his policy is kind and generous? Do you agree? Turner was tried, convicted, and hanged. Read the documents below and try to determine what kind of person Nat Turner was — a hero or a lunatic? Confessions of Nat Turner — Thomas R. Gray Source: These confessions were narrated to lawyer Thomas R.

Gray in prison where Nat Turner was held after his capture on October 30, Nathaneal Henchmans letter to Whitefield shows that some traditional ministers did not welcome the revival. Contextualization: What else was going on at the time this document was written? Using this document, what can we say about the Great Awakening that goes beyond the textbook account? He blamed Whitefield for breaking up all of New Englands churches.

This document is a letter to the newspaper in which he addresses Whitefield. The experience convinced Cole to find salvation and become born-again. When I heard that Mr. Whitefield was coming to preach in Middletown, I was in my field at work. I dropped my tool and ran home to my wife and told her to hurry. My wife and I rode my horse as fast as I thought the horse could bear. When we neared Middletown, I heard a noise like a low rumbling thunder and soon saw it was the noise of horses feet.

As I came closer it seemed like a steady stream of horses and their riders, all of a lather and foam with sweat, their breath rolling out of their nostrils with every jump; every horse seemed to go with all his might to carry his rider to hear news from heaven for the saving of souls, it made me tremble to see the sight, how the world was in a struggle. I do not expect that you will pay attention to what I have written, but I still choose to declare that you are a dangerous man, harmful to the religion of Jesus Christ.

When I saw Mr. Whitfield he looked almost angelic; a young, slim, slender, youth. And hearing how God was with him everywhere put me into a trembling fear. I saw that my righteousness would not save me. When we got to the meeting house there were 3 or people assembled. I turned and looked back and the land and banks of the river looked black with people and horses all along the 12 miles. To George Whitefield, You have sown the harmful seeds of separation and disorder among us. By supporting the new churches, by claiming that our Ministers are unacquainted with Christ, you have stopped the spread of the Gospel, and hurt the Peace and good Order.

You have hurt the very being of our Churches. Would you add anything from these documents to the textbook account? Gerhard Mercator. The British argued that the tax was needed to pay off debts that they had incurred while protecting the American colonists during the French and Indian War.

The British thought that it was fair for the Americans to pay higher taxes. The Americans disagreed. Read the documents below and try to determine why the Americans were upset about the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was passed in March and went into effect November Philadelphia January 13th My Lords,. The colonists have been insulting His Majesty, saying that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, and oppressive. Source: This letter appeared as an editorial in a Boston newspaper on October 7, The author is unknown. Many believe that the Stamp Act is only being used to enrage the people, at the same time, to conceal other plans.

It is apparent to many people here, that the Presbyterians, who are very numerous in America, are at the head of these riots. The leaders, and the Clergy, fill every newspaper with inflammatory pieces, so that the minds of the common people are kept in a continual ferment. No one dares write anything that would calm the people down. Doing so would put the writers life and fortune in danger. Awake, my Countrymen and defeat those who want to enslave us.

Do not be cowards. It is your duty to fight this tax. Future generations will bless your efforts and honor the memory of the saviors of their country. I urge you to tell your representatives that you do not support this terrible and burdensome law. Let them know what you think. They should act as guardians of the liberty of their country. I look forward to congratulating you on delivering us from the enemies of truth and liberty.

For what purpose? What was the audience? Contextualization: What was going on at the time the document was written? I am convinced the Presbyterians intend nothing less than the throwing off their allegiance and obedience to his Majesty, forming a Republican Empire, in America, being Lords and Masters themselves.

I conclude with praying, that the Almighty may secure the allegiance of America to the Crown of Britain, by destroying the seeds of rebellion, and by punishing the ringleaders of these riots. Chapter 3. From a London paper, January 27, The riotous behavior of the people in Boston is remarkable. I would have been less surprised by their behavior if we had taxed their beer, because everyone drinks beer. But the Stamp Act is a tax on none of the necessities of life. It does not affect the poor.

And even a poor person can afford this little amount of money. The tax on newspapers only affects the richcommon people do not purchase newspapers. Isnt it surprising, then, that the mob in Boston has begun to riot against this tax even before it has officially gone into effect? Inflammatory Arousing angry or violent feelings Ferment agitation or excitement, typically leading to violence. Sourcing: Who wrote this and what is his job? Does he side with England or with the colonists? How do you know? Contextualization: Based on his account, what is happening in America in ?

How has the Stamp Act affected the author personally? Provide evidence from the document to support your answer. Do you believe this account? Give one reason why you would trust his account, and one reason why you might not. It shows that the British could not. Sourcing: What newspaper does this come from? What would you predict the authors perspective will be on the Stamp Act? Was this written before or after the Stamp Act went into effect? Contextualization: What happened in Boston?

Why is the author surprised? Who reads the newspapers, according to the author? Corroboration: Where do the documents agree and where do they conflict? Corroboration: Was the Stamp Act fair? How were the colonists treated by the British? Corroboration: How did the colonists feel about their treatment? After the passage of the Stamp Act, tensions between the colonists and the British government continued to rise, and the colonists began to organize militias.

On April 19, , British troops marched from Boston to the nearby towns Lexington and Concord to arrest the militias leaders, John Hancock and Sam Adams, and to confiscate their weapons. The militias learned in advanced that the British were coming, and about 70 militiamen, also called minutemen, assembled before dawn on the central green of the town of Lexington.

As dawn was breaking, a shot rang out which set off the first battle of the American Revolution. But who fired the shot? The historical sources disagree. Read the documents below and attempt to determine which side fired first. Then analyze the two paintings of the battle and decide which is a more accurate representation of the battle.

At 2 oclock we began our march by wading through a very long stream up to our middles. About 5 miles away from a town called Lexington, we heard there were some hundreds of people collected together intending to oppose us. At 5 oclock we arrived there and saw a number of people, I believe between and , formed in a common in the middle of the town.

We still continued advancing, prepared for an attack though without intending to attack them. As we came near them, they fired one or two shots, upon which our men without any orders, fired and put them to flight. We then formed on the Common, but with some difficulty, the men were so wild they could hear no orders; we waited a considerable time there, and at length proceeded on our way to Concord.

Contextualization: Imagine the scene. What might the soldiers have been thinking? Close Reading: According to this document, which side fired first? All of lawful age, and inhabitants of Lexington. Some of our men were coming to the Green, and others had reached it, at which time, they began to disperse. While our backs were turned on the British troops, they fired on us, and a number of our men were instantly killed and wounded, not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the British soldiers to our knowledge before they fired on us, and continued firing until we had all made our escape.

Lexington, April 25, Do you trust it more or less than a diary entry? When was this written? Whose side does this document represent? Close reading: What is the significance of the phrase to our knowledge? Corroboration: Where do Barkers and Mullikans accounts disagree? Are there any facts. Source: A painting made by Terrence Blachaux in , which was used in a 19th Century American postage stamp. Figure 3. Source: One of four engravings made by Amos Doolittle in Doolittle was an engraver and silversmith from Connecticut who visited the site of the battle and interviewed participants and witnesses.

Sourcing: When was this image created? By whom? According to this image, who fired first? Sourcing: When was this document created? Which figures in this image are British? Which figures are American? How can you tell? Look closely at the image. Which side appears to be firing first? Corroboration: Which of the first two texts seems more reliableMullikan or Barker? Why might they differ? Corroboration: Which of the images probably presents a more accurate representation of the Battle of Lexington? Why might the creator of the other image have wanted to portray the battle differently?

Declaration of Independence Source: The Declaration of Independence is a statement approved by representatives of the 13 colonies. The representatives, called the Continental Congress, met in Philadelphia. The Declaration was adopted on July 4, The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated abuses intended to establish tyranny over the colonies. To prove this, let facts be submitted: 1 2 He has refused to pass, and forbidden his We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government. Vocabulary self-evident obvious endowed given inalienable cannot be taken away to secure to get. The Declaration of Independence represents the colonists deepest fears and beliefs.

The colonists believed they saw a clear pattern in the events that followed They believed they saw an evil and deliberate conspiracy to crush liberty in America. They saw evidence of this conspiracy in the Stamp Act and in the Coercive Acts. They also believed that America was destined to play a special role in history. They believed that America would become the foundation of a great and mighty empire, the largest the world ever saw to be founded on such principles of liberty and freedom, both civil and religious.

The colonists believed that England was trying to enslave them, and that they should use all the power which God has given them to protect themselves. What evidence does he use to support his claims? We believe in these obvious truths: that all men are created equal, that they. In order to protect these rights, governments are set up. These governments get their powers from. Close Reading: Do these grievances seem to be things that upset rich people, or both rich and poor? Do you think these complaints would give people reason to go to war and possibly die?

Why or why not? It seemed clear to the educated, upper-class colonists that something needed to be done to persuade the lower class to join the revolutionary cause, to direct their anger against England. The solution was to find language inspiring to all classes, specific enough in its listing of grievances to fill people with anger against the British, vague enough to avoid class conflict, and stirring enough to build patriotic feelings.

The Declaration of Independence Everything the Declaration of Independence was about popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, fury at political tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks was well suited to unite large numbers of colonists and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England. Some Americans were clearly omitted from those united by the Declaration of Independence: Indians, black slaves, and women. Which historian, Bailyn or Zinn, do you find more convincing?

Source: The following letter was written by an anonymous Loyalist under the pseudonym Rusticus. Printed in a Pennsylvania newspaper, it lists all the advantages of being British. My Friends and Countrymen, Rusticus Pennsylvania Packet January 2, This howling wilderness has been converted into a flourishing and populous country. But, is this not due to the way in which the colonies have been treated from the beginning?

Isnt our growth a result of Great Britains willingness to encourage our industry and protect us from foreign countries? If so, surely some degree of gratitude, such as becomes a free and liberal people, would be appropriate. The peace and security we have already enjoyed under Great Britains protection, before the mistaken system of taxation took place, must make us look back with regret to those happy days whose loss we mourn, and which every rational man must consider as the golden age of America.

Let us then, my friends and countrymen, be patient and avoid all inflammatory publications that are disrespectful to our most gracious Sovereign. Let us look forward to a happy termination of our present disputes, and a cordial reconciliation with our mother country. He was trying to sway colonists not to follow the Patriot leaders who were leading Americans into war. New York Gazette September 19, To the Inhabitants of North America: Brethren, Friends and Fellow Subjects, In case these people in Massachusetts succeed in convincing other colonies to break from Great Britain, let us calmly consider how prepared we are for such a war.

I will not exaggerate, but represent things as they really are. If we turn our eyes west to our back-country the situation is no better. Every man in Canada is a soldier, and may be commanded whenever government pleases. In the case of our civil war with Britain, all these Canadians and Indians would be let loose on our back-settlements, to scalp, ravage and lay everything to waste. Shall we, then, madly pursue violent measures that will plunge our country into all the horrors of a civil war? Shall we desperately risk our lives, liberties and property and recklessly drench this happy country with the blood of its inhabitants?

Forbid it humanity! Forbid it loyalty, reason and common sense! A New York Freeholder landowner Loyalists during the Revolution The naval power of Great Britain is the greatest in the world. Do we have a fleet to look this power in the face and defend our coasts? Nonot one ship. The inevitable consequence then must be, that all our seaport towns will be taken and all our trade and commerce destroyed. Have we disciplined troops. Not a single regiment. We will need to leave our farms, our shops, our trades and begin to learn the art of war at the very same time we are called to practice it.

Since the colonists were fighting to free themselves from monarchical rule, they created a very weak central government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government could not tax, could not make laws that would be binding in all 13 states, had no executive branch, and could not raise a national army. Shayss Rebellion was a violent protest held by farmers in western Massachusetts.

You will learn more about it by reading the first document below, an excerpt from a recent U. History textbook.

According to the textbook, Shayss Rebellion made Americans realize that they needed a stronger government. As you read that documents that follow, try to understand the connection between Shayss Rebellion and the Articles of Confederation and then determine whether all Americans drew the same lessons from the Rebellion. History textbook published in Shays Rebellion Angry at the legislatures indifference to their plight, in late August , farmers in western Massachusetts rebelled.

They closed down several county courthouses to prevent farm foreclosures, and then marched on the state supreme court. At this point, Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army who was now a bankrupt farmer, emerged as one of the rebellions leaders. People with greater income and social status tended to see the rebellion, as well as inflation and an unstable currency, as signs that the republic itself was at risk.

They feared that as state legislatures became more democratic and responsive to poor people, they would.

Information For:

As General Henry Knox, a close aide to George Washington, concluded: What is to afford our security against the violence of lawless men? Our government must be braced, changed, or altered to secure our lives and property. These concerns were an important reason why many people, including merchants, artisans, and creditors, began to argue for a stronger central government, and several members of the Confederation Congress called on the states to correct such defects as may be discovered to exist in the present government.

The confederations failure to deal with conditions that might lead to rebellion, as well as the problems with trade and diplomacy, only added fuel to their argument. The property owners fears seemed justified when a full-scale rebellion, known as Shayss Rebellion, erupted in Massachusetts in The rebellion started when the government of Massachusetts decided to raise taxes instead of issuing paper money to pay off its debts.

The taxes fell most heavily on farmers, particularly poor farmers in the western part of the state. As the recession grew worse, many found it impossible to pay their taxes as well as their mortgages and other debts. Those who could not pay often faced the loss of their farms. In January , Shays and about 1, farmers headed to a state arsenal intending to seize weapons before marching on Boston.

In response, the governor sent more than 4, volunteers under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln to defend the arsenal. Before they arrived, Shays attacked, and the militia defending the arsenal opened fire. Four farmers died in the fighting. The rest scattered. The next day Lincolns troops arrived and ended the rebellion. The fears the rebellion had raised, however, were harder to disperse. A Call for Change. Shayss Rebellion 2. Close Reading: According to this document, how was Shayss rebellion related to the Articles of Confederation?

Close Reading: According to this document, how did people respond to Shayss Rebellion? Source: Thomas Jefferson was in France during Shays Rebellion, but he wrote a letter to a friend about it. Paris, November 13, The British have so long hired their newspapers to repeat every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, and we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Shays rebellion? God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.

What country before ever existed without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let the people take arms. The remedy is to present them with the facts, pardon and pacify them. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure. Our Constitutional Convention has [made too much of Shays rebellion]: and in the spur of the moment [I believe they are over-reacting]. What else do you know about his views on a strong central government? Contextualization: According to Jefferson, have the colonies been peaceful or chaotic?

Support your answer with evidence from the document. Close Reading: What does Jefferson mean when he says The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants? Section Questions 1. Opening Up the Textbook: How does this document challenge or expand the information you read in the textbook? In , the states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention, where they debated and wrote the new Constitution.

Two camps developedFederalists who favored a strong central government and AntiFederalists, who favored a weak one. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were strongest among Northerners, city dwellers, and merchants. The documents below show the Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions on Congressional representation and the impact of the new Constitution upon the states. Source: Speech by Alexander Hamilton, June 21, The Antifederalists seem to think that a pure democracy would be the perfect government.

Experience has shown that this idea is false. The ancient democracies of Greece were characterized by tyranny and run by mobs. The Antifederalists also argue that a large representation is necessary to understand the interests of the people. This is not true. Why cant someone understand thirty [thousand] people as well as he understands twenty people? The new constitution does not make a rich man more eligible for an elected office than a poor person. I also think its dangerous to assume that men become more wicked as they gain wealth and education.

Look at all the people in a community, the rich and the poor, the educated and the ignorant. Which group has higher moral standards? Both groups engage in immoral or wicked behavior. But it would seem to me that the wealthy overall have the advantage. Their immoral behavior often benefits the general wealth of the country, and its less wicked and sinful. Representatives should be a true picture of the people. They should understand their circumstances and their troubles. Therefore, the number of representatives should be so large that both rich and poor people will choose to be representatives.

If the number of representatives is small, the position will be too competitive. Ordinary people will not attempt to run for office. A middle-class yeoman farmer will never be chosen. So, the government will fall into the hands of the few and the rich. This will be a government of oppression. The rich consider themselves above the common people, entitled to more respect. They believe they have the right to get anything they want.

  • Fil de Soie (French Edition)?
  • Cecilias Diary 1962-1969!
  • Wealth of Nations (Illustrated and Bundled with Library of Wealth of Nations).
  • What Could It Be?.
  • U. S. History Sourcebook - Basic;

Which argument do you find more convincing, Federalist or Anti-Federalist? In a country where most people live more than twelve hundred miles from the center, I dont think one [government] body can legislate for the whole. Can such a government design a system of taxation that will be beneficial for everyone?

The Antifederalists argue that the federal government should not be allowed to tax the people because it will take everything it can get. Wont such a centralized taxation system lead to swarms of officers, infesting our country and taking our money? People will be taxed beyond their means, and their complaints will never reach the government.

It is unfair to presume that the representatives of the people will be tyrants in the federal government, but not in the state government. If we are convinced that the federal government will pass laws that go against the interests of the people, then we should have no federal government at all. But if we unite, we can accomplish great things. It is not possible to find a set of representatives who are familiar with all parts of the continent. Can you find men in Georgia who know whats happening in New Hampshire, who know what taxes will best suit its inhabitants, and how much they can afford?

Can the best men make laws for the people they know nothing about? I must finally say that I resent the implication that I am only interested in rank and power. What reasonable man would establish a system that would reduce his friends and children to slavery and ruin? We have no reason to eliminate our state governments, or think they are incapable of acting wisely. Our state governments should be the guardians of our rights and interests. No reasonable man would want to establish a government that is unfriendly to the liberty of the people.

Do not assume, gentlemen, that the advocates of this Constitution are motivated by their ambition. It is an unjust and uncharitable view. Did the Anti-Federalists want the states or the Federal government to have more power? Whose arguments do you find more convincing, the Federalists or Anti-Federalists?

The Declaration of Independence included a list of grievances against King George. Thomas Jeffersons original draft of the Declaration included a grievance condemning slavery and blaming the King for introducing it into the Americas. That grievance was deleted before the final version was adopted, but the Declaration did include the phrase all men are created equal. In spite of this, the Constitution allowed slavery to continue. The documents below include Jeffersons slavery grievance and statements from several framers of the Constitution explaining their decision not to abolish slavery.

As you read, think about why slavery persisted in the Constitution, despite the fact that the Declaration declared all men equal. Sourcing: When was this passage written? Close Reading: How does Jefferson describe slavery? Who does he blame for the continuation of the slave trade? Close Reading: Why do you think Jefferson italicizes the word Christian at the end of the first paragraph? Contextualization: What else was going on at this time? Why do you think that Thomas Jefferson included a paragraph about slavery when he first wrote the Declaration of Independence?

Why do you think it was removed? As chairman of the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote a paragraph condemning slavery in his first draft of the Declaration. Before the final version of the Declaration was adopted, this paragraph was deleted. He has taken away the most sacred rights of Life and Liberty from a distant people who never offended him.

He did this by captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere if they did not die a miserable death in their transportation to this new world. He has stopped every attempt to prohibit or to restrain the disgusting business of slavery. He is determined to keep open a market where men are bought and sold. Source: Statements from the Constitutional Convention, which was held in Philadelphia in Representatives from the 13 colonies gathered at the Constitutional Convention to write the new constitution. These are some of their comments about the issue of slavery.

The comment by Franklin is taken from a published speech he delivered in Philadelphia just before the Constitutional Convention. The true question at present is whether the Southern states shall or shall not be a part of the Union. If the Northern states think about their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves because they will profit by selling the goods that slaves produce. The morality or wisdom of slavery are decisions belonging to the states themselves.

What enriches a part enriches the whole. Slavery in the Constitution Mr. It is wrong to force any thing that is not absolutely necessary, and which any state must disagree to. When you assemble a large group of men, you will inevitably find that they will disagree with each other about their local interests, and their selfish views. We have to accept some of these disagreements in order to build a national government. The Founding Fathers racism [was] a barrier to antislavery.

Here again Jefferson typified the age. Jefferson suspected that blacks had greater sexual appetites and lower intellectual abilities than did whites. These suspicions, together with Jeffersons fear that free blacks and free whites could not live harmoniously in America, made him and others think that the only way Africans could be free was if they were sent back to Africa. Did each of these men consider slavery to be immoral?

What other issues do they believe to be more important than slavery? According to Freehling, why didnt the authors of the Constitution abolish slavery? Source: Excerpt from A Necessary Evil? The men at the Constitutional Convention never considered getting rid of slavery. The Revolutionary talk of freedom and equality had been left behind; Americans in general and the men at the Convention in particular wanted a united, well-ordered, and prosperous society in which private propertyincluding slave propertywould be secure.

Slavery hung over the Philadelphia Convention, threatening to divide northern and southern delegates. Even though slavery existed by law in some of the northern states in , most people there favored its end. Southerners were more unsure about whether to end slavery, both because they had significantly greater numbers of slaves to deal with and because an end to [slavery] had important economic implications.

The result was compromise. The Founding Fathers were more determined to fashion a new nation than they were to bring an end to slavery. According to Kaminski, why didnt the authors of the Constitution abolish slavery? Based on the information from the primary sources above, which of the historians explanations do you find most convincing? And I will not directly or indirectly say or do a thing to cause a fight. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were two of the most important political leaders of the young United States. Hamilton had been George Washingtons aide-de-camp during the Revolutionary War and was a leading advocate for a strong central government during the Constitutional Convention.

Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence and an influential leader of the other political faction, the Anti-Federalists. Hamilton was a New Yorker and an advocate for merchants and city-dwellers. Jefferson came from rural Virginia and envisioned the United States as a nation of farmers. Despite their disagreements, President Washington brought both men into his cabinet, Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury and Jefferson as Secretary of State.

The letters below show one of their squabbles. As you read, note phrases that show each mans personality. I know that I have been an object of total opposition from Mr. I know from the most authentic sources, that I have been the frequent subject of most unkind whispers by him. I have watched a party form in the Legislature, with the single purpose of opposing me.

I believe, from all the evidence I possess, that the National Gazette [a newspaper] was instituted by Jefferson for political purposes, with its main purpose to oppose me and my department. Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury in Washingtons administration. Jefferson was Secretary of State in Washingtons administration. I have never tried to convince members of the legislature to defeat the plans of the Secretary of Treasury.

I value too highly my friendships with them to. I admit that I have, in private conversations, disapproved of the system of the Secretary of Treasury. However, this is because his system stands against liberty, and is designed to undermine and demolish the republic.

Dear Sir, Nevertheless, I can truly say that, besides explanations to confidential friends, I never directly or indirectly responded to these attacks, until very recently. But when I saw that they were determined to oppose the banking system, which would ruin the credit and honor of the Nation, I considered it my duty to resist their outrageous behavior.

Nevertheless, I pledge my honor to you Sir, that if. With the most affectionate and faithful attachment, etc. I have received your letter of August 26th. I sincerely regret that you have been made to feel uneasy in your administration. I will do anything to smooth the path of your administration, and heal the differences, though I consider myself the deeply injured party.

I would like for these tensions to fade away, and my respect for you is enough motivation to wait to express my thoughts until I am again a private citizen. At that point, however, I reserve the right to write about the Hamilton versus Jefferson issues that concern the republic. I will not let my retirement be ruined by the lies of a man who historyif history stoops to notice himwill remember a person who worked to destroy liberty. Still, I repeat that I hope I will not have to write such a thing. I trust that you know that I am not an enemy to the republic, nor a waster of the countrys money, nor a traitor, as Hamilton has written about me.

In the meantime ever I am with great and sincere affection respect, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. I received your letter of August 23rd. You note that there have been internal tensions in your administration. These tensions are of great concern to me. I wish that you should know the whole truth. Section Questions: Use both the Hamilton and Jefferson letters to answer the following questions. Sourcing: When were these letters written?

What do you predict they will say? Based on both of these letters, what seems to have been happening in George Washingtons administration? Close reading: Which letter is angrier? What specific words and phrases support your claim? What do the letters indicate about each mans personality? What specific quotations support your claim? Corroboration: Who do you believe started the fight? Based on what they wrote, whom do you trust more: Hamilton or Jefferson? France had originally explored the land, but ceded it to Spain in In need of money to finance its other wars, France sold the whole of Louisiana to the U.

The Louisiana Purchase doubled the land area of the United States, but not all Americans supported Jeffersons decision. Read the following documents to learn why Jeffersons Federalist rivals opposed the Louisiana Purchase. The purchase of New Orleans is essential to the peace and prosperity of our Western country, and opens a free and valuable market to our commercial states. This purchase will probably make it seem like Mr.

Jefferson is brilliant. Any man, however, who possesses any amount of intelligence, will easily see that the purchase is the result of lucky coincidences and unexpected circumstances and not the result of any wise or thoughtful actions on the part of Jeffersons administration. As to the vast region west of the Mississippi, it is a wilderness with numerous tribes of Indians.

And when we consider the present territory of the United States, and that not one-sixteenth is yet under occupation, the possibility that this new purchase will be a place of actual settlement seems. If our own citizens do eventually settle this new land, it would weaken our country and central government. On the whole, we can honestly say that this purchase is at best extremely problematic. But can the President sign treaties forcing Congress to do so? According to the Louisiana Treaty, the territory must be formed into states and admitted into the Union. Will Congress be allowed to set any rules for their admission?

Since slavery is legal and exists in Louisiana, and the treaty states that we must protect the property of the inhabitants, wont we be forced to admit the new states as slave states? Doing so will worsen the problem of unequal representation from slave and free states. Timothy Pickering to Rufus King. March 4, I am disgusted with the men who now rule us.

The coward at the head [Jefferson] is like a French revolutionary. While he talks about humanity, he enjoys the utter destruction of his opponents. We have too long witnessed his general wickednesshis cruel removals of faithful officers and the substitution of corruption and immorality for honesty. Where do they conflict? Corroboration: Based on all of the documents, what can you say about why the Federalists opposed the Louisiana Purchase? Lewis, Clark, and the rest of their team left in , returned in , and kept extensive records of their journey. Read the documents below to determine how the party interacted with the Native Americans they met.

Diary Entries of William Clark Source: All the men on the journey kept diaries about their experiences. Below are two entries from William Clarks diary. The first describes the ritual of the Buffalo Dance among the Mandan Indians. The second entry describes setting up camp near The Dalles Indians in present day Oregon. January 5, The letter gives detailed instructions on how Lewis and Clark should treat Native Americans.

To Captain Meriwether Lewis, In all your interactions with the natives, treat them in the most friendly and peaceful manner.

U.S.-History-Sourcebook---Basic_b_v2_ore_s2 (4).pdf

Assure them that the purpose of your journey is innocent, that the U. Tell them we wish to trade peacefully with them, and find out what articles would be most desirable for both of us to trade. If a few of their chiefs wish to visit us, arrange such a visit for them. If any of them wish to have some of their young people schooled by us and taught things that might be useful to them, we will receive, instruct and take care of them.

Carry with you some smallpox medicine and explain to them how to use it and encourage them to use it, especially in the winter. The old men arrange themselves in a circle. We sent a man to this Buffalo Dance last night, and they gave him 4 girls. November 21, An old woman wife to a Chief came and made a Camp near ours. She brought with her 6 young women I believe for the purpose of gratifying the passions of the men of our party. According to Clark, what happens at the Buffalo Dance? According to these diary entries, what is one way that Lewis and Clarks men interacted with the Native American tribes they met?

Source: Many people have heard the name of Sacagawea, the Native American woman who with her husband and newborn baby accompanied Lewis and Clark on their journey and served as a translator. Below are Clarks diary entries about Sacagawea. The tribe surrounded us in the lodge. When the chief We informed them who we were, where we were came from, and our friendly intentions towards them, which pleased them very much. They agreed and said that in one year the boy would be sufficiently old to leave his mother and he would then take him to me. I agreed to raise the child as my own, in such a manner as I thought proper.

We said goodbye to our interpreters Shabono and his wife, Sacagawea , who accompanied us on our route to the Pacific Ocean. May 11, August 17, I offered to take his little son, a beautiful, promising. Based on these two passages, how would you describe the relationship between Sacagaweas family and Lewis and Clark? Public Domain 3. Some advocated civilizing themconverting them to Christianity and a European-American way of life. Others, including President Andrew Jackson, favored forcible removal of the Indians to lands in the west. Removal won out. Some tribes signed treaties to leave, others fought and were defeated.

The Cherokee tribe, however, was removed by an illegitimate treaty. In several Cherokee, who did not represent the tribe as a whole, signed the Treaty of New Echota, agreeing to vacate the land. Other members of the tribe signed a petition protesting that that they had not authorized the men to negotiatebut Congress ignored their requests. By only 2, Cherokee had left and 16, remained.

The U. During this march, which became known as the Trail of Tears, 4, Cherokee died of cold, starvation, and disease. I would say to my countrymen, fly from your life here that is destroying our nation. What is your John Ross plan of relief? It is dark and gloomy beyond description. You want the Cherokee to live according the laws of Georgia, no matter how unfair they are?

Instead of fix the evil, you would tie our people down in the chains of slavery. The final destiny of our race, under such circumstances is too revolting to think of. Take my word, it is the sure end of our race if you succeed in preventing the removal of your people. There will come a time when there will be few of us left as reminders of this brave and noble race. May God protect us from such a destiny. Close Reading: What does Boudinot hope will happen if the Cherokees move west? The letter is to John Ross, the leader of the opposition. For many years, Boudinot opposed Georgias attempt to take Cherokee land.

But by , he decided that it would be best to sign a treaty supporting removal. Look at our people! They are wretched! Look, my dear sir, around you, and see the progress that vice and immorality have already made! See the misery! If the darker picture which I have described here is a true one, can we see a brighter possibility ahead? In another country, and under other circumstances, there is a better prospect.

Removal, then, is the only remedy, the only practical remedy. Our people may finally rise from their very ashes, to become. December 6, It gives me great pleasure to announce to Congress that the Governments benevolent policy of Indian removal has almost been achieved. The United States will pay to send the natives to a land where they may live longer and possibly survive as a people. No doubt it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but how is this different from what our ancestors did and what our children are doing now? Can it be cruel when this Government offers to purchase the Indians land, give him new and extensive territory, pay the expense of his removal, and support Trail of Tears him for the first year in his new home?

How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of moving West under such conditions! The policy of the Government towards the red man is not only liberal, but generous. The Indian is unwilling to follow the laws of the States and mingle with the population. To save him from utter annihilation, the Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement. We have wept over the fate of the natives of this country, as one by one many tribes have disappeared from the earth.

However, we must accept this the way we accept when an older generation dies and makes room for the younger. We would not want to see this continent restored to the condition in which our forefathers found it. What good man would prefer a. Close Reading: Why would he say, We have wept over the fate of the natives of this country, if he supports Indian Removal? Close Reading: Why does Jackson think his policy is kind and generous? Do you agree? Turner was tried, convicted, and hanged. Read the documents below and try to determine what kind of person Nat Turner wasa hero or a lunatic?

Source: These confessions were narrated to lawyer Thomas R. Gray in prison where Nat Turner was held after his capture on October 30, His confessions were published on November 5, for his trial. Figure 4. Gray: Public curiosity has tried to understand Nat Turners motives behind his diabolical actions. Everything connected with the rebellion was wrapped in mystery, until Nat Turner the leader of the violent and savage band, was captured.

I was. Nat Turners Rebellion determined to end public curiosity and write down Nat Turners statements, and publish them, with little or no change, from his own words. Sourcing: Is this a trustworthy source? Does this account of Turners character seem believable? Nathaniel Turner: As I child, I knew I surely would be a prophet, as the Lord had showed me visions of things that had happened before my birth. My father and mother said I was intended for some great purpose. I was a child of uncommon intelligence and I knew I was never meant to be a slave. To a mind like mine, restless, curious and observant of every thing that was happening, religion became the subject that occupied all of my thoughts.

Thomas R. Gray: Nat Turner is a complete fanatic. The calm way he spoke of his late actions, the expression of his fiend-like face when excited by enthusiasm, still bearing the stains of the blood of helpless innocence about him. I looked on him and my blood curdled in my veins. The Southampton Tragedy. The Richmond Enquirer. Virginia, 27 September