Course Project

The Jacksonian Era

Chapter 5 Introduction and the Following Chapter Selections: Thoreau, Calhoun, Stanton, Truth, Douglass,

Jackson (Speech on Indian Removal), O’Sullivan

Jacksonian Era: 1829-1860 - Democrats, after destruction of Federalist party, tended to dominate during

this period (with some areas of Whig party strength) - Jacksonian democrats focused on small government and states’ rights - Whig party disappeared in 1850s over slavery issue

- Large wave of immigration during this period (2 million) - More people were moving to cities, especially in the Northeast

- Growth in manufacturing - Moral reform movements grew (temperance, anti-slavery, women’s rights)

- Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 - Utopian movements were popular

- Rise of Transcendentalism - These philosophers “thought that ‘true Christianity’ meant sharing Christ’s faith ‘in the

infinitude of man.’” (234) - Rise of Socialist movements

Andrew Jackson

(1767-1845)

ANDREW JACKSON

- Seventh President of the United States - Famed for being a military leader, and this popularity propelled him to the

Presidency - During 1812, fought for the U.S. military against Native Americans - Hero of Battle of New Orleans at the end of War of 1812 - Seen as a rough/crass outsider - In 1830 signed the Indian Removal Act, forcing the removal of Native

Americans to Indian Territory (an act known as Trail of Tears)

JACKSON: SPEECH ON INDIAN REMOVAL (1830)

- Message to Congress to announce policy towards Native Americans - Forced removal to territory west of the Mississippi River (in area that would

later become Oklahoma) - Argues that this policy will diminish conflict between the national and state

governments over this issue - Ties this policy to national security

- “By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwest frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid” (298)

- Ties the policy to economic benefit

JACKSON: SPEECH ON INDIAN REMOVAL (1830) - Tries to argue that this policy will also “benefit” the Native American groups

that are involved - He claims it will “free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness

in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community” (298)

- He claims to be the greatest friend of the Native Americans - Strong states’ rights statement

- Claims that states in their reserved powers have the ability to make their own pronouncements on this issue

- “For the justice of the laws passed by the States within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this Government. As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a Government we have as little right to control them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.” (299)

John L. O’Sullivan (1813-1895)

O’SULLIVAN: MANIFEST DESTINY (1839) - As people settled in the lands of the Louisiana Purchase, Americans sought

to expand ever westward - Britain and the new nation of Mexico held claims to most of the land west of the Louisiana

Purchase - The question of Texas and the strength of the Democratic Party fueled much of this

discussion - O’Sullivan was an editor of a Democratic newspaper

- He encouraged this westward expansion, knowing that states like Texas would likely be Democratic ones

- According to the textbook, “his greatest claim to fame was in coining the term ‘manifest destiny’ in a series of editorials advocating annexation of Texas, war with Mexico, and eventual American expansion to the Pacific coast” (304)

O’SULLIVAN: MANIFEST DESTINY (1839) - Claims that the Declaration of Independence and its focus on equality

differentiates America. It founded a new people, unlike others. - “On the contrary, our national birth was the beginning of a new history, the formation and

progress of an untried political system, which separates us from the past and connects us with the future only; and so far as regards the entire development of the natural rights of man, in moral, political, and national life, we may confidently assume that our country is destined to be the great nation of futurity” (304)

- What is its destiny? - “the principle upon which a nation is organized fixes its destiny, and that of equality is

perfect, is universal the principle upon which a nation is organized fixes its destiny, and that of equality is perfect, is universal” (304)

- “We must onward to the fulfillment of our mission—to the entire development of the principle of our organization—freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature’s eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it” (305)

O’SULLIVAN: MANIFEST DESTINY (1839) - What is the basis of American patriotism?

- “American patriotism is not of soil; we are not aborigines, nor of ancestry, for we are of all nations; but it is essentially personal enfranchisement, for ‘where liberty dwells,’ said Franklin, the sage of the Revolution, ‘there is my country’” (305)

- Expansion is the future - “We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march?” (305) - He dismisses the basis of other claims and says the strongest claim is American destiny - “And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the

continent which Providence has given for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federative self-government entrusted to us” (305)

- “The duty and right of providing the necessary accommodation for all this stupendous future of the American destiny—our existing position on this continent, led and established here as we have been by the finger of God himself—that pervading tendency westward, westward, which marks the slope of our national movement, and bears us ever on towards the Pacific. . . .” (305)

Elizabeth Cady

Stanton (1815-1902)

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON

- Seneca Falls Convention (1848) was a gathering to promote women’s rights - Early on, women’s rights movements were closely tied to abolitionist

movements - Stanton was angered after women were turned away from the abolitionist

meeting in London, so started a women’s movement with Lucretia Mott

STANTON: SENECA FALLS DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS (1848)

- Document mirrors the language of the Declaration of Independence, but inserts the term “women” in the discussion

- “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal“ (269) - “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward

woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her” (269) - Presents facts as evidence in same manner as Declaration of Independence

- These include denying them the right to vote, subjecting women to laws that they have no say in making, functionally making them dead in the eyes of the law, denying them property rights, denying them representation, allowing husband to beat their wives legally, giving few legal rights to women, relegating them to only a few poorly paid jobs, denying access to education, denying leadership positions in the church, requiring different moral rules for women than men, denying religious freedom, making women completely dependent and destroying their confidence

- Calls for granting women the immediate rights that belong to them as citizens of the United States

Henry David

Thoreau (1817-1862)

HENRY DAVID THOREAU - Part of the Transcendentalist movement - Naturalist - Known for writing Walden, where he spent two years in isolation (sort of),

observing nature - Transcendentalism was a progressive movement, so thinkers like Thoreau

were connected to and active in abolitionist movements, among others - Thoreau was a political radical

- Refused to pay Massachusetts tax because of objection to American policy on war and slavery and was subsequently jailed

- Civil Disobedience was written as a justification for his refusal - Outlined a theory for individual passive resistance to policies or laws that one sees as unjust

THOREAU: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (1849) - Advocates limited government

- “heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—’That government is best which governs not at all’” (248)

- Do we need government? - “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all

governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government” (238)

- “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it” (238)

THOREAU: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (1849) - Even though he claims American government is the best out there, all government is

ineffective - “Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It

does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way” (238)

- Not recommending anarchy at this time, but for individuals asking for improved government - “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at

once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” (239)

- Wary of majority rule - “After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted,

and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it” (239)

- He asks, can we ever be ruled by conscience?

THOREAU: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (1849) - Those who serve the state with their consciences are likely to be treated as enemies - Claims nobody can serve a government that supports slavery without being disgraced

themselves - Voting is a feeble attempt to promote the right or moral action

- “All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote” (240)

- It is not a person’s duty to fight to right a wrong, but it is their duty not to support it - “It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous,

wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders.“ (240)

THOREAU: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (1849) - How do we approach unjust laws?

- “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?...Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform?...Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?” (240)

- Laws take too much time to change - “As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of

such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to livein,buttoliveinit,beitgoodorbad” (240)

THOREAU: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (1849)

- Objecting to unjust laws - “I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once

effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them” (240)

- “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison” (241)

- “In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases” (242)

- “It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it” (242) - Not paying taxes is a peaceful revolution

John C. Calhoun (1782-1850)

JOHN C. CALHOUN - Politician from South Carolina - Vice President to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson - Senator, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, U.S. Representative - Prominent theorist of states’ rights

- Developed the idea of concurrent majorities - “Calhoun argued that it was insufficient to win the support of simple majorities to adopt deeply

contested policies that affected fundamental interests. The policy should instead be supported by majorities of all the relevant, affected constituencies. The immediate application of the concept was to suggest that both the North and the South would have to agree before any change in federal policies regarding slavery or key economic issues could be made. More broadly, the theory was meant to develop a more effective constitutional check against the potential tyranny of the majority” (243)

- Center of the nullification crisis in the early 1830s - “He developed the theory that states could both evaluate the constitutionality of federal laws and

block (or ‘nullify’) their implementation within the boundaries of the state” (243)

CALHOUN: A DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT (1850)

- Asks the question: - “What is that constitution of our nature, which, while it impels man to associate with his kind,

renders it impossible for society to exist without government?” (244) - Answer:

- “The answer will be found in the fact (not less incontestable than either of the others) that, while man is created for the social state, and is accordingly so formed as to feel what affects others, as well as what affects himself, he is, at the same time, so constituted as to feel more intensely what affects him directly, than what affects him indirectly though others; or, to express it differently, he is so constituted, that his direct or individual affections are stronger than his sympathetic or social feelings” (244)

- This preference for our own issues leads to conflict - We sacrifice the interests of others to our own; therefore we need government

to settle conflict - BUT… government too can cause conflict

CALHOUN: A DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT (1850)

- Those who are leaders in government have the same human nature, preferring their individual interest over the social interest

- “And hence, the powers vested in them to prevent injustice and oppression on the part of others, will, if left unguarded, be by them converted into instruments to oppress the rest of the community” (244)

- A constitution must be used to prevent/check this tendency - How do you prevent abuse without taking away all the power of the government?

- “There is but one way in which this can possibly be done; and that is, by such an organism as will furnish the ruled with the means of resisting successfully this tendency on the part of the rulers to oppression and abuse. Power can only be resisted by power—and tendency by tendency” (245)

- The right of suffrage, whereby the people have power over the government, is not sufficient by itself because the people have competing interests instead of unified interests (245)

CALHOUN: A DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT (1850)

- The nature of competing interests: - “[A] struggle will take place between the various interests to obtain a majority, in order to

control the government. If no one interest be strong enough, of itself, to obtain it, a combination will be formed between those whose interests are most alike—each conceding something to the others, until a sufficient number is obtained to make a majority. . . . When once formed, the community will be divided into two great parties—a major and minor—between which there will be incessant struggles on the one side to retain, and on the other to obtain the majority—and, thereby, the control of the government and the advantages it confers” and will result in “two great hostile parties” (245-246)

- Then, how do we prevent abuse? Prevent the tyranny of the majority - “it is manifest, that this provision must be of a character calculated to prevent any one interest,

or combination of interests, from using the powers of government to aggrandize itself at the expense of the others” (246)

CALHOUN: A DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT (1850)

- Concurrent majorities - “There is but one certain mode in which this result can be secured; and that is, by the adoption of some

restriction or limitation, which shall so effectually prevent any one interest, or combination of interests, from obtaining the exclusive control of the government, as to render hopeless all attempts directed to that end. There is, again, but one mode in which this can be effected; and that is, by taking the sense of each interest or portion of the community, which may be unequally and injuriously affected by the action of the government, separately, through its own majority, or in some other way by which its voice may be fairly expressed; and to require the consent of each interest, either to put or to keep the government in action” (246)

- How is this done? Through a negative power (e.g. veto, nullification, check, etc.) - “by dividing and distributing the powers of government, give to each division or interest, through its appropriate

organ, either a concurrent voice in making and executing the laws, or a veto on their execution” (246) - He claims that this mechanism, when combined with suffrage, prevents the majority from

tyrannizing a minority - “The one, by rendering those who make and execute the laws responsible to those on whom they operate,

prevents the rulers from oppressing the ruled; and the other, by making it impossible for anyone interest or combination of interests or class, or order, or portion of the community, to obtain exclusive control, prevents any one of them from oppressing the other” (246)

CALHOUN: A DISQUISITION ON GOVERNMENT (1850)

- He claims that concurrent majorities give a truer sense of the will of the entire community

- Numerical majority vs concurrent majority - “So great is the difference, politically speaking, between the two majorities, that they cannot

be confounded, without leading to great and fatal errors; and yet the distinction between them has been so entirely overlooked, that when the term majority is used in political discussions, it is applied exclusively to designate the numerical—as if there were no other. Until this distinction is recognized, and better understood, there will continue to be great liability to error in properly constructing constitutional governments, especially of the popular form, and of preserving them when properly constructed” (247)

Sojourner Truth

(1797-1883)

SOJOURNER TRUTH

- Born into slavery in New York - Escaped in 1826 with her infant - Her freedom was purchased by the white family that gave her a new home - Later sued to have her son, who had been sold out of state, returned to her - Became very religious and changed her name to Sojourner Truth - Became involved in the abolitionist and feminist movements, giving

speeches on these subjects - Gained a great deal of fame and met two Presidents

TRUTH: AIN’T I A WOMAN? (1851) - Notes the dual struggle for African American rights and women’s rights in this country and how it

will make white men uncomfortable - Remarks on the special treatment of white women (and the paternalistic argument that

accompanies it) - “That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best

place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain’t I a woman? Look at me!” (271)

- “I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard—and ain’t I a woman?” (271)

- Notes that women can be quite as strong as men, and more similar than assumed - “Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me—and ain’t I a woman?

I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it) and bear the lash as well—and ain’t I a woman?” (271)

- On the rights of women - “Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wasn’t a woman!

Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him. . . . If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these [women] together ought to be able to turn it back and get it right side up again, and now they is asking to do it, the men better let them” (271)

Frederick Douglass (?-1895)

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

- Born into slavery in Maryland - On third escape attempt, fled to New York City when he was twenty - Became a Methodist preacher - Published The North Star, an abolitionist newspaper, and became a public

speaker - The following reading is a speech he gave to an anti-slavery society

DOUGLASS: WHAT TO THE SLAVE IS THE FOURTH OF JULY? (1852)

- To some, the Fourth of July is a symbol of deliverance and freedom - “This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National

Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day” (272)

- Notes there it is fashionable to say that the Americans rightfully rebelled against the tyranny of the British, but that there was a time when saying so was not condoned in this way

- “there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men” (272)

- The men who sided with right then would be criticized for doing so now - “ To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed

against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers” (272)

DOUGLASS: WHAT TO THE SLAVE IS THE FOURTH OF JULY? (1852)

- The idea of breaking from Britain and seeking independence was a novel and alarming idea at the time; we’ve just forgotten that

- Their success should be celebrated - “Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and today you reap the fruits of

their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary” (273)

- But their success does not extend to him - “What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of

political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? . . . I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us” (273)

- “The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me” (273)

DOUGLASS: WHAT TO THE SLAVE IS THE FOURTH OF JULY? (1852)

- Independence Day only highlights their servitude - “This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in

fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. . .” (273)

- “Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America!” (274)

- He argues that the rights established during the war for independence also apply to African Americans and that there is hypocrisy if one states otherwise

DOUGLASS: WHAT TO THE SLAVE IS THE FOURTH OF JULY? (1852)

- He notes that it is apparent to all that the injustice done to those who are enslaved is wrong

- “Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look today, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? . . . To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding.—There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him. What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength than such arguments would imply. At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed” (274)

DOUGLASS: WHAT TO THE SLAVE IS THE FOURTH OF JULY? (1852)

- The injustices that are pervasive in America make a mockery of the principles behind the Fourth of July

- To these victims, “your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour” (275)

- He notes that it is a nation of hypocrisy and a cause of disgrace on the world stage - “The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a

base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home” (275)

- States that countries can no longer operate in isolation, so he has hope that change will happen