Jeffersonian American (1800-1809), Madison and the War of ... · Jeffersonian American (1800-1809), Madison and the War of 1812 (1812-1816) With the The Era of Good Feelings (1816-1824)

1

Jeffersonian American (1800-1809), Madison and the War

of 1812 (1812-1816)

With the The Era of Good Feelings (1816-1824)

2

Thomas Jefferson’s Presidency (1801-1809)

Jefferson Trivia

1.He had pet mockingbirds.

2.Introduced Macaroni and Cheese to America

3.Wrote America’s earliest known vanilla ice cream recipe

4.Lived nearly on a vegetarian diet

5.Had pea growing competitions with neighbor

6.Thomas Jefferson smuggled rice out of Italy. If caught, the punishment

was death.

7.Had a high-pitched voice and stuttered. He faked being sick not to give

public speeches.

8.Presented with a 1,200 pound block of cheese that said, “Rebellion to

tyrants is obedience to God.”

9.Had sexual relations with one of his slaves (Sally Hemings)

Thomas Jefferson’s 1st Inaugural Address (March 4, 1801)

Excerpts Questions

Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us

restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which

liberty and even life itself are but dreary things… But every difference

of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by

different names brethren of the same principle. We are all

Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who

would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let

them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error

of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

What is the purpose of this excerpt?

HINT: Think of what just happened in

1800?

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government,

which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them

otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and

improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it

has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary

to close the circle of our felicities.

What is a good government?

Do you agree?

3

Read Article Thomas Jefferson: The Political Compromiser

Questions Answers

What do you think the following

phrase means….”Jefferson

Outfederalized the Federalists.”

Provide at least three examples of

how Jefferson “outfederalized the

Federalists” and/or flip flopped

on an issue.

1.

2.

3.

What was Jefferson’s position

on these topics before

becoming President?

Issues/Topics What was Jefferson’s

position/actions on these

topics while serving as

President?

Federal Tariff

National Bank

Alien and Sedition Acts

How should the Constitution be

interpreted? (strictly or loosely)

Whose interests should the

government favor (farmers or

manufacturers)?

U.S. Navy (Increase or Decrease)

Should political rights be extended

to more?

Key Events in Jefferson’s Presidency

Which Presidential term was more successful?

(1801-1805) or (1805-1809)

Tripolitan War

(1801-1805)

Marbury v.

Madison

(1803)

Louisiana

Purchase

(1803)

Embargo Act 1807

Hamilton-Burr

Duel (1804)

Lewis and Clark

Expedition

(1804-1806)

4

Louisiana Purchase: Historical Context

The province of Louisiana comprised the region between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains,

and between the Canadian border and approximately the northern boundary of what is now Texas. This

vast territory had been claimed by France, but after her defeat by Great Britain in the French and Indian

War, France was forced to cede it to Spain. When Napoleon came into power in 1799, he negotiated with

Spain the secret treaty of San Ildefonso (1800), which gave France renewed dominion over the province.

Napoleon's plan was to reoccupy New Orleans as a base from which to extend French political and

commercial power on the American continent. When Jefferson heard of the secret agreement, he became

deeply concerned about French control of the Mississippi trade routes, as well as the danger of a foreign

empire adjacent to the United States. He enlisted the aid of James Monroe, a former minister to France,

and Robert Livingston, the then current minister to France, in negotiations to purchase the important

strategic areas around the mouth of the Mississippi.

Why was Napoleon willing to sell the Louisiana Territory to America in 1803?

Reasons: Why is this a purpose for selling?

Reason 1: France is at war with England.

Reason 2: Toussaint Louverture led a

successful rebellion in in Saint Domingo and

Haiti against the French

5

Although the price was right, Jefferson faced a serious problem in deciding how to handle the offer. For years

he had opposed the Federalists who had stretched the meaning of the Constitution to assume “implied powers.”

In 1791 the Federalists had used the “elastic clause” to assume the power to create a national bank. Then, in

1797, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which he felt violated the First amendment right to

free speech. As a long-standing opponent of loose construction, Jefferson found himself in a bind knowing

that the Constitution did not specifically grant the national government the right to buy land. He had always

been a “strict constructionist,” arguing that the national government had only those powers, which were

specifically granted in the Constitution.

But the purchase of Louisiana meant a great deal to the nation. For years the Spanish had denied western

farmers free use of the Mississippi. The purchase of Louisiana would give the United States control of both

sides of the Mississippi River. Additionally, the money raised from the sale of the land would bring valuable

income to the national government. Who knew what valuable resources would be found in the vast territory?

His trusted friend and fellow Republican, James Madison, suggested that the power to buy land from another

country could be assumed under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 which reads... He shall have power, by and

with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present

concur; The President has decided to submit the “treaty” to the Senate.

Thomas Jefferson

gave instructions

to two diplomats

to purchase New

Orleans and

parts of Florida

for no more than

$9,375,000.

James

Monroe

Robert

Livingston

Napoleon offers

to sell all of

Louisiana

Territory for

$22.5 million

1.We offer

9,375,000 for N.O.

and Florida

2. We

want22,5000,000

for Louisiana

Territory

3. We will pay 8

million for L.T.

4. We will Sell for

$15 million

4. U.S. Tried to get it for 12.7 million…not

happening! Paid 15 million at 6% interest

which ended up costing America $26

million over 15 years FYI: Monroe and

Livingston were not authorized to spend

that amount.

6

Senate Debate Activity: Each of you is to play the role of United States Senators. Remember, the Senate must

ratify (approve) all treaties. You are to debate and vote on the proposal to ratify the treaty under which the

United States will purchase the territory of Louisiana from France for $15 million.

Composition of the Senate 1803-1804

Democratic-Republicans Federalists

25 (74% of the Senate) 9 (26% of the senate)

Composition of the House of Representatives (must approve the funding) 1803-1804

Democratic-Republicans Federalists

102 (72% of the House of Reps) 39 (28% of the House of Reps)

Arguments FOR Ratification of

Louisiana Purchase Treaty

Arguments AGAINST Ratification of Louisiana

Purchase Treaty

1.Western farmers are demanding war

to secure free use of the Mississippi

River

2.The vast resources of Louisiana will

make-up for the costs of the purchase

3.Napoleon may change his mind on

the treaty if the nation does not act

quickly

4.The Constitution allows the

purchase of the treaty because of…

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 which

reads... He shall have power, by and

with the advice and consent of the

Senate, to make treaties, provided

two-thirds of the Senators present

concur;

5.It would double the size of the

United States at approximately

$0.04/acre.

6.If we do not purchase the land

through treaty, Napoleon might try to

populate it and the U.S. might have to

ally with the British.

7.Would control the port city of New

Orleans

8.Avoid later conflicts with France

9.Includes American Indians as

citizens in brand new country

1.The Constitution contains no provision for purchasing

land. Jefferson has always been against a loose construction

of the Constitution.

2.Jefferson should seek a Constitutional amendment to

purchase the Louisiana Territory

3.All states carved out of the territory would be Democratic-

Republicans supporting Jefferson.

4.The expansion doubling the size of the nation will

“decivilize” the nation.

5.French and Spanish speaking people in the Louisiana

territory have not consented to being incorporated into the

United States.

6.Should the people already living in the Louisiana Territory

become U.S. citizens with equal rights?

7.When people move to the Louisiana Territory they will be

at a great distance from the nation’s capital. It will be

impossible to control or meet the needs of these individuals

and they will eventually want to separate.

8.Knowing that Napoleon cannot maintain control over it

and that he is afraid that England will take it, we should not

pay so much for it.

9.Cash-poor country (United States)

10.Tensions could arrive with American Indians

11.Would increase the number of slave-holding states that

would be carved out of the Louisiana Territory.

12.New England ports will lose business with western

farmers now sending their products through New Orleans

port.

7

Effects of the New Land Acquired in the Louisiana Purchase Treaty

Lewis and Clark Leads the Corps of Discovery Aaron Burr Conspiracy

Please watch this Video Link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ADwME0c7k

1.What was a purpose of the Corps of Discovery?

2.Who was instrumental in the success of the Corps of

Discovery?

3. What was an outcome of the Corps of Discovery?

Background on Aaron Burr:

Why do Hamilton and Burr dislike one another?

Hamilton-Burr Duel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjsqZHb32Gk

What consequences does this have for…

A. The Federalist Party

B. Aaron Burr

1st Got Milk Commercial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLSsswr6z9Y

Aaron Burr Conspiracy Video Link (Watch the

first 8:30 minutes):

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6h4l0m

1.What was the conspiracy plan as it related to the

land acquired through the Louisiana Purchase?

2.What was the outcome of the plan and Burr?

Marbury v. Madison (1803) The MOST IMPORTANT case in Supreme Court History!

Please watch the link and identify the role of each person below!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLSsswr6z9Y

Cause of the

Court Case

William Marbury

James Madison John Marshall’s

Ruling

Significance

John Adams and

Midnight

Appointments

Commissions

Writ of

Mandamus:

Position:

What will

Madison not do?

With regards to the

Judiciary Act of 1789? Judicial Review

8

Britain Declares War on France in 1803 and uses

its superior Navy to prevent France from getting

supplies

1

2

3

France

Napoleon

Great Britain

King George

United States of

America

Thomas Jefferson

Why is America

stuck between a

rock and a hard

place?

How should T.J.

Respond?

U.S. Trade with

France…Grrrreat!!!

U.S. Trade with

Britain…Grrrreat!!!

1806: France issues

Berlin decree:

countries cannot

trade with Britain

1807: England issues

Orders in Council:

countries cannot

trade with France

AND all goods coming

to Europe must first

stop in England

1.British start

destroying U.S. ships

2.British Impress U.S.

sailors (over 10,000

by 1807)

1807: France issues

Milan decree: any

neutral vessel

submitting to British

trade regulations was

subject to seizure in

French ports (Spain

starts destroying U.S.

ships)

U.S.S. Chesapeake

attacked by British 10

miles off coast of

Virginia (1807)

4 Dead, 18 wounded, 4

Impressed

9

Summary Draw: In the box below, please draw the situation that Jefferson is dealing with

concerning…Orders in Council, impressments, Chesapaeke/Leopard affair, Berlin decree, U.S.

trade

Jefferson believed in “peaceful coercion.” He also believe in Washington’s advice of steering clear of

permanent alliances. What document provided this advice? He wanted to economically force Great Britain

and France to lift their trade restrictions without use military force. Soooo…Thomas Jefferson chose the

EMBARGO ACT (U.S. Ships CAN NOT trade with ANY country in the world).

How did different parts of the country feel about the EMBARGO ACT? Please go to the link provided and

complete the chart by reading some primary sources from the link provided. Be ready to share in an

ONLINE DISCUSSION. Link: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/static/neh/interactives/embargo/

1. Did it help your region? If so how?

2. Did it hurt your region? If so how?

3. Viewpoints on Jefferson’s embargo act? Explain

NOTE: Please use some excerpts from the primary source materials to emphasize your point!

New England Mid Atlantic South Southwest

Personal Opinion: Support the Embargo Act? Explain.

10

Political Cartoon Analysis Questions

____________________________________________________

Effects of Embargo Act

1.Increased American manufacturing. Explain.

2. Revived the Federalist Party. Explain.

3. Exports, which had peaked at $108,000,000 in 1807, plummeted

to $22,000,000 in 1808.

1.What country is the ship from in the

harbor?

2.What do you think the turtle

represents?

3.Do you think person being bit is a

Federalists or Democratic-Republican?

4.From whose point of view is this cartoon

drawn?

5.What is the purpose of this political

cartoon?

6.Historical Context: What is

happening in the world at the time of

this event?

Attempt at Peaceful

Coercion #1: (1807)

Attempt at Peaceful

Coercion #2: (1809)

Can now trade with

all countries EXCEPT

Britain and France.

Attempt at Peaceful Coercion #3:

(1810)

FYI: President James Madison

approves

Macon’s Bill No. 2

U.S. life trade embargoes and

whichever countries view U.S.

at neutral ships American

trade with them.

Which country agreed to lift

trade restrictions?

11

Events that Led to the War of 1812

Event 1: British Impressment

and U.S. Ships Destroyed

Event 2: Native American

Relations…Tecumseh and

the Prophet

Event 3: War Hawks

Congressmen who supported going to

war against Great Britain.

Please complete the worksheet

titled EARLY U.S. FOREIGN

POLICY on Pages 25-27 of this

Note Packet.

This will be collected before we

have our War of 1812 Debate.

Choose a role in the War of

1812 debate and prepare

yourself to participate in a

groups of 3 or 4.

Each Group Needs a…

1. Henry Clay

2. Obadiah German

3. John Randolph

4.William Eustis

These two Shawnee Indians

fought to prevent western

expansion of U.S Settlers in

the Ohio River Valley.

The Prophet was killed at the

Battle of _______________

by a General who was to

become a future President of

the United States.

Who is this person?

Most of these War Hawks lived in the

following states…Kentucky and

Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia

Henry Clay from Kentucky

War Hawks Reasons

1.U.S. Territorial Expansion

a. Desire Florida

b. Desire Canada

c. Desire more settlement in Western

lands

d. Accused Britain of assisting Native

Americans like Tecumseh

12

War of 1812 Debate

Main Question:

1. Should the United States of America Declare War on Great Britain?

Place of Debate: Washington, D.C.

Date: May 1812

Small Group Moderator: William Eustis (Madison’s Secretary of War)

Cabinet Meeting Moderator: James Madison (teacher)

In this simulation, you will be divided into groups of 4. Each person will be responsible to prepare for

tomorrow’s debate by completing the following task for one historical role:

Henry Clay: America

Should Defend Rights

and Honor Through

Unlimited War

Obadiah German: America Should Delay

Armed Conflict Until

Prepared.

John Randolph American Rights and

Honor Are Not Worth

Bloodshed to Fight a War

Against Britain

William Eustis

(Madison’s Secretary of

War): You are

questioning and listening

to all sides of the

argument

1.Research and prepare (from

primary sources) view on war

with Great Britain

2.Prepare at least one question for

Obadiah German and John

Randolph

1.Research and prepare (from

primary sources) German’s view

on War with Great Britain

2. Prepare at least one question

for Obadiah German and John

Randolph

1.Research and prepare (from

primary sources) Randolph’s

view on war with Great Britain

2. Prepare at least one question

for Obadiah German and John

Randolph

1.Become familiar with the

arguments of Clay, German and

Randolph

2.Develop questions to ask Clay,

German and Randolph

3.Become familiar with the

readings on pages 16, 19, 21.

Debate Day Procedures

Time Who is Speaking What is Their Objective? 12 minutes to argue

(Eustis moderate if

necessary)

Clay Persuade the reporter to choose your side

German Persuade the reporter to choose your side

Randolph Persuade the reporter to choose your side

4 minutes Clay, German, Randolph

and Madison

Reporter calls on each person to ask questions to the

other debaters

6 minutes Clay, German, Randolph

and Madison

Reporter asks questions to all three individuals

10 minutes All Eustis’ move to Cabinet

Meeting Table

Teacher (James Madison) moderates a discussion of the

newspaper reporters on what story to run in the paper

8-10 minutes No one Students complete a short answer question or foreign

policy synthesis question as a summarizer.

13

Main Causes Leading up to the War of 1812

1. Westward Expansion (War Hawks, British Forts still in Western Territories, Jay’s Treaty, Treaty of

1783, Democratic-Republican voters, agrarian farmers, regional issues in Congress)

2. Maritime Issues (Relationship with the French and British, Impressment, Orders-in-Council,

Chesapeake Incident, Jay’s Treaty, Convention of 1800, Napoleon)

3. Native American Relations (Tecumseh, Prophet, War Hawks, Battle of Tippecanoe, William Henry

Harrison, Britain aided/encouraging Native American Attacks, Invasion of Canada?)

4. National Honor

5. Economic Issues (Embargo Act, Thomas Jefferson, Non-Intercourse Act, Macon’s Bill No. 2,

Depression in America, New England, Regional Consequences)

6. Political Issues Between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans

All of the above topics should be discussed in your small group discussions. In the following chart, please

take notes on what is presented by all sides and then make your final position on the topic with supporting

reasons.

Topic Henry Clay Obadiah German John Randolph

Point of

View

Viewpoints

on Topic

(At least

four reasons

per person)

At least ten

reasons for

YOUR

person.

Questions for

Each Person

Eustis creates 4

questions

Clay and

German create One

question/opponent

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

4. Final Position on

Topic (Personal Opinion with

Justification

Debate Day Seating

Group of 4

Group of 4

Group of 4

Group of 4

Group of 4

After small group debates, the Eustis’ all move to the center

Cabinet Board Meeting.

Group of 4 Group of 4 Group of 4

14

Writing an Introductory Paragraph (With Context, Evidence and Thesis)

Prompt: Early United States foreign policy was primarily a defensive reaction to perceived or actual threats from

Europe. Assess the validity of this generalization with reference to United States foreign policy on TWO major issues

during the period from 1789 – 1825.

Contextualization: The

response must relate the topic

of the prompt to broader

historical events, developments,

or processes that occur before,

during, or continue after the

time frame of the question. This

point is not awarded for merely

a phrase or reference.

Evidence: The response must

identify specific historical

examples of evidence relevant

to the topic of the prompt.

Thesis: Responds to all parts

of the prompt with a historically

defensible thesis/claim that

establishes a line of reasoning

that is not too general (no

social, economic or political

ONLY reasons).

“ I am ready to allow, Mr. President, that both Great Britain and France have given us abundant cause for war…My plan

would be, and my first wish is, to prepare for it—to put the country in complete armor—in the attitude imperiously

demanded in a crisis of war, and to which it must be brought before any war can be effective…I must call on every

member of this Senate to pause before he leaps into or crosses the Rubicon—declaring war is passing the Rubicon in

reality.” ---Senator Obadiah German of New York, speech in the Senate, June 1812

26. Based on the tone of the excerpt, which of the statements below best expresses German’s position on declaring war in

June of 1812?

A. He opposed going to war because he did not believe the country was prepared for one

B. He opposed the war because he thought people did not have the right attitude about fighting

C. He supported going to war immediately against both Great Britain and France

D. He supported the war to prevent British troops from Canada invading New York and other northern states

27. Who of the following would be most likely to agree with German’s position on the war?

A. John Calhoun and other politicians from the South

B. Henry Clay and other politicians from the West

C. James Madison and other politicians from the executive branch

D. Merchants from New England

28. Which of the following is the best support for German’s claim that the United States has “abundant cause of war”?

A. the impressment of U.S. Sailors

B. the controversy over the Louisiana Purchase

C. the actions by the Barbary pirates

D. the findings of the Lewis and Clark expedition

15 “What, Mr. Speaker, are we not called on to decide? It is, whether we will resist by force the attempt, made by that

Government (Britain), to subject our maritime rights to the arbitrary and capricious rule of her will; for my part I am not

prepared to say that this country shall submit to have her commerce interdicted or regulated, by any foreign nation. Sir, I

prefer war to submission…

“The British Government, for many years past they have been in the practice of impressing our seamen, from merchant

vessels; this unjust and lawless invasion of personal liberty, calls loudly for the interposition of this Government…

“This war…will have its advantages. We shall drive the British from our continent---they will no longer…[be] intriguing

with our Indian neighbors…I am willing to receive the Canadians as adopted brethren.”

---Felix Grundy, Speech in the House of Representatives, December 1811

“This war of conquest, a war for the acquisition of territory and subjects, is to be a new commentary on the doctrine that

republics are destitute of ambition; that they are addicted to peace…

“But is war the true remedy? Who will profit by it? Speculators---a few lucky merchants…Who must suffer by it? The

people. It is their blood, their taxes that must flow to support it.

“Our people will not submit to be taxed for this war of conquest and domination. The government of the United States

was not calculated to wage offensive war; it was instituted for the common defense and general welfare; and whosoever

should embark it in a war of offense would put it to a test which it was by no means calculated to endure.”

---John Randolph, Speech in the House of Representatives, December 1811

Using the excerpts, answer a, b, and c. Remember to include at least one specific piece of evidence in each response.

Your response should be approximately three to five sentences.

a.) Briefly explain the main point of excerpt 1.

b.) Briefly explain the main point of excerpt 2.

c.) Provide ONE piece of evidence from the debate over war during this period that is not included in the excerpts

and explain how it supports the interpretation in either excerpt.

Synthesis: In the space below please compare the issues before the War

of 1812 to a specific event outside this time frame. Include an explanation. Please list at least 6 foreign

policy events/terms before 1812.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

16

SUMMARY: DEFEND RIGHTS AND HONOR THROUGH UNLIMITED WAR (Henry Clay)

The United States can no longer put up with the outrages perpetrated against it by Great Britain. Marauding Indians on the frontier, the

ruthless impressment of our sailors, the seizure of our ships: Britain has pushed us too far. We must act now.

In 1776, we Americans decided we could no longer tolerate British oppression and declared independence. The ensuing conflict

resulted in the recognition of America’s independence in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Since that time, however, Great Britain has

continually attempted to keep its newly independent colonies in a dependent position. In the 1780s and early 1790s, the British limited

our access to British ports, impressed American sailors, and maintained a presence in six forts located in the Northwest Territories that

they had previously ceded to the United States. While relations improved a little with the signing of the Jay Treaty and the cooperation

that occurred between Britain and the United States during the state of war with France, things have only become worse since then.

The resumption of hostilities between Britain and France in 1803 has resulted in increasing tensions. The British view control of the

seas as essential to their survival. In their view, there is no right to neutral shipping. Any ship heading to France is considered fair

game for seizure and sale. The victors of Trafalgar think that the ocean belongs to them. It does not. They dare anyone to challenge

their claims upon nature’s natural highway. This interference must stop. Our nation’s commerce depends on the right of neutral

shipping.

Britain’s insatiable need for sailors in their navy has also led them increasingly to impress Americans on the high seas. Although

claiming only to be interested in capturing and returning British sailors who have fled the harsh conditions of its navy, native-born as

well as naturalized Americans have also frequently been impressed. The practice of impressment has not only resulted in a violation of

American rights, it has resulted in violence against Americans. The outrageous attack of the HMS Leopard on the USS Chesapeake in

1807 left twenty-one American sailors dead or wounded. We will not tolerate these insults to our nation’s honor any longer.

On the western frontier, Great Britain incites the Indians to massacres of unspeakable brutality. With promises of an independent

nation between the United States and Canada and an ample supply of weapons, the British have unleashed terror on the frontier

through their Indian allies. Have they no shame? Where is the honor in having others massacre innocent settlers? It is time for us to

claim this land as our own and to strike back against the source of British aggression on this continent—Canada. It is time that we stop

trying to speak a language of accommodation and compromise that Britain does not understand. In the 1770s, the Olive Branch

Petition fell on deaf ears. In the first decade of the nineteenth

century attempts at “peaceable coercion” are met with disdain. Force is the language of the British. To maintain its independence and

preserve its honor, America must abandon negotiation and fight fire with fire.

Our forefathers triumphed less than three decades ago against the British. Their sons will rise to the occasion again. Let us make sure

they did not spill their blood in vain and sacrifice lives for a short-lived experiment in constitutional government. The time for talk has

passed. America’s rights, honor, and credibility must be preserved. Without them, independence is just a meaningless word.

UNDERLYING BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS

1. The honor and pride of the United States are at stake. The United States can not suffer under the monarchical tyranny of Great Britain ever again.

2. The United States should have the right to trade with any nation as it sees fit.

3. Force is the only message that Great Britain will understand.

4. The land on the frontiers and in possession of the Indians as well as the British colonial possession of Canada ultimately should belong to the

United States.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

1. Great Britain has ignored our good-faith efforts to negotiate solutions. They have refused to honor their treaty obligations to abandon their forts in the Northwest and

they have incited Indians on the frontier. Their impressment of seamen and limitations on our trade shows that they are treating us like we are still their colonies. Force

was what forced them to accede to our demands during the War of Independence. Force is what will stop them now.

2. Expansion to the west will bring valuable land to our farmers, offer more opportunities for trade, and quell the troublesome Indians. Declaring war will allow us to

take these lands.

3. Britain’s Orders in Council have stifled our economic growth. We have not been able to trade with France or with other European nations as is our right. We must

insist on our rights as an independent

Nations.

17

Henry Clay

State: Kentucky Political Party: Democratic-Republican (at this time in life)

Notable Events:

1792: Secretary and Amanuensis for George Wythe 1797: Admitted to the Virginia Bar

1797: Lawyer in Lexington, KY 1797: Won election to State legislature

1799: Advocated for direct elections for Kentucky public officials

1799: Failed to pass a Kentucky law advocated the gradual emancipation of slaves 1803: Representative of Fayette County in Kentucky General Assembly

1805: Faculty at Transylvania University

1806: Successfully defended Aaron Burr 1806:U.S. Senator for two months

1807: Speaker of the state House of Representatives

1809: Survived a duel (was shot in the thigh) 1810: U.S. Senator for 14 months

1810: Speaker of the House of Representatives

1810: Opposed the re-chartering of the First Bank of the Unites States 1811: Elected as Speaker of the House (again).

1812: Clay owned a 600 acre plantation with numerous slaves producing tobacco and hemp

Henry Clay, Congressman from Kentucky: 1. …Great Britain arrogated to herself the pretension of regulating foreign trade, under the delusive name of retaliatory Orders in Council — a

pretension by which she undertook to proclaim to American enterprise, “Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther.” Orders which she refused

to revoke after the alleged cause of their enactment had ceased; because she persisted in the act of impressing American seamen; because

she had instigated the Indians to commit hostilities against us; and because she refused indemnity for her past injuries upon our commerce.

…

2. It is not to the British principle, objectionable as it is, that we are alone to look; it is to her practice — no matter what guise she puts on. It is

in vain to assert the inviolability of the obligation of allegiance. It is in vain to set up the plea of necessity and to allege that she cannot exist

without the impressment of her seamen. The truth is, she comes, by her press gangs, on board of our vessels, seizes our native seamen,

as well as naturalized, and drags them into her service. It is the case, then, of the assertion of an erroneous principle, and a practice not

conformable to the principle — a principle which, if it were theoretically right, must be forever practically wrong.

3. . It was that those who are most interested against the practice of impressment (North) did not desire a continuance of the war on account of

it, while those (the Southern and Western members) who had no interest in it, were zealous advocates of the American seaman. Does not

that gentleman feel for the unhappy victims of the tomahawk in the Western country, although his quarter of the Union may be exempted

from similar barbarities? I am sure he does. If there be a description of rights which, more than any other, should unite all parties in all

quarters of the Union, it is unquestionably the rights of the person. No matter what his vocation, whether he seeks subsistence amid

the dangers of the deep, or draws it from the bowels of the earth, or from the humblest occupations of mechanic life, whenever the

sacred rights of an American freeman are assailed, all hearts ought to unite and every arm should be braced to vindicate his cause. 4. Other gentlemen consider the invasion of that country as wicked and unjustifiable. Its inhabitants are represented as unoffending, connected

with those of the bordering states by a thousand tender ties, interchanging acts of kindness, and all the offices of good neighborhood.

Canada innocent! Canada unoffending! Is it not in Canada that the tomahawk of the savage has been molded into its deathlike form?

From Canadian magazines…supplies have been issued which nourish and sustain the Indian hostilities? Supplies which have enabled the

savage hordes to butcher the garrison of Chicago, and to commit other horrible murders?

5. The disasters of the war admonish us, we are told, of the necessity of terminating the contest. If our achievements upon the land have been

less splendid than those of our intrepid seamen, it is not because the American soldier is less brave. We have, however, the consolation

that our country abounds with the richest materials, and that, in no instance, when engaged in an action, have our arms been

tarnished. … 6. It is alleged that the elections in England are in favor of the Ministry, and that those in this country are against the war. If, in such a cause

(saying nothing of the impurity of their elections), the people of that country have rallied around their government, it affords a salutary

lesson to the people here, who, at all hazards, ought to support theirs, struggling, as it is, to maintain our just rights. But the people

here have not been false to themselves; a great majority approve a war… 7. What cause, Mr. Chairman, which existed for declaring the war has been removed? We sought indemnity for the past and security for

the future. The Orders in Council are suspended, not revoked; no compensation for spoliations; Indian hostilities, which were

before secretly instigated, now openly encouraged; and the practice of impressment unremittingly persevered in and insisted upon.

Yet administration has given the strongest demonstrations of its love of peace…to an armistice upon two conditions only. And what are

they? That the Orders in Council should be repealed, and the practice of impressing American seamen cease, those already

impressed being released. 8. My plan would be to call out the ample resources of the country, give them a judicious direction, prosecute the war with the utmost vigor,

strike wherever we can reach the enemy, at sea or on land, and negotiate the terms of a peace at Quebec or Halifax. We are told that

England is a proud and lofty nation; that disdaining to wait for danger, meets it halfway. Haughty as she is, we once triumphed over her,

and if we do not listen to the councils of timidity and despair, we shall again prevail. In such a cause, with the aid of Providence, we

must come out crowned with success; but if we fail, let us fail like men — lash ourselves to our gallant tars and expire together in

one common struggle, fighting for “seamen's rights and free trade.”

9. What are we to gain by war, has been emphatically asked? In reply, he would ask, what are we not to lose by peace?--commerce,

character, a nation's best treasure, honor! If pecuniary considerations alone are to govern, there is sufficient motive for the war. Our

revenue is reduced, by the operation of the belligerent edicts, to about six million of dollars, according to the Secretary of the Treasury's

18

report. The year preceding the embargo, it was sixteen. Take away the Orders in Council it will again mount up to sixteen millions. By

continuing, therefore, in peace, if the mongrel state in which we deserve that denomination, we lose annually, in revenue only, ten millions

of dollars. . . .

10. Not content with seizing upon all our property, which falls within her rapacious grasp, the personal rights of our countrymen--

rights which forever ought to be sacred, are trampled upon and violated. The Orders in Council were pretended to have been

reluctantly adopted as a measure of retaliation. The French decrees, their alleged basis, are revoked. England denies their revocation. . . .

11. To-day we are asserting our claim to the direct trade--the right to export our cotton, tobacco, and other domestic produce to market. Yield

this point, and to-morrow intercourse between New Orleans and New York--between the planters on the James river and

Richmond, will be interdicted. For, sir, the career of encroachment is never arrested by submission.

12. Gentlemen say that this Government is unfit for any war, but a war of invasion. What, is it not equivalent to invasion, if the mouths of

our harbors and outlets are blocked up, and we are denied egress from our own waters? Or, when the burglar is at our door, shall

we bravely sally forth and repel his felonious entrance, or meanly skulk within the cells of the castle? . . . 13. But if the reports which we now hear are true, that with England all hope of honorable accommodation is at an end, and that with France

our negotiations are in a fowardness encouraging expectations of a favorable result, where is the motive for longer delay? The final step

ought to be taken; and that step is WAR. By what course of measures we have reached the present crisis, is not now a question for

freemen and patriots to discuss. It exists; and it is by open and manly war only that we can get through it with honor and

advantage to the country. Our wrongs have been great; our cause is just; and if we are decided and firm, success is inevitable.

14. Let war therefore be forthwith proclaimed against England. With her there can be no motive for delay. Any further discussion, any

new attempt at negotiation, would be as fruitless as it would be dishonorable. With France we shall still be at liberty to pursue the

course which circumstances may require. The advance she has already made by the repeal of her decrees;

15. But it is said that we are not prepared for war, and ought therefore not to declare it. This is an idle objection, which can have weight with

the timid and pusillanimous only. The fact is otherwise. Our preparations are adequate to every essential object. Do we apprehend

danger to ourselves? From what quarter will it assail us? From England, and by invasion? The idea is too absurd to merit a

moment’s consideration. Where are her troops? But lately, she dreaded an invasion of her own dominions, from her powerful and

menacing neighbor…She maintains an army in Sicily, India and Ireland, and along her own coast and in the West Indies. Can anyone

believe, that, under such circumstances, the British government could send troops here for the purpose of invasion?

16. The experience and the fortune of our revolution, when we were comparatively in an infant state, have doubtless taught her an

useful lesson which cannot have been forgotten. Since that period our population has increased three-fold, whilst her’s has remained

almost stationary.

17. Little predatory incursions on our frontier will not be encouraged by those who know that we can retort them ten-fold, and pursue and

punish the authors, retire where they may, if they remain in this hemisphere. Nor is any serious danger to be apprehended from their

savage allies. Our frontiers may be easily protected against them. But should the war lately terminated be renewed, the struggle will be

short. Numberless expeditions from different quarters may be led forth against them. A single campaign would drive these unfortunate

people into the most distant and desert wilds. 18. But our coast and seaport towns are exposed and may be annoyed. Even this danger, which exists in a certain degree, has been much

exaggerated. No land force can be brought to bear against them, because Great Britain has none to spare for such a service; and

without a land force, no great impression can be made. 19. Ships of war cannot approach near the coast, except at the entrance of our great bays and rivers. They cannot annoy the sea coast generally

by their cannon; and if detachments of marines should be sent on shore, they may be repelled by the militia where they land.

20. . Some of our towns, it is admitted, may be exposed to danger from ships of war, but with suitable precautions it will soon vanish. No ship

of war can stand long before a good battery well manned and well supplied with heavy artillery. An attack by ships of war only, on

any of our towns, could have no object but that of distressing the inhabitants; and if those towns are put in such a state of defence, as to

enable them to repel the attack, as all of them are, or soon may be, it is not probable that the experiment would be made, or, if once made,

that it would be repeated. The importance of the protection of our seaport towns is sensibly felt. It is a subject which claims the

particular attention of the government, and that attention has doubtless been already bestowed on it. 21. The great question on which the United States have to decide, is, whether they will relinquish the ground which they now hold, or

maintain it with the firmness and vigor becoming freemen. That the sense of the nation favors the latter course, is proved by a series of

important and solemn facts, which speak a language not to be misunderstood. From the first attack by Great Britain on our neutral rights in

1805, to the present day, these facts have been multiplied…

22. The pretensions of Great Britain, so unjustly set up, and pertinaciously maintained, by her orders in council, not to enumerate other

wrongs, particularly the impressment of our seamen, arrogate to her the complete dominion of the sea, and the exclusion of every

flag from it, which does not sail under her license, and on the conditions which she imposes. In their operation they violate the rights, and

wound deeply the best interests, of the whole American people. If we yield to them, at this time, the cause may be considered as

abandoned. There will be no rallying point hereafter. Future attempts to retaliate the wrongs of foreign powers and to vindicate our

most sacred rights, will be in vain. 23. The conquest of Canada is in your power…I believe, that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper

Canada at your feet. Is it nothing to us to extinguish the torch that lights up savage warfare? Is it nothing to acquire the entire fur

trade connected with that country…War with Britain will deprive her of those supplies of raw materials and provisions, which she

now obtains from this country. 24. I am willing, sir, to dispense with the parental tenderness of the British navy. I cannot subscribe to British slavery upon the water, that we

may escape French subjugation upon land. I should feel myself debased and humbled as an American citizen, if we had to depend

upon any foreign power to uphold our independence.

19

SUMMARY: DELAY AN ARMED CONFLICT UNTIL PREPARED (Obadiah German)

British injustices are severe. We must prepare for war. But we are not yet ready to strike against such a powerful nation’s

army and navy. We need time to prepare.

Unquestionably Great Britain has gone too far. It must revise its current practices. Its consistent interference with

American shipping, impressment of American sailors, and incitement of the Native Americans on American borders is

cause for great concern. America must respond if its rights and honor are to be preserved.

However, now is not the time for us to respond with armed aggression. Neither our navy nor our army is prepared to resist

one of the world’s greatest powers. After years of neglect under the Jefferson and Madison administrations, how can our

armed forces resist the victors of Trafalgar and the battle-tested soldiers of the Duke of Wellington? At this time,

discretion is the better part of valor. America must proceed prudently or risk losing all it has worked so hard to gain over

the past several decades.

If the United States delays a declaration of war until the fall, we can gain almost six months and perhaps even more time

to prepare for war against the British. And prepare we must! Currently, our armed forces, weakened through years of

inactivity and budget cuts, are in no condition for a war. Our navy lacks the necessary vessels to battle Britain’s larger

ships and our army is small and unprepared. What warrior begins a conflict without the ability to inflict pain and harm on

the enemy? Great Britain has only become stronger as a result of the continuous warfare with France. To expose this

nation to devastating attacks by the British without the power to retaliate in kind or even the ability to defend ourselves

seems to place honor and rights before common sense.

How shall we buy the time we need? On April 1, 1812, Congress instated a ninety-day embargo against Great Britain.

This embargo hits Great Britain where it hurts with none of the negative risks associated with waging a war for which we

are unprepared. We can extend this embargo until November and let it have its effect before launching an armed crusade

against Great Britain. By November the bad weather in the Atlantic will work to our advantage, serving as a shield against

British naval incursions. This will give us additional time for preparation. We can use this time to strengthen and further

prepare our forces and seaports. Stalling in this way is not a sign of weakness or indecision. Rather, it demonstrates an

intelligent use of all our advantages as we prepare for battle against a powerful enemy.

Although justified in our anger, now is not the time to engage the British in a military conflict. By delaying a declaration

of war, we can allow economic warfare to have its effect, put off a conflict until the natural blockade of poor weather can

provide us with a military advantage, and gain valuable time to prepare for a military conflict.

UNDERLYING BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS 1. The United States may not be prepared for war now, but we must

get prepared or risk losing our rights as a free and independent nation.

2. Engaging in unlimited war with Great Britain at this time threatens the safety of our coastal towns and cities. There is

no cowardice in waiting until we are prepared.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

1. The U.S. army and navy are much smaller and weaker than Great Britain’s. The United States has few experienced

troops and naval commanders, while Britain has been at war with France for a generation. Engaging in unlimited war with

Great Britain at this time threatens the safety of our coastal towns and cities and puts our merchant ships in increased

danger. Delay will allow time to fortify coastal towns and cities and time for U.S. merchant ships to find the safety of their

ports.

2. We have successfully contained Indian aggression on the frontier at the Battle of Tippecanoe. Most of our troops are

currently engaged on the frontier and we would be foolish to relocate them now to protect our coastline. If we are going to

take on battle with the British, we will need time to prepare more troops.

3. By relying on the embargo as our first defense and delaying a declaration of war until November, we will be able buy

time, prepare for war, and benefit from the seasonal advantage provided by the bad weather that begins in the Atlantic at

that time. This weather will prevent Britain from bringing its forces to our shores until next spring. And this, in turn, will

give us additional time to prepare our forces.

20

Obadiah German

State: New York Political Party: Democratic-Republican

Notable Events:

1792: Admitted to the Bar in New York 1798-99: Member of New York State Assembly

1804-1805: Member of the New York State Assembly 1807-1809: Member of the New York State Assembly

1809-Present: U.S. Senator from New York

1. “...if we were even in a state of preparation, and possessed the means of insuring a favorable issue,

it would be bad policy for this country, at the present time, to enter into war with Great Britain,

although perhaps many weighty reasons might be adduced in support of such argument. I will first

call the attention of the Senate to the ability and strength of the nation we are about to

declare war against. Gentlemen ought to recollect, that Great Britain has almost constantly

engaged in war for twenty years past against one of the most powerful nations that ever existed;

and for a considerable part of that time, the energies of her enemy have been directed by war’s favorite genius—NAPOLEON, who has

succeeded in uniting nearly the whole force of the Continent of Europe against her; against that very nation which we are about to assail;

and what has been the effect? Is Great Britain less powerful now, than she was twenty years ago? No, sir, this constant warfare has

increased her powers instead of diminishing them. Great Britain is a wily, active nation. She has been trained to war. She will not

measure her steps and movements by ours; if we are not prepared to defend our seaports, she will not wait until we are; and should

she get possession of New Orleans, it will cost much blood and treasure to dislodge her.

2. I do not, Mr. President, draw all these discouraging pictures, or relate these lamentable facts, because I would shrink from the conflict or

terrors of war, for the defence of the rights of my injured country, sooner than any gentleman of this Senate, nor with a wish that all these

evils may be realized; my object is to avert them from my country. I do it, sir, to check the precipitate step of plunging my country

prematurely into a war, without any of the means of making the war terrible to our enemy; and with the certainty that it will be

terrible to ourselves, or at least to our merchants, our seaports, and cities.

3. Yes, sir; the millions that your merchants will lose in consequence of this rash, this premature step,

4. And if gentlemen will show me an army of twenty-five thousand men, well formed, give us a reasonable increase of our navy, and

will place both the great belligerents on equal footing, (as I consider them equal trespassers on our rights,) then, I say, if Great

Britain will not do us justice, I will vote at the proper time a declaration of war against her; and I will use my utmost exertions to

make the war terrible to her, but to declare war without the means of making the enemy feel its horrors, and at a time when it must

produce evil and terrors only to ourselves, strikes me with astonishment.”

5. Before we take the step proposed by the bill before us, I think we ought also to make some calculation on the general state of the nation.

Except some trifling Indian war, it will be recollected we have been twenty-nine years at peace, and have become a nation, in a

great degree, of active moneymakers. We have lost much of the spirit of war and chivalry possessed by our Revolutionary fathers; and

we are a people, also, not overfond of paying taxes to the extent of our ability; and this because our purses have been sweated down by our

restrictive system till they have become light.

6. I shall now beg leave to trespass on your attention, Mr. President, while I advert to the situation of our small but daring navy, the

increase of which, it will be remembered, has been decided against by this Senate during the present session. It is true, provision has

been made for rebuilding some three or four frigates, which had been deemed unworthy of repair; and that a small sum of money has been

appropriated for the purchase of materials for building some vessels of war at a future day; but the appropriation is so scanty that very little

can be expected from it.

7. I am, however, ready to acknowledge that the few ships we have ready for service are good ones, and I have no doubt but they are kept in

proper order for immediate and active employment. This, however, I am perfectly confident of, that there is not a braver set of officers

and sailors in existence than those by whom they are commanded and manned; but we cannot, therefore, expect that this little fleet,

if it may be so called, can be competent to hold in check any detachment that Great Britain is able to send upon our coast from her

thousand ships. It would be a sacrifice of justice to imagine it.

8. Prior to any declaration of war, Mr. President, my plan would be, and my first wish is, to prepare for it — to put the country in

complete armor — in the attitude imperiously demanded in a crisis of war, and to which it must be brought before any war can be

effective.

9. It will be necessary, Mr. President, to take a view of the subject of ways and means on this occasion, and see what aspect the finances of

the nation afford. It is well known to every member of the Senate that our treasury is empty, and that the government has been

under the necessity of authorizing loans in time of peace; but has the sanguine expectations relative to the subscriptions for the $11

million loan, authorized this session, been at all answered? I believe not. If my recollection serves me faithfully, there is about $5

million still wanting to complete the subscription to the loan for the current year's expenditures

10. …the most remiss in paying taxes are… the states beyond the Allegheny Mountains, who have not one dollar. But, sir, if the people in

those states have not been found forward in their payments toward carrying on the war, their representatives have made up for this

deficiency by being forward and liberal enough in their war speeches. They have raised the war whoop equal to those of any section of

the Union, and particularly the representation from the state of Kentucky, one of the gentlemen, in this Senate, only excepted.

11. After the war is once commenced, however, I presume gentlemen will find something more forcible than empty war speeches will be

necessary. It will not be sufficient, then, to rely on war speeches, documents, nor proclamations to repel the attack of an enemy, or to carry

21

war into their territory. And I have understood that the people of those states are not extremely partial to internal and direct taxes,

nor were they very promptly collected and paid there, when formerly laid, under the administration of Mr. Adams.

12. The banks and people of those states, in refusing to contribute payment for national defense, have evinced a backwardness which, from

the language of war held by their representation, was least to have been expected; although it is there perhaps that we may find the

combustibles which have kindled this mighty war flame, and precipitated this nation to the verge of ruin.

13. If this representation I have been making to the Senate be facts, whence are we to expect payments to fill the remainder of this loan,

and where is the money to come from after this year? It is not, I believe, to be expected from those states whose representatives

seem to be so liberal in votes and speeches for immediate war; but, if it is to be filled at all, it must be done by the states and people

north of the Potomac.

14. Yes, sir, both the money and men to carry on the war must mostly come from the Northern states, where the people are opposed to

entering into the war in this blind and rash manner, without system or preparation

15. Mr. President, I have now taken a view of the ability of the country we are about to make war upon, to sustain that war, and make it terrible

to us. I have also shown the wretched, unprepared situation my country is in to repel the attacks of an enemy, much less of carrying war

into the enemy's territory with a probability of success. If I have given a true statement of the situation of the disposable force of the two

countries; if I have drawn a true picture (although a very disagreeable task for me to perform) of the situation of our country and of our

present inability to make war upon Great Britain; and if I have not been deceived by my zeal and anxiety to check the passage of this bill

and to avoid the evils which in my judgment it will bring upon my beloved country…Can we expect to reap if we neglect to sow? If we do,

the crop will surely be briars, thorns, and thistles.

16. It must be remembered that when you once declare war, you must obtain the consent of your enemy before you can make peace.

And gentlemen may be assured that if we do not pause and reflect before we act, the people will reflect and examine our deeds after we

have acted; and if, contrary to every principle of prudence and common sense, we at this time declare war, the people, who are

always governed by the rules of common sense, deduced from practical observation, will, after they have had time to reflect,

dismiss us as unprofitable servants.

17. I do not, Mr. President, oppose the passage of the bill at this time, or press so hard for its postponement, because I doubt the justice

of our cause or perfidy of the enemy we are about to declare war upon. Nor should I have doubted our own ability had our

resources been well husbanded, for four or five past years, to make the war terrible to our enemy; but the tale of the bad

management of our resources is too obvious and too lamentable to be told at this time;

18. …the President neglected to fill the ranks in the additional army, during the period between the adjournment of the last and the

meeting of the present Congress. And he has also neglected to direct the purchase of the necessary munitions of war when

appropriations had been made by the Eleventh Congress for both purposes.

19. There is another fact — a serious, a material fact — which I have heard acknowledged by almost every member of this Senate: it is this,

that the head of the War Department is in a great degree deficient in skill, unable to systematize, and wanting energy to execute the

necessary business of that department. Why not place a man of competent ability at the head of your War Department, one who will

reduce the business of that department to order, who will mark out a regular system of discipline and government for your army, and more

particularly the staff of it; so that when your disposable force may be brought to act upon the enemy there may be a prospect of advantage

or victory?

20. If the taking of Canada, Mr. President, is the real object of the war, no discreet executive would wish that war declared, until he

saw a force raised, concentrated, and disciplined that would warrant the calculation of Montreal's being in our possession within

six weeks after the declaration; But let your army be enabled by its strength to first possess itself of Montreal, and all the upper country

must fall of course; and when this is accomplished you have put an end to the Indian war by cutting the Indians off from any further

succor from the British.

21. But I conclude the ostensible object of this war is to force the cotton and tobacco trade into the continent of Europe…be necessary

in order to enforce a market for our cotton and tobacco upon the Continent to obtain a repeal of the British orders; but it will be also

necessary to force Napoleon to give up his continental system, or make an exception in it in our favor; and, even if he permits us to go to

the Continent with the produce of our soil, his tariff of duties is an exclusion to our trade, for cotton and tobacco will scarcely pay freight

and charges.

22. I must now ask, sir, with what force we are to effectuate all these desirable objects? Are our 6,000 men, and the few raw recruits of the

new army spread over the vast extent of these United States and their territories, and our little fleet of four or five frigates, equal to

the invasion of the Canadas, and the protection of our maritime frontiers, and to strike the British government and the inflexible

Napoleon with such terrors that we are to expect they will abandon their system of warfare against each other? I presume no one

will pretend to say they are. Well, then, why declare war at this time; why will gentlemen not defer until your new army of 25,000 men are

raised and disciplined fit for service?

23. For my part, sir, ever since I had the honor of a seat in this Senate, I have uniformly voted appropriations for the putting my country in

a state of defense, and to prepare it for war. A country well prepared to meet war will scarcely find war necessary, but if it cannot

be avoided, preparation does away half its terrors.

24. If war is declared before we have a force raised sufficient to subdue Canada, we shall have war upon our northern frontier, and perhaps it

will be pushed into our territory. This will be particularly alarming and distressing to the inhabitants on the Canada line

25. And can it be possible that the younger men of this Senate, who must have descended from so discreet and noble an ancestry as their

Revolutionary fathers proved themselves to be, should suffer their judgment to be so misled as to vote against the postponement of this

measure, which may, if it passes under the present circumstances, put to the test the very existence of the Constitution under which we have

enjoyed so much liberty and happiness, and the attainment of which cost our fathers so much blood and treasure!

22

SUMMARY: RIGHTS AND HONOR ARE NOT WORTH BLOODSHED (John Randolph)

The United States and its citizens are being asked to risk too much for the sake of principles and honor. Engaging in a

military conflict with Great Britain not only threatens to undermine our cherished constitutional government, it threatens

America’s existence as an independent country.

The injustices heaped upon us by the British are many. We do not and cannot ignore the unwarranted British interference

with American shipping on the high seas. Nor do we turn a blind eye to the unacceptable practice of impressment. These

intolerable behaviors must stop. But a war with Great Britain that would align us with the tyrant Napoleon is not the

answer.

For almost two decades while Great Britain and France have engaged in an epic battle, our sailors and merchants have

paid a heavy price. The loss of both men and goods to the warring parties has caused both personal sorrow and financial

loss. Is a response that will extend this sorrow and loss far beyond the confines of those associated with transatlantic

shipping a justified response? Should American civilians risk death and destruction for the rights and honor of a few?

Even worse, the British have continually demonstrated their interest in returning America to a state of colonial

dependence. Why should we give the British the justification and occasion for doing so?

What about the cost? Americans look unfavorably upon the tax man. Our War of Independence was precipitated in many

ways by unjustified attempts at taxation. Since independence, domestic turmoil (such as the Whiskey Rebellion), has been

caused by unwanted taxes. A war with Great Britain will cost Americans dearly. All taxes until this point will seem

modest and in fact insignificant in comparison with the taxation that will be necessary to wage war against the world’s

strongest military power. In addition, by resorting to war, we risk losing the millions of American dollars deposited in

British banks and losing our cargoes currently on the high seas.

Finally, whether we like it or not, war against the British allies us with Napoleon. Did our forefathers sacrifice their blood

in the American Revolution so that we would have the freedom to ally ourselves with one of history’s most bloodthirsty

dictators? Hasn’t France seized more of our ships over the past five years than Great Britain has? Have we worked so hard

to establish a constitutional republic at home so that we would have the freedom to support tyranny abroad? No. Freedom

at home is inextricably connected to freedom abroad. The United States should not support, directly or indirectly, the

work of emperors.

The risk to our nation is too great and the rewards are too few to justify war against Great Britain. Injustices have

occurred, but greater injustices will occur if we choose war. Is it worth risking the demise of the world’s largest

constitutional republic for the rights of a few or the sake of principle? Let the costs be weighed and reason prevail.

UNDERLYING BELIEFS AND ASSUMPTIONS

1. Neither honor nor greed can justify bloodshed.

2. War with Great Britain aligns us with France and the tyranny of Napoleon.

3. Anything but defensive war goes against the spirit on which this nation was founded: the individual’s right to life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

1. Great Britain’s navy commands the oceans of the world and will surely seize our merchant ships. Why provide Britain

with another excuse to seize our wealth?

2. France has seized more of our ships in the past five years that Britain has. Why should we help the French by attacking

Britain?

3. Indian attacks on the frontier do not justify declaring war against Great Britain. Those claiming British involvement in

these attacks have been called upon to offer proof, but have consistently been unable to provide evidence to support their

inflammatory claims.

4. The expense of war must be borne by our citizens. Taxes will be levied, an army must be raised, and the blood of our

sons will flow. Those advocating war are those who stand to gain not those who will pay the horrible price of war. There

will be little benefit to our citizens—only increased hardships.

23

John Randolph

State: Virginia Political Party: Democratic-Republican (at this time in life)

Notable Events:

Date Unknown: Attended The College of New Jersey and Columbia Colley 1799-1813: Served in the United States House of Representatives from Virginia

1804: Conducted successful impeachment proceedings against John Pickering 1806: Created the Tertium Quids political party (renounced creeping nationalism)

1807: Forman of Grand Jury in Richmond, VA

1809-1813: Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means Personal Beliefs: Believe in a traditional patriarchal society of Virginia’s elite gentry to preserve social stability with

minimal government interference

Cool Factor: Participated in multiple duels!

John Randolph, Congressman from Virginia:

1. An insinuation has fallen from the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy) that the late massacre of our

brethren on the Wabash had been instigated by the British Government. Has the President given any such

information? Has the gentleman received any such, even informally, from an officer of this government? Is it so

believed by the Administration?...This insinuation was of the grossest kind – a presumption the most rash,

the most unjustifiable. The gentleman from Tennessee was ready to march to Canada. It was indeed well

calculated to excite the feelings of the Western people particularly, who were not quite so tenderly attached to

our red brethren as some modern philosophers; bit it was destitute of any foundation, beyond mere surmise

and suspicion…. 2. There was an easy and natural solution of the late transaction on the Wabash, in the well known character of the

aboriginal savage of North America, without resorting to any such mere conjectural estimate. Advantage had

been taken of the spirit of the Indians, broken by the war, which ended in the Treaty of Greenville. Under the

ascendancy then acquired over them, they had been pent up by subsequent treaties into nooks, straightened in

their quarters by a blind cupidity, seeking to extinguish their title to immense wildernesses, for which,

(possessing, as we do already, more land than we can sell or use) we shall not have occasion, for half a century to

come. It was our own thirst for territory, our own want of moderation, that had driven these sons of nature

to desperation, of which we felt the effects….

3. Name, however, but England, and all our antipathies are up in arms against her. Against whom? Against

those whose blood runs in our veins; in common with whom we claim Shakespeare, and Newton, and Chatham,

for our countrymen; whose form of government is the freest on earth, our own only excepted, from whom

every valuable principle of our institutions had been borrowed – representation, jury trial, voting the

supplies, writ of habeas corpus – our whole civil and criminal jurisprudence – against our fellow

Protestants identified in blood, in language, in religion with ourselves. In what school did the worthies of our

land, the Washingtons, Henrys, Hancocks, Franklins, Rutledges of America learn those principles of civil liberty

which were so nobly asserted by their wisdom and valor?

4. Sir, if you go to war it will not be for the protection of, or defense of your maritime rights. Gentlemen from

the North have been taken up to some high mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth; and Canada seems

tempting in their sight….Agrarian cupidity, not maritime right, urges the war. Ever since the report of the

Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word – like the whip-poor-

will, but one eternal monotonous tone---Canada! Canada! Canada!

5. This war of conquest, a war for the acquisition of territory and subjects, is to be a new commentary on the

doctrine that republics are destitute of ambition; that they are addicted to peace, wedded to the happiness

and safety of the great body of their people. But it seems this is to be a holiday campaign — there is to be

no expense of blood or treasure on our part. Canada is to conquer herself — she is to be subdued by the

principles of fraternity. The people of that country are first to be seduced from their allegiance, and converted into

traitors, as preparatory to the making them good citizens. It was a dangerous experiment.

6. He was not surprised at the war spirit which was manifesting itself in gentlemen from the South. In the

year 1805–6, in a struggle for the carrying trade of belligerent colonial produce, this country had been most

unwisely brought into collision with the great powers of Europe…the Southern planters, by their own votes,

had succeeded in knocking down the price of cotton to seven cents, and of tobacco (a few choice crops excepted)

to nothing; and in raising the price of blankets (of which a few would not be amiss in a Canadian campaign)

coarse woolens, and every article of first necessity, 300 or 400 percent.

24

7. But is war the true remedy? Who will profit by it? Speculators — a few lucky merchants who draw prizes

in the lottery — commissaries and contractors. Who must suffer by it? The people. It is their blood, their

taxes, that must flow to support it.

8. But gentlemen avowed that they would not go to war for the carrying trade, that is, for any other but the direct

export and import trade — that which carries our native products abroad and brings back the return cargo. And

this too after having turned up your noses in disdain at the treaties of Mr. Jay and Mr. Monroe! Will you say to

England, “End the war when you please, give us the direct trade in our own produce, we are content?” But

what will the merchants of Salem, and Boston, and New York, and Philadelphia, and Baltimore, the men of

Marblehead and Cape Cod say to this? Will they join in a war professing to have for its object what they

would consider (and justly too) as the sacrifice of their maritime rights, yet affecting to be a war for the

protection of commerce?

9. He was gratified to find gentlemen acknowledging the demoralizing and destructive consequences of the

nonimportation law — confessing the truth of all that its opponents foretold when it was enacted. And will

you plunge yourselves in war, because you have passed a foolish and ruinous law, and are ashamed to

repeal it? But our good friend the French emperor stands in the way of its repeal, and as we cannot go too far in

making sacrifices to him, who has given such demonstration of his love for the Americans, we must, in point of

fact, become parties to his war.

10. Will you call upon her to leave your ports and harbors untouched, only just till you can return from

Canada to defend them? The coast is to be left defenseless, while men of the interior are reveling in conquest

and spoil. But grant for a moment, for mere argument's sake, that in Canada you touched the sinews of her

strength instead of removing a clog upon her resources — an encumbrance, but one which, from a spirit of

honor, she will vigorously defend.

11. Our people will not submit to be taxed for this war of conquest and dominion. The government of the

United States was not calculated to wage offensive foreign war; it was instituted for the common defense

and general welfare; and whosoever should embark it in a war of offense would put it to a test which it was by

no means calculated to endure.

12. Mr. R. adverted to the defenseless state of our seaports, and particularly of the Chesapeake. A single spot

only, on both shores, might be considered in tolerable security — from the nature of the port and the strength of

the population — and that spot unhappily governed the whole state of Maryland.

13. Mr. R. dwelt on the danger arising from the black population. God forbid, sir, that the Southern states

should ever see an enemy on their shores, with these infernal principles of French fraternity in the van! While talking of taking Canada, some of us were shuddering for our own safety at home.

14. Before this miserable force of 10,000 men was raised to take Canada, he begged them to look at the state of

defense at home — to count the cost of the enterprise before it was set on foot, not when it might be too late —

when the best blood of the country should be spilled, and nought but empty coffers left to pay the cost. … He

would beseech the House, before they ran their heads against this post, Quebec, to count the cost. His word for it,

Virginia planters would not be taxed to support such a war — a war which must aggravate their present

distresses — in which they had not the remotest interest.

15. He called upon those professing to be Republicans to make good the promises held out by their Republican

predecessors when they came into power — promises, which for years afterward they had honestly,

faithfully fulfilled. We had vaunted of paying off the national debt, of retrenching useless establishments;

and yet had now become as infatuated with standing armies, loans, taxes, navies, and war…What

Republicanism is this?

25

Early United States Foreign Policy

Skills: Contextualization, Causation, Sourcing Documents and Synthesis

Franco American Alliance (1778) What Battle paved the

way for the French

agree to a military

alliance?

Battle of

_______________

Summary: United States and France

Sign a military alliance.

If Britain attacked France, France

would aid the United States in their war

against Britain.

Significance of

Alliance?

Treaty of Paris of 1783

Year Summary: United States and Britain sign a Treaty

of Paris ending the Revolutionary War

Notice: Which country was not involved in this Treaty

that helped us win the Revolutionary War?

____________________

Which Parts of the

Treaty were carried

out?

Why was

England very

generous to the

United States?

1783 Treaty of Paris: Key Points

1. Britain recognizes the United States of

America as a free and sovereign country!

2. Boundaries of the United States extend west to

the Mississippi River

3. U.S. promise to restore land and property to

Loyalists

4. U.S. promise to pay bask English Debts

5. England promise to leave Western Forts in

North America

1. Yes or No

2. Yes or No

3. Yes or No

4. Yes or No

5. Yes or No

Financial

benefit?

U.S.

Relationship

with France

George Washington’s Presidency (Foreign Policy)

Events

French

Revolution

1789

Who supports the French populace in their desire to rid their country of a

monarchy and achieve liberty?

Democratic-Republicans OR Federalists

Name this

Document

Context: France

declared War on

England in 1793

By the President of the United States of America (A Proclamation)

Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and

the United Netherlands of the one part and France on the other, and the duty and interest of the

United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct

friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers:

I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to

observe the conduct aforesaid toward those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the

citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in

any manner tend to contravene such disposition.

-April 22, 1793

1. Purpose of

Document?

2.Why would

France be

upset?

26

U.S.

Neutrality

Problems

America primarily wants to TRADE with both

countries!

1. U.S. Ships traveling to France or their

colonies are __________________

2. U.S. ships traveling to England or their

colonies are __________________

3. British Impressment: 10,000 U.S. men

Thomas Jefferson and the

Democratic-Republicans

support:

France or Britain

Alexander Hamilton and the

Federalists support: France or Britain

Name this

Document

Side Note:

1.Unsuccessful in

ending British

impressment

2.Unsuccessful in

getting compensation

for loss of slaves

3.England providing

Native Americans with

weapons to attack U.S.

settlers

Parts of Document Made Between Britain

and the United States: (1795)

1.Withdrawal of British soldiers from the

American West

2. England pay 11,650,000 for damages to U.S.

Shipping

3.U.S. pay 600,000 to Britain for unpaid pre-

1775 debts

4.U.S. gets “most favored” trading status with

England

Which Political Party

Supports this Treaty?

Democratic-Republicans

Or

Federalists

France is UPSET by this

treaty! Leads to the

QUASI WAR!

Name this

Document

Point of View:

Written by George

Washington in

1796

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”

What is the Purpose of this

document?

John Adams Presidency (1797-1801)

XYZ Affair

1797

Side note: Adams sent

John Marshall,

Elbridge Gerry and

Charles Pinckney

Following Washington’s Advice, John Adams sends

three diplomats to speak with French Foreign Minister

Talleyrand to seek a resolution of maritime conflicts

without war

XYZ (Three French intermediaries) asked us to pay

$250,000 and give a $10,000,000 loan to speak to

Talleyrand.

Did the Diplomats pay the

money to speak to Talleyrand?

Yes or No

Who was upset with this

decision?

Federalists or Democratic-

Republicans

Quasi War

1797-1800

Naval War between France and the U.S.

Cause 1: U.S. didn’t pay back debt to France from

Revolutionary War

Cause 2: France destroyed 316 U.S. merchant ships

Cause 3: XYZ Affair

Who is against the Quasi War?

Federalists or Democratic-

Republicans

Convention

of 1800

1.That "[t]here shall be a firm, inviolable, and universal peace, and a true and

sincere Friendship between the French Republic, and the United States of America" (Article I).That all prior agreements between the two countries

concerning alliance and mutual trade were no longer operative (Article II).

1.Ended a War: _____________

2.Ended an Alliance:_________

3.How would Washington feel

about the Convention of 1800?

27

Thomas Jefferson Presidency (1801-1809)

Context:

1.France (led by Napoleon now) and England are still fighting a war with each other

2.United States still wants to trade with both England and France

3.United States ships are NOT SAFE on the open seas

Louisiana

Purchase

(1803)

Purchased all of the Louisiana Territory from

France for $15 million 1.Which political party

does this support?

United States

Foreign

Policy

Problems

Tripolitan War (1801-1805): Naval war

against Barbary pirates of Tripoli

*Paid $60,000 to Tripoli to end War

What does this show about

U.S. Naval forces?

Orders in Council: Any U.S. ship wanting to

trade with France must first by inspected by

Britain.

Should the U.S. comply?

British Impressment: Yep…still happening.

Now 100,000 + U.S. Sailors Should the U.S. retaliate?

Chesapeake Incident: Ten miles off the coast

of Virginia the U.S. Chesapeake was damaged

by a British ship and three sailors impressed

Should the U.S. retaliate?

Tecumseh and the Prophet: Native American

Resistance on U.S. Western Frontier

What part of the U.S. is most

upset by these actions?

War Hawks:

Attempts to

Solve

Problems

Embargo Act (1807): No Trade with ANY

country

Why would the North be upset by

the Embargo MORE than the

South?

Political party most upset by Embargo?

Federalists or Democratic Republicans?

Non-Intercourse Act (1809): No Trade with

England or France What’s going to happen to

U.S. ship…again!

Macon’s Bill No. 2 (Madison President Now):

1.Whichever country (France of Britain) lifts

their trade restrictions against the U.S. first,

will get U.S. trade goods and not the other

country

1. Which country lifts trade

restrictions?

2. How does this Bill lead to

war with Britain?

28

29

President Madison’s War Message June 1, 1812 Without going back beyond the renewal in 1803 of the war in which Great Britain is engaged, and omitting unrepaired

wrongs of inferior magnitude, the conduct of her Government presents a series of acts hostile to the United States as an

independent and neutral nation.

British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and

of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it…. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a

situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong….

…under the pretext of searching for these (British subjects), thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of

public law and of their national flag, have been torn from their country and from everything dear to them; have been

dragged on board ships of war of a foreign nation …to risk their lives in the battles of their oppressors….

British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating the rights and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and

harass our entering and departing commerce…and have wantonly spilt American blood….

…our commerce has been plundered in every sea, the great staples of our country have been cut off from their

legitimate markets, and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and maritime interests….

…Great Britain…formally avowed (declared) a determination to persist in them (insults to American maritime rights)

against the United States until the markets of her enemy (Britain’s enemy, France) should be laid open to British

products, thus asserting an obligation on a neutral power (the U.S.) to require one belligerent (combatant in a war) to

encourage by its internal regulations the trade of another belligerent

In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain toward the United States our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare just

renewed by the savages (Native Americans) on one of our extensive frontiers — a warfare which is known to spare

neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is difficult to account

for…their hostility…without recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions (British intrigues with the

Indians)….

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United

States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive (not to take any action)…or, opposing force to force in defense of

their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events…is a solemn question

which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their

early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of

a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation. 1.What are the main reason why Madison’s is upset with the British?

2.Who do you think is Madison’s Audience?

3.What is the purpose of Madison’s War Message?

4.Is his war message effective?

30

The War of 1812

Event Date Location Event Description

Napolean excludes

goods from

“fortress Europe”

1806 Europe American ships caught in middle as British respond

with blockade. British seize 1000 U.S. ships, French

seize 500

1803-

1812

High Seas British captains took over 10,000 American citizens

to man ships

Chesapeake-

Leopard fight

June 1807 Off shore of

Norfolk,

VA

Chesapeake fired on by leopard after refusing to be

boarded. 3 Americans killed, 18 wounded

December

1807

Washington,

D.C.

Jefferson’s attempt at “peaceful coercion” resulted in

economic disaster for merchants

elected to Congress

1810 U.S. Calhoun, Clay, other bothered by insults to U.S. and

Indian presence

Battle of 1811 Ohio River

Valley

Tecumseh’s brother (the Prophet) led attack on

Harrison’s army of 1000.

Congress declares

“Mr. Madison’s

War”

June 18,

1812

Washington,

D.C.

Pushed by War Hawks, Madison asked for

declaration. All Federalists oppose it

Invasion attempts

of Canada

1812 U.S. Canadian

Border 3 U.S. attempts to invade Canada all fail

Constitution vs.

Guerriere

1812 Atlantic

Ocean

Victory by U.S. ship (“Old Ironsides”). Other privateers

captured or burned British ships

Battle of Lake Erie Sept.

1813

Put-in-Bay British naval attack repulsed by Capt. Perry

Battle of Thames October

1813

Ontario,

Canada

Tecumseh killed in U.S. victory. NW Indians

weakened by battle

Battle of Horseshoe

Bend

March

1814

Mississippi

Territory

Andrew Jackson defeated Creek Indians

British plan 3 part invasion of

U.S.: Chesapeake Bay, Lake

Champlain, and mouth of

Mississippi River

FYI: Napoleon defeated in

Europe!

1814 Washington,

D.C.

British burned capitol building and White House,

but were turned back at Baltimore Harbor (Francis

Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner), Lake

Champlain, and New Orleans

Hartford

Convention

Dec. 15,

1814

Hartford,

CT

Group of Federalists discussed secession, propose 7

amendments to protect influence of Northeast states

Treaty of Ghent Dec. 24,

1814

Ghent,

Belgium

British and American diplomats agreed on status

quo before war

Battle of New

Orleans

January

1815

New

Orleans

Jackson’s forces defeated British. 700 British killed,

1400 wounded. U.S. losses: 8 killed, 13 wounded

1. What is noteworthy about the timing of the last two events on the timeline?

31

Historical Context: Hartford Convention The trade embargoes put into place by Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in an effort to keep the United

States out of the Napoleonic Wars between France and Britain were particularly unpopular with the largely mercantile

population of the New England states whose economic vitality depended largely upon international commerce.

Madison’s decision to declare war on Great Britain in June 1812, although intended as a defense of American shipping

and sailors being targeted by British warships, was similarly unpopular in the region. Indeed, the governors of

the New England states largely refused Madison’s request to nationalize the state militia, on the grounds that it was an

unconstitutional imposition on their right to defend their own borders and interests. Madison’s subsequent failure to

prevent the British from blockading New England’s ports only exacerbated the political tensions.

By late 1814, the situation had become so dire that a group of wealthy New England Federalists and others from

Massachusetts felt justified in enjoining their state legislatures to call a regional convention to organize a formal

protest of the administration’s war policy. Held in Hartford, Connecticut, from December 15, 1814 – January 5, 1815,

the convention garnered significant attention both prior to and during its sessions. To many observers, the convention

seemed poised on the very edge of treason.

The delegates to the convention held their meetings in such complete secrecy that no record of any speeches given or

motions discussed on the floor survives. At the conclusion of their gathering, they did pass a series of resolutions that

they intended to present to Congress in the spring of 1815. The urgency of the convention’s concerns was dissipated,

however, when news reached the United States that the Treaty of Ghent ending the war had been signed in late

December 1814. Their agenda rapidly faded into relative oblivion, to be remembered primarily as a specter of the

dangers of rampant regionalism.

Hartford Convention Amendments Compared to the

powers in the

Constitution

All amendments made by Federalists, WHY

did the Federalists make these suggestions? First. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned

among the several states which may be included within this

union, according to their respective numbers of free persons,

including those bound to serve for a term of years and

excluding Indians not taxed, and all other persons.

3/5th Clause

Second. No new state shall be admitted into the union by

Congress in virtue of the power granted by the Constitution,

without the concurrence of two thirds of both Houses.

Majority Vote

Needed

Third. Congress shall not have power to lay any embargo on

the ships or vessels of the citizens of the United States, in the

ports or harbours thereof, for more than sixty days.

Article 1 Sec. 8

“to regulate

commerce with

foreign nations”

Fourth. Congress shall not have power, without the

concurrence of two thirds of both Houses, to interdict the

commercial intercourse between the United States and any

foreign nation or the dependencies thereof.

Majority Vote

Needed

Fifth. Congress shall not make or declare war, or authorize

acts of hostility against any foreign nation without the

concurrence of two thirds of both Houses, except such acts of

hostility be in defense of the territories of the United States

when actually invaded.

Article 1 Sec.

8…power “to

declare war”

with majority

vote

Sixth. No person who shall hereafter be naturalized, shall be

eligible as a member of the Senate or House of

Representatives of the United States, nor capable of holding

any civil office under the authority of the United States.

Congress can

makes rules of

naturalization

However, no part

limits

participation in

federal gov’t

based on

naturalization

Seventh. The same person shall not be elected President of

the United States a second time; nor shall the President be

elected from the same state two terms in succession.

No such

restrictions

existed

32

Consequences of the

War of 1812

What happened to Native

Americans on the

Western Frontier?

Western Expansion?

What happened to the

Federalists Party?

Nationalism and

Economic Growth

1.Tariff of 1816

2.2nd Bank of the

United States re-

chartered for 20

years

3.Creation of cotton

manufacturing in

Lowell Factory

4.Push to create the

Erie Canal

5.John Marshall

Supreme Court

supports federal

gov’t over state

gov’ts

6.American System

7. James Fenimore

Cooper

Sectionalism World Status Heroes

Canada/U.S. Relations

1.Disarm border and only

five ships on Great Lakes

33

Goals of the American System

Draw on the Diagram and use areas to highlight the

goals of the American System…

Goal 1: Create Regional interdependence

NORTH: Create manufactured goods to sell to the

South and West

SOUTH: Produce primarily cotton to sell to the

North

WEST: Dairy, beef, grains to sell the North and

South

What colonial economic system does this seem

like?

Does this make the country more unified of

sectionalized? Explain.

34

The Era of Good Feelings (1816-1824)

The time period of James Monroe’s presidency where only ONE political party existed.

Key Question: Is the Era of Good Feelings an appropriate title for the time period?

After learning the information on the previous two pages and on the following pages that happened between

1816, you will create the events in ONE of the following categories.

Nationalism Sectionalism Foreign Policies

Chart Word Bank: Missouri Compromise, Monroe Doctrine, Panic of 1819, American System, 2nd B.U.S.,

Tariff of 1816, Democratic Republican Party ONLY, Marshall Court, American Heroes, Market Revolution,

Victory in the War of 1812, Transportation Revolution

What name would you give the time period? Explain.

35

Case Issue Constitutional Question Ruling/Significance

Marbury v. Madison

(1803)

McCulloch v. Maryland

(1819)

The U.S. Congress

created a National Bank

and opened a branch in

Maryland. The state of

Maryland put a tax on the

bank trying to destroy it.

The President of the

Branch (McCulloch)

sued to stop the

Maryland tax.

Was the creation of the

National Bank

constitutional under the

Elastic Clause AND does

the state have the power

to tax a national bank?

Cohens v. Virginia

(1821)

An act of Congress

authorized the operation

of a lottery in the District

of Columbia. The Cohen

brothers proceeded to sell

D.C. lottery tickets in the

state of Virginia,

violating state law. State

authorities tried and

convicted the Cohens,

and then declared

themselves to be the final

arbiters of disputes

between the states and

the national government.

Did the Supreme Court

have the power under the

Constitution to review

the Virginia Supreme

Court’s ruling?

Gibbons v. Ogden

(1824)

Two steamboat owners

wanted to control a

shipping business from

New York to New

Jersey. One had a charter

from the State of New

York and the other had a

charter from the United

States.

Was the regulation of

interstate commerce

under state control or

federal control?

John Marshall is a

Federalist or Democratic-Republican (Circle One)

What is a common theme in all of John Marshall’s

rulings?

36

Key Events of 1819

Panic of 1819

America’s 1st Financial Panic

Andrew Jackson Invades Florida

and the Adams-Onis Treaty

Causes of Financial Panic

This leads to a distrust of farmers and westerners

against the Bank of the United States!

What region of the country does this treaty primarily

support? Why?

Over-speculation of frontier

lands… specifically in

Ohio…diminishes value of western

land

Banks lend money to land

speculators

London banks demand U.S.

banks repay loans

U.S. Banks demand the repayment

of their loans

Farmers and speculators do not have the

money to repay their loans. England is

buying less American products/produce.

HIGHLIGHT the following on the MAP

Erie Canal (1817-1825):

NYCAlbanyBuffalo

National Road (1811-1852): Baltimore, MD

Vandalia Illinois

1.What areas of the country were more closely

connected with new transportation routes?

2.What effect do you think internal

improvements had on…

a.Population Distribution:

b.Sectionalism:

37

Missouri Compromise A.K.A. The Compromise of 1820

Coloring and Questions Missouri Compromise

1.Color in the SLAVE states before 1820 ONE COLOR

2.Color in the FREE states before 1820 ONE COLOR

3.How many states were free and slave before 1820?

SLAVE STATES # ________

FREE STATES # __________

4.Missouri applies to become a state in 1820, why does

this cause a problem?

More coloring:

*Color in Spanish Territory ONE color

*Color in Canada ONE color

*Color in Joint occupation of Oregon Territory ONE

color

*Color in Louisiana Territory

Here he comes to the save the DAY, his name is

____________________________

MISSOURI enter as a ___________ State

__________enter as a FREE State

Please draw the 36’30” line (southern border of

Missouri) across the Louisiana Purchase

Any future new state about the 36’30” line will be

a ________ state AND any future new state below

the 36’30” line will be a __________ state

GOAL: Settle the issue of ________ for some time

38

Monroe Doctrine 1824

Monroe Doctrine - In his last State of the Union address to Congress in 1823, President James Monroe

included just 4 sentences about the Western Hemisphere and foreign actions. These 4 sentences had an

enormous effect on American foreign policy.

Excerpt from President James Monroe’s State of the Union Address (1823)

1 The American continents …. Are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future

colonization by any European powers …..

2 We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United

States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to

extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

3 With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered

and shall not interfere.

4 ….. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and

whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged,

we could not view an interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any

other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifesta-

tion of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

1.Put the first sentence in your own words. What is President Monroe telling European leaders about

N & S America?

2.What is the second sentence saying to any European nation that attempts to extend their “system”

to our hemisphere?

3.What is the third sentence assuring European nations?

4. What is the final (fourth) sentence saying to European nations?

5.Was the United States in any position militarily to defend the Monroe Doctrine?

What evidence supports your claim?

39

6.By 1823 when President Monroe made this statement, nearly every country in Central and

South America had won their independence from Spain or Portugal. Why do you think the

U.S. was so concerned about the openness of our hemisphere? (What did the U.S. have to gain?)

The map shows Central

and South American

nations and the year they

won their independence.

7.Draw a LINE

AROUND the land area

covered by the Monroe

Doctrine.

8.Name a country that

had NOT gained their

independence from their

European owner.

____________________

9.Did the Monroe

Doctrine apply to this

country? Why or why

not?

40

Political Cartoon Analysis

Cartoon Analysis

Historical Context?

Purpose?

Historical Context?

Purpose?