Response to Account of Life in Jamestown

I found the passage about the toils of living in Jamestown very facinating.  It is amazing to think that these colonists could live on such meager and unsanitary food rations.  The idea of eating grain that is infested with worms is revolting.  The account furthers what we’ve established about the lives of the Powhatan compared to the lives of the English.  Although it was the English who referred to the Powhatan as savages, it is evident that the quality of life in the Jamestown colony was far inferior to their native counterparts.

-Joe Wilhelm

Response to Pictures of Native Lodging/Lifestyle

The link that showed the impressions of the natives and their lifestyle served to support much off what it is depicted in “The New World.”  For example, the structure of the canoes and the number of people manning the crafts is very similar to several scenes in the movie, including the scene where John Smith is led to speak with Powhatan.  Furthermore, structure of the Powhatan homes appear non-permanant yet well suited for the Virginia climate.  As helpful as written documents can be, it is very refreshing to see visual evidence of what I’ve read about Powhatan civilization.

-Joe

Reverened Symonds sermon in 1609

William Symonds, “Virginia:  A Sermon Preached at White Chapel” (1609)

 

 

            Since the reign of Henry VIII, the crown had controlled the Church of England (also known as the Established or “Anglican” Church).  King James, like Queen Elizabeth before him, used the church to build popular support for his programs.  When the colony at Jamestown, Virginia faltered in 1609 for lack of money and settlers, the King ordered the Church’s ministers to encourage emigration and investment in the colonies.  The sermon that the Reverend William Symonds delivered at White Chapel in London, 25 April 1609, did just that.  It so impressed the King and “The Adventurers and Planters for Virginia” (the company that owned the colony) that they published and distributed it widely.

            Symonds argues that the English, as God’s chosen people, had a right and an obligation to colonize the New World.  He promises them the same bright future in Virginia that God promised Abraham in the land of Canaan.  Symonds attacked everyone who opposed England’s colonial endeavors:  Spain, France, Catholics, Indians, pacifists, and Baptists.  England alone had a sacred mission to spread the Gospel and to inhabit the world and make it fruitful.

            Symonds ministered to a congregation of merchants and artisans in London.  He was, like many of his parishoners, a Puritan, but King James, who hated Puritans, ordered Symonds in 1606 to conform to the non-Puritan beliefs and practices of the Established Church.  Symonds did.  Symonds left London in 1614 for Lincolnshire, a remote county where he could follow his conscience and avoid official scrutiny.  Note, however, that many Puritan ministers refused to conform in 1606 to the dictates of the Anglican church.  Those ministers lost their posts and risked fines, imprisonment, and exile.  Symonds did not want to run those risks.  His sermon may have been an effort to curry favor with the King.

 

 

EPISTLE DEDICATORIE

 

            To the Right Noble and Worthie Advancers of The Standard of Christ, among the Gentiles, The Adventurers for the Plantation of Virginia, W[illiam] S[ymonds] prayeth that Nations may blesse them, and be blessed by them.

            Right Noble and Worthy, such as do prayse the worthies do cloth them with the robes of others that have gone before them in vertues of like nature.  A thing which I cannot doe of your Plantation, seeing neither Testment (that I can find) dooth afford us a Parallel in men of like qualities. . . .

            This land was of Old time offered to Our Kings.  Our late Soveraigne Q.  Elizabeth (whose storie hath no peere among Princes of her sexe) being a pure Virgin, found it, set foot in it, and called it Virginia.  Our most sacred Soveraigne, in whom is the spirit of his great Ancestor, Constantine the pacifier of the World, and planter of the Gospell in places most remote, desireth to present this land a pure Virgine to Christ.  Such as do manage the expedition, are carefull to carry thither no traitors, nor Papists that depend on the Great Whore.  Lord finish this Good work thou hast begun; and marry this land, a pure Virgine to thy Kingly son Christ Jesus; so shall thy name be magnified; and we shall have a Virgin or Maiden Britaine a confortable addition to our Great Britaine.

            And now Right Worthy, if any aske an account of my vocation, to write and Preach thus much; I answere:  that although I could not satisfie their request that would have me goe; yet I could not omit to shewe my zeale to the glory of God. . . .

 

VIRGINEA BRITANNIA

 

            For the Lord had said unto Abram, get thee out of thy Countrey, and from thy Kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the Land that I will shew thee.

            And I will make thee a great nation, and will blesse thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing.

            I will blesse them also that blesse thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed (Genesis 12.1.2.3.)

            This Book of Genesis containeth the story of the Creation and Plantation of heaven and earth with convenient inhabitants.  The heaven hath Angels, the skie starres, the aire fowles, the water fishes, the earth (furnished with plants and herbes and beasts) was provided for man a while to inhabite, who after was to be received into Glory, like unto the Angels (Matth. 22.30.)  Hereupon the Lord. . . did make man both male and female, After his owne image, that is Jesus Christ (2. Cor. 4.4.), and gave them this blessing, Bring forth fruit and multiplie, and fill the earth, and subdue it, &c. (Gen. 1.26.27.28.).  And howsoever this precept might seeme to find interruption by the sinne of man, that had incurred the curse to die the death (Gen. 2.17 & 3.3): yet we see that God would not, for any thing, alter his oath and word, that was gone out of his mouth (Isai. 45.23.): for unto Noah he revived this precept after the flood. . .

            Now if it be demaunded how Abraham was called, to go into another Countrey: the answer is, both ordinarily and extraordinarily.  It was a knowne rule of the word of God, concluded, and pronounced before the Creation, and often repeated afterwards, that man should spread abroad &c. and inhabite the earth, and fill it (Gen. 9.12.).  Hith- his Countrey by a generall calling, the same doth binde all his sonnes, according to the faith, to go likewise abroad, when God doth not otherwise call them to some special affaires. . .: Go teach (saith he) all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost (Matth. 28.19.).  Gave he this Commandment to his Apostles only? have not also the labours of godly Preachers, which they have spread over the face of the whole earth, been bestowed by the power of this Commandment?  And though the words, as they lie, do bind the Ministers of the Word, to endeavour the propagation of the Gospell, with all their power; yet not only them: For we reade, that poor Tentmakers and others have done much good in spreading the Gospell, according to their vocations (Acts 19.3.26.); they also satisfying thus much of Christ’s precept.  Neither can there be any doubt, but that the Lord that called Abraham into another Countrey doeth also by the same holy hand call you to go and carry the Gospell to a Nation that never heard of Christ.  The prophet Zachary, speaking of the days of the Gospell, doth shew, that it is a good Vocation for men to go abroad when the number of the Children of God do exceede. . . . Unto whom agreeth the Prophet Isaiah: The children of thy barrennesse shall say againe, in thine eares, the place is too strait for me, give me place, that I may dwell (Isai. 49.20.).  Wherefore seeing that, thanks be to God, we are thronged with multitudes; the Lord of hostes himselfe hath given us the calling of his children to seeke for roome, and place to dwell in.

            And heer might we have proceeded to the next point were if not for one scruple which some that think themselves to be very wise do cast in our way; which is this in effect.  The countrey, they say, is possessed by owners, that rule, and governe it in their own right; then with what conscience, and equitie can we offer to thrust them, by violence out of their inheritances?

            For answer to this objection: first it unto belongeth that, which God said: Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowles of Heaven, and over the Beastes, and over ALL the earth (Gen. 1.26.).  Then must he replenish the earth, else can he not rule over ALL.  To the same effect is that spoken of Adam, after his fall, that God sent him forth of the Garden of Eden to till the earth (Gen. 3.23.): so that the fall of Adam did not, in the least thing, cause the Lord to alter his first decree.  So to Noah after the flood; Bring forth fruite, and multiply, grow plentifully in the earth, and encrease therein, and replenish the earth (Gen. 9.2.7.).  By all this it doth appeare, that God did call Abraham abroade, by a general Vocation.  But when he is called to a certaine place, and under certaine conditions, it is also plaine he had a special and extradordinary calling. . . .  Yet still we must remember that this special calling was subject to the general law of replenishing the earth.  For although God called him to one land; yet to upholde the general rule.  God often laide a necessitie upon him to spread further:. . .

            The reason why God will have his to fill the earth is, because the Lord would have his workers to be knowne. . . .  When David saith, All thy workers praise thee, O God, and thy Saints blesse thee; they shew the glory of thy kingdome, and speake of thy power (Psal. 145.10.12.): the implication is manifest, that his Saints must be witnesses of all his workes, in all Climates; for else they cannot blesse him in all his workes.  Another reason is, that one that hath the knowledge of the feare of God, should communicate it to others. . . . Marke this, that he biddeth us to pray, God be mercifull unto us; The meanes how, is this: That they may know thy way upon earth, and thy saving health among all nations (Psal. 67.2.); whereby he doth imply, that God hath with-held some mercy from us, till all nations have the means of salvation. . . .

            Then here must we know that what inducement Abraham had to go out of is plain, that the objector supposeth it not lawfull to invade the territories of other princes, by force of sword. . . .  Come forth ye great Princes and Monarches of Assyria, Persia, Media, Greece and Rome with your gravest counsellours, and answer for your facts in conquering and subduing nations.  For your stories, that were wont to be read with singular admiration of your fortitude, your wisdom, your magnificence, and your great justice, are now araigned and must bee found guiltie, that through your sides an action of truer honour than ever you attempted may bee wounded.  Your strong title of the sword, heretofore magnified by Historians, Politicians, and Civilians, is to our objector, but a spiders web, or the hatching of a Cockatrice his egge.  But whatsoever the rest can say for their own defence, the Lord himself doth say thus much for Cyrus: Thus sath the Lord unto Cyrus, his anointed: whose right hand I have holden to subdue nations before him: therefore will I weaken the lynes of Kings, and open the doores before him, and the gates shall not be shut: I will give thee the treasures of darkenesse, and the things hid in secret places; that thou maist know, that I am the Lord, which call thee by thy name, even the God of Israell . . . (Isai, 45.1.2.3.).  Then who can blame Cyrus, and keep himself from blaspheming the almightie.

            Nay, that which is more to be trembled at, we must also to summon up and call to the bar the most holy worthies of the Scripture: and see if man, or God, hath any thing to be said for them, why they should not be condemned as injust, cruell, and bloudy.  O Jacob,  thy blessed bow and sword, with the fruit whereof thou blessedest thy son Joseph, the staff of thy gray head and feeble knees must be broken and burnt: and thou must be condemned for thy unlawful conquest (Gen. 48.22.).  Worthy Joshuah, & most worthy David with thy cloud of worthies, who hanged up so many shields in the house of God, and who sweetly singeth that God was his fortitude and buckler (Psal. 18.2; Josh. 10.14.) must incuree the note of injustice. . . .  Nay thou glory of men and true type of Christ, King Solomon, whose wisdome was like unto the wisedome of God: teach us to say somewhat in thy defence. . . .  Give an account of his innocence that said unto thee: Girde thee with thy sworde upon thy thigh, O thou most mightie,–Thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things,–The people shall fall under thee (Psal. 45.3.4.5.).  Thy father, the son of Ishai, made a sinfull prayer for thee (as our objectors blaspheme) when he said, thou shouldest so enlarge thy borders, that Thy dominion should be from sea to sea and from the river to the end of the land.  He would have thee too rigid when he saith, That thine enemies should lick the dust. . . .

            I know that the divell himselfe, with allhis distinctions that ever he made, which are recorded in Sceipture, or which he left in hell, in his cabinet of Abstruse Studies, (locked safe till he found out the Jesuits, his trustie secretaries, to keepe them) I say none of them all can arm a subject against his prince without sin.  But he that will set open his school . . . and take upon him to nurture princes as petties telling them that they must not make offensive warres, if it were to gaine the whole world to Christ, shall never be bidders of guests to the marriage of the kings sonne (Matth. 22.2), who are required to compell them to come in (Luke 14.23.).  And if I might be so bold, I would faine aske one question of these objectors, that come dropping out of some Anabaptist Spicery: whether (if it be unlawfull to conquer) the crowne sit well on the head of our most sacred soveraigne?  For by this objection they shew, that had they power to untwist that, which in so many ages hath been well spun, they would write him crownless, as far as he hath his title from, the conqueror.

            O but God forbid, saith the objector, that wee should doe any wrong at all, no not to the divell . . . But to the point:  our objector would not whip a child to teach him learning and vertue, fore feare of doing wrong.  What wrong, I pray you, did the Apostles in going about to alter the lawes of nations, even against the expresse commandement of the princes, and to set up the throne of Christ.  If your mouth be so foul to charge them with wrong, as the Gentiles did, we have more need to provide you a medicine for a cankred mouth, and a stincking breath, then to make you any answer at all.

            O but, in entering of other countries, there must needs be much lamentable effusion of bloud.  Certainly our objector was hatched of some popish egge; & it may be in a JESUITS vault, where they feed themselves fat with tormenting innocents. . . .  And if these objectors had any braines in their head but those which are sick, they could easily finde a difference between a bloudy invasion and the planting of a peaceable Colony in a waste country where the people do live but like Deer in herds and have not as yet attained unto the first modestic that was in Adam, that knew he was naked, where they know no God but the divell, nor sacrifice, but to offer their men and children unto Moloch. . . . Is onely now the ancient planting of Colonies, so highly praised among the Romans, and all other nations, so vile and odious among us, that what is, and hath bene a vertue in all others, must be sinne in us?  And if our objecter bee descended of the Noble Saxons bloud, Let him take heede lest while he cast a stone at us, he wounds his father, that first brought him in his loynes from forreigne parts into this happie Isle. . . .

            The children of Israel that were in the wilderness, readie to perish if God withdrew his miraculous hand, like a stiffnecked people as they were, refused to goe, fell into a mutiny, and made a commotion, upon the newes that the Land had fenced cities, and walled townes exceeding great.  And because there were the sonnes of Anak (Num. 13:29.):  mightie Giants that were armed in Brasse, & their speare like a Weavers cloth beam.  For they forget the God that brought them out of Egypt, and that made the raging waves of the sea to stand in heaps and take the office of strong walls, that they might easily march through upon drie land.  They forget that God was the creator of the mountains, whereof one of the least is stronger than all the sons of Anak.  They forget that God putteth away all the ungodly of the earth like drosse.  But we should be worse than mad to be discouraged by any such imaginations of this place.  There are but poore Arbors for Castles, base and homely sheds for walled townes.  A Mat is their strongest Portcullis, a naked brest their strongest Portcullis, a naked brest their Target of best proofe, an arrow of reade, on which is no iron, their most fearful weapon of offence, here is no feare of nine hundred iron chariots. . . .Wherefore, seeing we are contented when the King doth press us out to war, to go we know not whither, nor under whom, and can propose no thing unto us but to fight with a mightie enemie: Let us be cheerfull to go to the place that God will shew us to possess in peace and plentie, a Land more like the Garden of Eden, which the Lord planted, then any part else of all the earth.

Jason

you’re right.  that video does deserve more than six views.  At least they called out John Smith for being a liar.  What I want to know is: how did that second pocahontas feel (or rather, the shorter, stockier girl that played her)?

ps. was there some other way for me to have commented on this?

The March on Washington by jessica mcelrath

http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/marchonwashington/a/marchonwash1963.htm

Jacob A. Riis obituary

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9504E0D8173AE633A2575AC2A9639C946596D6CF

Jacksons Second Annual Message

It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.

What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?

The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

–

Henry Cabot Lodge on the League of Nations, 12 August 1919

There is every reason to celebrate and be proud of the achievements that America has undergone. In this case Henry Cabot makes a proud statement that shows how much he admires America, despite the wrong that she has done in the past. He makes it clear that he is aware of the name calling of America by other nations and addresses the issue in a way that is not that decent at all, he suggests, “You may call me selfish if you will, conservative or reactionary, or use any other harsh adjective you see fit to apply, but an American I was born, an American I have remained all my life. I can never be anything else but an American, and I must think of the United States first, and when I think of the United States first in an arrangement like this I am thinking of what is best for the world, for if the United States fails, the best hopes of mankind fail with it.”This a very direct and broad statement that anyone could make to udermine other nations as if they do not exist only America does. Basically he is making a point that America is a representative of the world and if it fails the world goes down too. I believe its a good thing to be patriotic but its another to undermine other nations as if we do not need them at all. A close example is the issue of oil, America does not produce enough oil to supply the whole nation , of which the rest hash to be imported. This is a distinction between just rhetoric and facts. It is very crucial to watch our tone especially when dealing with issues partaining to foreign relations. It is a field that need expects to rally on , not anyone who has something to say. He also goes back to praisng America, ” Our first ideal is our country, and we see her in the future, as in the past, giving service to all her people and to the world. Our ideal of the future is that she should continue to render that service of her own free will. She has great problems of her own to solve, very grim and perilous problems, and a right solution, if we can attain to it, would largely benefit mankind”, i do not even gather why Mr Cabot should undermine other nations and later want to give a service to them. This is a typical politician who would say anything to make people happy and do the other.

Federalist Papers- Federalist No. 1

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable–the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

• THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY
• THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
• THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT
• THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
• ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION
• and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.¹ This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

–I thought that Hamilton was very bold/brave to critize the government so openly, but I do admire what he did. I like how he states what he wants to talk about and just seeing the topics I know that he is very serious and wants to address everything and not just hide everything. I love when Hamiliton says ,”It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force”. I think this is such a deep and meaningful thing he is saying and that it is true. When he says the part about political constitutions on accident and force, I was in awe that he so blantanly said that, but it does show that our country was free.

Manifest Destiny

Title: Manifest Destiny

Author: John O’Sullivan

Year Published: 1839

John O’Sullivan’s ideas within manifest destiny are interesting, especially when he states, “America is destined for better deeds,” because “It is our unparalleled glory that we have no reminiscences of battle fields, but in defence of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations […]”. Looking back at this from a historical perspective, I wonder if we have maintained this ideology to an extent. We’ve been involved in our fair share of wars, these days. Some, which many believe were justified, while others are still the subject to debate. We often consider WWI and WWII to be justified, as both those wars involved America not being the antagonist, but instead, being something of a remedy in which we serve to mediate injustice. On the other hand, we have the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, and though our intentions in the Vietnam War seemed to sound good, they ultimately resulted badly. I wonder though, is it our intentions as a country that make us destined for better deeds or is it what we accomplish within the context of our lifetime?