1. How did African societies change as a result of increased contact with Europeans?The main reason for the trade was economic not cultural: the need of American settlers for labour and the unwillingness of new settlers to work for hire rather than intake land and set up on their own, coupled with the ready availability of slaves in Africa. At that time slavery was normal, and not racially determined; there were in Africa large numbers of white slaves, for instance, who were sometimes rescued and set free by being legally bought by a Catholic group, the Redemptionist Fathers. In these circumstances, a normal trade took its normal course: willing buyers, willing sellers and no shortage of transport.The cultural conditions were of course related to the economic ones. It is easy to accept something which is to one's advantage.In addition, cultural conditions kept changing. At first the New World slaves were natives; it was part of the culture of the time that a defeated people had very limited or no rights, and the Spanish had no qualms about forcibly setting the locals to work. For several reasons this was not satisfactory in the long term especially in field work. The Mexicans and Caribbeans were refractory, they tended to die easily and they were not accustomed to hard and continuous outdoor labour. For this reason, Africans were bought - they were docile (chattel slavery was a cultural norm on the African continent, and nothing was happening to them which did not normally happen to people of their social class), they were cheap and they were used to field labour in their own country.Later, New World slavery became more cosmopolitan. There were white slaves as well: transported convicts, indentured servants, those 'trepanned' (i.e. kidnapped or deceived) and sold into servitude, and the white or mixed-race offspring of all those classes. The culture in Europe at the time (the 18thC) was in this regard almost indistinguishable from that in Africa: it allowed shipment of the lower classes to forced labour abroad without causing moral unrest.With the independence of the USA slavery began again to become racially determined simply because the supply of whites necessarily dried up. From that point the price of fit and healthy black men rose sharply (convicts had been cost-free: the planters did not even have to pay to acquire them and so only bought in the open market when they had to). Accordingly, the incentive for American and European ship-owners to engage in the trade became greater. At one point you could buy a black man for £1 in Africa and sell him for £100 in the Americas. Transport was cheap, and the profits enormous.It is from this point that racism in the USA became more acute and entrenched. Before then, most of the slaves had been black: after then, and increasingly, almost all of them were. This was a cultural as well as an economic shift. It became possible to regard those with dark skins as being different in kind from those with pale ones, and systematically to disregard their needs and feelings. The slaves, in the new economic conditions, represented an important capital investment and plantation management correspondingly changed to a harsher régime, designed to get money's worth out of the expensive labour force. As so often, economics and culture moved in step and it is hard to separate their effects

2. What enabled the Spanish to defeat the Aztecs?

The Spanish had superior weaponry to the Aztecs, and were aided by rival tribes who resented Aztec rule. The primary reason may have been the effect of the diseases spread to the Aztecs by the Spanish. Lacking any immunity to these diseases, many of the Aztecs became seriously ill or died.

3. How did the arrival of Europeans affect relations among Native Americans in and around the Hudson River Valley?The natives were at first curious about the new travelers. At first they overjoyed and thought they were Gods. Ultimately, Native Americans were enslaved, completely wiped out due to diseases brought by Europeans, or simply displaced due to the growing numbers of immigrants reaching the Americas.

4. Compare the founding and development of society in Virginia and Massachusetts Bay.Both Massachusetts bay colony and Virginia both suffered casualties. Casualties in Massachusetts were less severe than Virginia (30% party loss for Massachusetts but thousands more settlers on the way) Massachusetts attracted hard working well-mannered men and women who established the colony on a firm basis.

5. Compare the development of Pennsylvania and New York with the New England coloniesNo, New York is considered part of the middle colonies, along with Pennslyvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. The New England colonies were New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. (Later New England states include Vermont and Maine.).

6. How did Massachusetts evolve, both socially and economically during the seventeenth century?

In the seventeenth century, different and sometimes disparate groups of English settlers established several colonies in North America. The English way of colonization differed from that of the Spanish in that English colonization did not emanate from a desire to create a centralized empire in the New World.

Breaking AwayEnglish migration to the New World was part of a larger pattern of mobility—the New World was just another destination. Some Englishmen migrated to the New World for economic reasons, leaving poverty and seeking land. Others came seeking religious opportunity or to avoid political strife and conflict in England.

The Chesapeake: Dreams of WealthIn the early to mid-seventeenth century, the English established two successful but diverse colonies around the Chesapeake Bay—Virginia and Maryland.

Entrepreneurs in VirginiaIn 1607, the London Company, a joint stock company, built Jamestown in Virginia. This colony, however, experienced numerous problems arising from a hostile natural environment, conflict with local Native Americans, the colonists’ failure to work for the common good, and unclear goals.

Spinning Out of ControlTo save the colony, Captain John Smith took over the management of the town and imposed military order. The London Company also restructured the government and sent more people to keep the colony going.

“Stinking Weed” One key to the eventual success of Virginia was the development by John Rolfe of tobacco as a commercial crop. London Company directors further attracted settlers by giving land grants (headrights), establishing elective local government (the House of Burgesses), and bringing women to the colony. Under the management of Edwin Sandys especially, the colony thrived with new settlers arriving regularly. Time of ReckoningDisease and battles with the native population made Virginia a dangerous place, especially for indentured servants. Despite increased immigration to Virginia, the mortality rate remained high in Virginia. Such problems, combined with the continued low percentage of women colonists, made establishing a family difficult.

Corruption and ReformIn 1624, King James I declared that Virginia was a royal colony to help solve some of the problems plaguing the Virginia colony. James reformed the governance of the colony, appointing a royal governor and council. Nonetheless, the House of Burgesses, which the Stuart monarchs opposed, continued to meet, eventually forcing the monarchy to recognize them as a governing body. Despite the changes in the colony’s management, the economic and social aspects of life there continued much as before. Tobacco remained the primary crop, and life continued to revolve around the plantation.

Maryland: A Troubled Refuge for CatholicsIn the 1630s, Sir George Calvert and his son Cecilius, the Lords Baltimore, acquired a royal grant to settle a colony north of Virginia, which was named Maryland in honor of the queen. The second Lord Baltimore insisted on religious toleration of all Christian religions, including Catholicism, within the colony, but this proprietary colony still faced much sectarian trouble during its early days.

Reforming England in AmericaCalvinist religious principles played an important role in the colonization of New England. A small group of Separatists, or Pilgrims, first went to Holland and then settled the "Plymouth Plantation." There these new settlers tried to replicate the villages and communities of England. Without assistance from the local Native Americans, the Pilgrims would not have survived in the New World.

“The Great Migration” The Puritans, a much larger and wealthier group of religious reformers, wanting to escape the tyranny of King Charles I, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Under the leadership of John Winthrop, they sailed for the New World to create a better society by purifying English society and the Church from within.

“A City on a Hill” Throughout the 1630s, Massachusetts Bay enjoyed a steady stream of new migrants, many coming as entire families, allowing the Puritans to build rigorous religious, economic, and political institutions. Bound by a common purpose that revolved around the same religious goal, the Massachusetts Bay colonies flourished. Adopting a Congregationalist system of church government, the Puritans’ religion informed every aspect of their lives. But, the governments of New England were not theocracies, and though many villages in the colony used democratic town meetings to solve local political problems, neither were they democracies. Unlike in Virginia, in New England, the town was the center of public life.

Limits of Religious DissentFor the most part, the European settlers in New England managed to live in peace with one another, primarily because they believed in the rule of law, producing the first code of law printed in English—Lawes and Liberties. Despite this seemingly united belief system, disagreements did arise with regard to religious beliefs. The Puritans did not practice religious toleration, and those individuals of the colony that disagreed with the either the laws or the theology of the legal authorities were generally tried as heretics and expelled from Massachusetts Bay. Two of these, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, upon leaving Massachusetts Bay established their own “Puritan” colonies elsewhere in New England.

Breaking AwayFour colonies—New Hampshire, New Haven, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—were established as a

result of people leaving Massachusetts Bay. Some like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson left for religious reasons, while others were motivated to leave for economic reasons.

Diversity in the Middle ColoniesThe key to the Middle Colonies—New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware—was social and cultural diversity, both within and among the several colonies.

Anglo-Dutch Rivalry on the HudsonThe Dutch colony of New Netherland had been settled not only by the Dutch but also by Finns, Swedes, Germans, and Africans. Under Charles II, England easily wrested the ill-managed colony from the Dutch and renamed it New York. The diversity and size of New York meant bureaucratic problems for the Crown.

Confusion in New JerseyShortly after acquiring New York, the Duke of York awarded the land lying between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, individuals who had supported the crown during the English Civil War. The transfer bred only confusion. In 1674, Berkeley sold his proprietary rights to a group of Quakers, effectively splitting the colony in two. In 1702, the crown reunited New Jersey into a single colony, but it never prospered the way that New York did, and struggled with much internal political discord, as well as conflicts with the Crown and other colonies.

Quakers in AmericaBecause they were persecuted in England, the Quakers, or Friends, came to the New World and settled Pennsylvania.

Quaker Beliefs and PracticeQuakers turned away from Calvinism and its beliefs of original sin and eternal Predestination. In Quaker theology, everyone possessed an “Inner Light” that offered salvation. There was no need for a learned ministry because everyone’s interpretation of Scripture was valid. The Quakers practiced a humble lifestyle eschewing social rank and position because all were equal in the eyes of the Lord. The Quakers actively worked to convert others to their “Truth.”

Penn’s “Holy Experiment” William Penn, an avid Quaker convert who was briefly involved with the New Jersey proprietorship, was awarded the proprietorship of a vast area of land in the New World called Pennsylvania or “Penn’s Woods.” There he tried to establish a complex society and government based on Quaker principles. Its complexity caused lasting problems for the management of the colony.

Settling PennsylvaniaPenn and other Quakers promoted the colony aggressively throughout the colonies, England, and the rest of Europe. The colony welcomed people of all faiths and nationalities, making Pennsylvania a remarkably diverse colony. Although Pennsylvania was economically successful as a colony, its social diversity often caused internal conflicts. Penn was forced by legal problems to leave Pennsylvania and return to England in 1701. He died there in 1718 a poor and disillusioned man.

Planting the CarolinasThough the area south of the Chesapeake known as the Carolinas shared many similarities with Virginia and Maryland, it evolved quite differently. The fabled “solid South” of the nineteenth century did not exist during the colonial period.

Proprietors of the CarolinasThe English settled the land south of Virginia as a result of the restoration of King Charles II. He offered the area as a reward to a few of his followers. The “True and Absolute Lords Proprietors of Carolina” had great trouble attracting settlers to their colony. Conditions in England had so improved that the steady stream of willing migrants had run dry. Hoping to draw settlers from the other colonies, the Lords Proprietors offered generous land grants only to find such settlers difficult to attract.

The Barbadian ConnectionThe eventual success of the Carolinas was largely the result of the work of Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the migration of wealthy families from Barbados. Migrants from Barbados

came as families and individuals, some bringing with them large gangs of slaves, creating a slave-based plantation society more similar to the islands than any mainland British colonies. The colony experimented with several cash crops including beef, animal skins, and naval stores, finally discovering the profitability of rice by the 1690s. Continually plagued by political disagreements between the proprietors and the settlers and among the settlers themselves, the king in 1729 divided the colony into North Carolina and South Carolina and made them both royal colonies.

The Founding of GeorgiaThe colony of Georgia resulted from the utopian vision of General James Oglethorpe. He settled the land south of Charleston in order to give hope to the debtors imprisoned in London, and at the same time, occupy land claimed by both England and Spain. Facing resistance from the settlers, Oglethorpe’s utopian goals soon faded, and Georgia struggled economically and politically in its early years.

Conclusion: Living with DiversityThe themes that connect the history of the early colonial development are hard work and, most importantly, diversity.

7. Why did Chesapeake and Lower South colonists shift from indentured servants to slaves as their labor force?Slavery in the United States was a form of unfree labor which existed as a legal institution in North America for more than a century before the founding of the United States in 1776, and continued mostly in the South until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865.[1] The first English colony in North America, Virginia, acquired its first Africans in 1619, after a ship arrived, unsolicited, carrying a cargo of about 20 Africans.[2][3] Thus, a practice established in the Spanish colonies as early as the 1560s was expanded into English North America.[4] Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves; there were a small number of white slaves as well.[5] Europeans also held some Native Americans as slaves, and African-Native Americans. Slavery spread to the areas where there was good-quality soil for large plantations of high-value cash crops, such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, and coffee. By the early decades of the 19th century, the majority of slaveholders and slaves were in the southern United States, where most slaves were engaged in a work-gang system of agriculture on large plantations, especially devoted to cotton and sugar cane. Such large groups of slaves were thought to work more efficiently if directed by a managerial class called overseers, usually white men.Before the widespread establishment of chattel slavery (outright ownership of a human being, and of his/her descendants), much labor was organized under a system of bonded labor known as indentured servitude. This typically lasted for several years for white and black alike. People paid with their labor for the costs of transport to the colonies. They contracted for such arrangements because of poor economies in their home countries.[6] By the 18th century, colonial courts and legislatures had racialized slavery, essentially creating a caste system in which slavery applied nearly exclusively to Black Africans and people of African descent, and occasionally to Native Americans. Spain abolished slavery of Native Americans in its territories in 1769.From the 16th to the 19th centuries, an estimated 12 million Africans were shipped as slaves to the Americas. (see Slavery in the Americas)[7][8] Of these, an estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States.[9]By the 1860 United States Census, the slave population in the United States had grown to

four million.[10]Slavery was a contentious issue in the politics of the United States from the 1770s through the 1860s, becoming a topic of debate in the drafting of the Constitution; a subject of Federal legislation such as the ban on the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; and a subject of landmark Supreme Court cases, such as the Dred Scott decision. Slaves resisted the institution through rebellions and non-compliance, and escaped it through travel to non-slave states and Canada, facilitated by the Underground Railroad. Advocates of abolitionism engaged in moral and political debates, and encouraged the creation of Free Soil states as Western expansion proceeded. Slavery was a principal issue leading to the American Civil War. After the Union prevailed in the war, slavery was made illegal throughout the United States with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[11] A few instances of enslavement of Indians by other Indians persisted in the following years. In the South, practices of slavery shaped the institutions of convict leasing and sharecropping. Illegal enslavement of captive workers, often immigrants, has occurred into the 21st century in nations across the world.

8. How did the Great Awakening shape American society?

We are more divided now than before the Great Awakening and more intolerate towards other religions, denominations, people of no-faiths, of different races, cultures, etc.

9. Why did the colonists react so strongly against British legislation concerning the colonies following the French and Indian War?

The war caused England a great amount of money. They taxed colonies without their opinion about it.

10. Discuss the various resistance tactics used by the Americans against the British from 1773 to 1775. Were they effective? Why or why not?in 1773 the ‘Boston Tea Party’ saw British-monopolized tea thrown into the harbour in a gesture of contempt for the taxation system. As a result, Boston was closed to shipping, and generous trade concessions were given to the newly integrated French Canadians in Quebec.In April 1775 the British C-in-C, Gen Thomas Gage, mounted a sortie to seize a stockpile of arms and powder at Concord, promptly became involved in a running fight, and, in retreating to Boston, suffered severe losses at Lexington. The affair quickly escalated and colonial militia began to entrench themselves enthusiastically around Boston Harbour, overlooking the British garrison. In June Gage's newly arrived replacement, Sir William Howe, launched a successful frontal assault against the American earthworks on Breed's Hill and Bunker Hill, which cost the British over 1, 000 casualties, 40 per cent of the attacking force, and was a serious blow to their pride, morale, and capability for offensive operations.In June 1775, the Continental Congress appointed Washington, a wealthy Virginian planter with experience in the colonial militia, as its C-in-C. In autumn 1775, the British found themselves under pressure on all fronts. The Boston garrison was hemmed in, and American patriots had also seized the forts at Crown Point and Ticonderoga, threatening the Canadian urban centres of Montreal and Quebec. In the southern colonies Sir Henry Clinton attempted

a coup de main in May at Charleston, but was bloodily repulsed, losing a ship and many men in an abortive artillery duel with shore batteries at Fort Moultrie. Meanwhile, Howe had brought 9, 000 reinforcements from England to Boston, but his supply ships failed to arrive.

11. Describe the differing views among colonial leaders as to how to protest their grievances to Britain leading up to the Declaration of Independence.Perhaps no document in history has undergone as much scrutiny as the Declaration ofIndependence. In this formal statement announcing the severed ties between the thirteencolonies and Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson wrote essentially of a new theory ofgovernment, in which the government itself was expected and required to protect“natural rights” of citizens.Since Thomas Jefferson’s writing of the Declaration, many groups have interpreted thedocument to mean different ideas, and frequently, the Declaration has been used to justifyother political and social movements. While the Declaration is an important historicdocument and incorporates many of America’s most basic beliefs, it has no effect of lawin 21st Century America. In this lesson, students will question the importance of the Declaration of Independence, its meaning during the time of the Revolution and its impact today.John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher, whose association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity. Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to God, the self, natural kinds and artifacts, as well as a variety of different kinds of ideas. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke also wrote a variety of important political, religious and educational works including the Two Treatises of Government, the Letters Concerning Toleration, The Reasonableness of Christianity and Some Thoughts Concerning Education.

12. What was the political philosophy of "republicanism"? In political theory and philosophy, the term ‘republicanism’ is generally used in two different, but closely related, senses. In the first sense, republicanism refers to a loose tradition or family of writers in the history of western political thought, including especially: Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors; the English

republicans Milton, Harrington, Sidney, and others; Montesquieu and Blackstone; the eighteenth-century English commonwealthmen; and many Americans of the founding era such as Jefferson and Madison. The writers in this tradition emphasize many common ideas and concerns, such as the importance of civic virtue and political participation, the dangers of corruption, the benefits of a mixed constitution and the rule of law, etc.; and it is characteristic of their rhetorical style to draw heavily on classical examples—from Cicero and the Latin historians especially—in presenting their arguments. (In light of the last point, this is sometimes referred to as the ‘classical republican’ or ‘neo-roman’ tradition in political thought.)Beyond this brief sketch of the classical republican tradition, there exists considerable historiographical controversy—with respect to who the tradition's members are, and their relative significance; with respect to how we should interpret its underlying philosophical commitments; and with respect to its role (especially vis-à-vis liberalism) in the historical development of modern political thought. This brings us to the second sense of the term ‘republicanism’. In contemporary political theory and philosophy, it most often refers to a specific (and still contested) interpretation of the classical republican tradition, associated especially with the work of Quentin Skinner; together with a research program dedicated to developing insights from this tradition into an attractive contemporary political doctrine, associated especially with the work of Philip Pettit. According to republicans in this second sense (sometimes called ‘civic republicans’ or ‘neo-republicans’), the paramount republican value is political liberty, understood as non-domination or independence from arbitrary power. This entry will primarily discuss republicanism in this second sense.In their interpretation of the classical republicanism tradition, civic republicans are often in debate with civic humanists, with whom they are often confused (see the entry on civic humanism). Developed as a contemporary political doctrine, civic republicanism is broadly speaking progressive and liberal, but not without important distinct features. Some of its policy implications diverge from mainstream liberalism in particular ways, and for this reason civic republicans are sometimes also confused with communitarians (see the entry on communitarianism). For the strengths or weakness of civic republicanism to be fairly assessed, both confusions should be assiduously avoided.

13. What role did religion play in America in the early nineteenth century?For untold generations before Europeans came to America, native peoples celebrated the bounty given to them by the Great Spirit. Across America, such Native American tribes as the Algonquians, the Iroquois, Sioux, and the Seminoles worshiped the Great Spirit, who could be found in animals as well as inanimate objects. Elaborate rituals and such dances as the Sundance, Round, Snake, Crow, Ghost and others were developed and led by such native

leaders as Wodiziwob, Wovoka, Black Elk, Big Foot, Sitting Bull, and others. As white colonists drove Indians onto reservations, the fervency of their religious practices increased, even as Christian missionaries made inroads that influenced their spirituality.

14. Compare Thomas Jefferson's views on African Americans with his views on Native AmericansThomas Jefferson, our icon of freedom and personal liberty set the national policy toward Native Americans that would last for over one hundred years. He began the trail of tears

which would destroy cultures and result in the reservation system. Always a man of dichotomies, Jefferson admired and lauded the American Indian. As a man of the Romantic Era he saw them as unspoiled; the "noble savage". As, also, a man of the Enlightenment, with its analytical detachment, he knew that the Indian way of life could no longer exist in an expanding United States. Jefferson's attitude toward the Indian population of the United States always seemed as profoundly paradoxical as his attitude toward slavery... On several occasions he went out of his way to describe the Indian people of North America as a noble race who were the innocent victims of history....One senses in so many of Jefferson's observations on Indians an authentic admiration mingled with a truly poignant sense of tragedy about their fate as a people...On the other hand, it was during Jefferson's presidency that the basic decisions were made that required the deportation of massive segments of the Indian population to land west of the Mississippi..."the seeds of extinction" for Native American culture were sown under Jefferson. (Ellis, 1997). Jefferson had known and been interested in Native Americans all of his life. He had been associated with them during his boyhood in Albemarle County and his college days in Williamsburg. He had heard his father's tales of journeys into the wilderness and his interactions with the Indians, but no Native Americans roamed the forest near Jefferson's boyhood home. The only Indians he saw, as a boy, were "civilized". They were romantic characters to the young lad when they stopped at the Jefferson home on their way to Williamsburg. Peter Jefferson's house was a popular way station for the friendly Cherokees whose embassies were bound for Williamsburg. Jefferson long after reflected on his early attachment to Indians, writing John Adams of his presence in the warrior-orator Outasette's camp on the eve of that Indian's journey to England: "The moon was in full splendor...His sounding voice, distinct articulation, animated action, and the solemn silence of his people at their several fires, filled me with awe and veneration, altho' I did not understand a word he uttered," Jefferson was impressed by the Indian's use of words to make a noble display of his humanity, to move others. (Burnstein, 1997). Jefferson further expounded on the Indians' ability to speak in his Notes on the State of Virginia: I may challenge the whole orations of Demosthenes and Cicero, and of many more prominent orators, if Europe has furnished any more eminent, to produce a single passage, superior to the speech of Logan, a Mingo chief, to Lord Dunmore when Governor of this State. (As cited in Chinard, 1964). Referencing and comparing Native Americans to classical cultures was a theme which runs throughout Jefferson's musings on Indians. "Aboriginal Homeric concepts of human behavior had early become real and concrete to him in the simple dignity of American Indians." (Lehmann, 1994). Perhaps this comparison with Europe's heroic era was to buttress his defense of all things American. For, it was then contended, by France's Count Buffon, that all flora, fauna, and men of the New World were degenerate. Jefferson contested Buffon's statement about the notion that the Native American "savage" was "feeble," "timid and cowardly," with "no vivacity, no activity of mind." On the contrary, stated Jefferson, the Indian "meets death with more deliberation" than any other race on earth; "his friendships are strong and faithful to the uttermost extremity." (Burnstein, 1997). "As for happiness, he thought it probably greater among the American Indians than among the great body of people in Europe."(Malone, 1951). Dumas Malone, Jefferson biographer, feels that the statements relating to Indians in the

Notes on Virginia can be matched in passion only by those extolling freedom. Jefferson stoutly defended them against charges of deficiency in sexual ardor and lack of familial affection, and praised them for their courage and sense of honor. In Notes, perhaps Jefferson's greatest scientific work, he listed the tribes with a fullness and precision which were uncommon of his era. He discussed the Native Americans with an objectivity which was also rare for his time. Nevertheless, many biographers feel that sentimentalism blurred his scientific view. He had always been interested in Indian folklore and the origins of Native Americans. In his personality there was a natural archaeologist. In the course of excavating an Indian mound on his property he invented the method of "stratigraphical" observation, which is the basic principle of modern archeological investigation. His lifetime interest in Native Americans can also be seen in his long term effort to collect and catalogue Indian vocabularies. He worked on this extensively during his Presidency, perhaps as way of relieving the stress of office. But, the office, also, gave him new resources. On July 4, 1801, his first year as president, Jefferson held a reception for five Cherokee chiefs where he queried them for his vocabularies study. When he sent Lewis and Clark on their expedition of the Louisiana Territory he tasked them to collect linguistic records of all the tribes they encountered. This great ethnological treasure, alas, was never finished. At the end of Jefferson's second term they were lost to a pair of ferrymen who thought that the President's baggage contained treasure. Coming home from Washington: Among these effects was a trunk containing the Indian vocabularies, some fifty in number, that he had collected through thirty years. On the last leg of the journey, while ascending the James River above Richmond, this trunk was stolen. Towards the end of May a reward for its recovery was offered by his agents in Richmond. It was reported in June that the papers from the trunk had been discovered in the James below Lynchburg. Only a few defaced leaves of the vocabularies were saved. In some of his comments on this irreparable loss Jefferson seemed vindictive. Later in the summer after the culprit was caught and on trial he stated with apparent satisfaction that the thief would doubtless be hanged. (Malone, 1981). Jefferson's use of political office to further his romantic study of languages is tempered by the rational politician. "As governor and President, he was to receive visits from Indians...He was to observe this race as a philosopher and to inquire into its languages; as a responsible statesman he was to grapple with the problem of depredations and massacres on the frontier." (Malone, 1948). This balancing act caused, almost, a detachment by him concerning his actions toward Native Americans. On one hand, he had ordered Lewis and Clark to offer friendship, trade, education, and even to offer vaccination for smallpox to the Indians. (American Heritage, 1972). On the other hand, as soon as Louisiana was purchased, during his first term, he embarks on a cold-blooded policy toward Native Americans. Jefferson, in a lengthy letter to William Henry Harrison, military governor of the Northwest Territory, explained the nation's policy "is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate their affectionate attachment from them, by everything just and liberal which we can do for them within the bounds of reason." Having said that, Jefferson then instructs Harrison on how to get rid of every last independent tribe between the Atlantic states and the Mississippi. (Montgomery, 2000). In secret messages to his cabinet and Congress, Jefferson outlined a plan for removal of all Native Americans east of the Mississippi to make sure that this land would never fall to the French or the British. Jefferson was even less sentimental and more direct during

his second inaugural address in 1805. Even the area west of the Mississippi would no longer be available to the Indian. This was certainly a very regrettable situation, but the idea of questioning the right of an overflowing population to occupy scarcely populated territories did not for a moment enter Jefferson's mind. To deny such a right would have been not only detrimental to the very existence of the United States, but also a denial of the "right" of "our Saxon ancestors" to settle in England. Furthermore, the President was confronted with a certain set of facts and not with theory. The territory of which the Indians had so long enjoyed undisturbed possession was growing narrower every day. With the recent acquisition of Louisiana, it was to be foreseen that they would not be able to roam freely much longer in the vast territories extending west of the Mississippi. (Chinard, 1964). Thus, the Native Americans must change, become Europeanized, or become extinct. Even out of office Jefferson held this view. In his plan for the University of Virginia, he devised a scheme to "civilize" the Native American. The plan of civilizing the Indians is undoubtedly a great improvement on the ancient and totally ineffectual one of beginning with religious missionaries. Our experience has shown that this must be the last step of the process. The following is what has been successful: 1st, to raise cattle, etc., and thereby acquire a knowledge of the value of property; 2d, arithmetic, to calculate that value; 3d, writing, to keep accounts, and here they begin to enclose farms, and the men labor, the women spin and weave; 4th, to read Aseop's Fables and Robinson Crusoe are their first delight. The Creeks and the Cherokees are advanced thus far, and the Cherokees are now instituting a regular government. (As cited in Mayo, 1972). Even though Jefferson's plan never came to fruition, it did set the tone for relations with Native Americans. This, along with his governmental policies, laid the basis for the end of most Native cultures.

15. In what ways did Jefferson believe that agrarianism would promote democracy?Jeffersonian Democracy has never been described more economically or elegantly than in Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address in 1801. For twelve years after George Washington's inauguration, the infant federal government had been directed by a Hamiltonian design for national greatness. The election of 1800, Jefferson informed one correspondent, was "as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form"; it rescued the United States from policies that had endangered its experiment in popular self-governance and had undermined the constitutional and social groundwork of a sound republican regime, from leaders whose commitment to democracy itself had seemed un-certain. The Jeffersonian Republicans would set the Revolution back on its republican and popular foundations. They would certainly, as most historians would see it, loose a spirit of equality and a commitment to limited government that would characterize the nation for a century or more to come.As Washington's secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton had faced toward the Atlantic

and supported rapid economic growth, envisioning the quick emergence of an integrated state in which the rise of native manufactures would provide materials for export and a large domestic market for the farmers. Supported by a broad interpretation of the Constitution, his economic and financial policies were intended to equip the young nation with institutional foundations comparable to those that had permitted tiny Britain to compete effectively with larger nation-states, and he carefully avoided confrontation with that power. The Republicans, by contrast, were more concerned about the preservation of the relatively democratic distribution of the nation's wealth. While they had always advocated

freeing oceanic commerce and providing foreign markets for the farmers, they believed that Federalists had rendered the United States subservient to Britain and had actually preferred a gradual reintroduction of hereditary rule.Jeffersonian ambitions for the nation focused much more on the West, where a republic resting on the sturdy stock of independent farmer-owners could be constantly revitalized as it expanded over space. Under Jefferson's (and then James Madison's) direction, the central government would conscientiously withdraw within the boundaries that they believed had been established when the Constitution was adopted, assuming that the states, "in all their rights," were "the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies." The national debt would be retired as rapidly as preexisting contracts would permit, not clung to for its broader economic uses while the interest payments steadily enriched a nonproductive few and forged a dangerous, corrupting link between the federal executive and wealthy moneyed interests. State militias, not professional armed forces, would protect the nation during peacetime. Internal taxes, during peacetime, would be left to the states. The federal government would cultivate "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Committed to "equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political," to religious freedom, freedom of the press, and other constitutional protections (many of which, as Jefferson conceived it, had been gravely threatened during the final years of Federalist rule), the Jeffersonians would conscientiously pursue "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." The Jeffersonian Republicans, as Jefferson or Madison conceived it, were quintessentially the party of the people and the champions of the republican Revolution. Their principles democratized the nation, profoundly shaping its religious landscape as well as its political institutions and ideas. They may also have protected slavery, produced a war with Britain, and contributed essentially to both sides of the argument that led to civil war.

16. How did Andrew Jackson change the role of the presidencyEveryone admired Jackson as a patriot, a self-made man, and a war hero. His parents, poor farmers, died before he was 15. He also fought with the Patriots in the American Revolution. Before he was 30, he was elected to Congress from Tennessee. When he became president, a spirit of equality spread through American politics. ALso, some states had loosened or soon would loosen the property of requirements for voting. And lastly, democracy expanded as people who had not been allowed to vote voted for the first time. In 1824-1828, the percentage of white males voting in presidential elections increased from 26.9% to 57.6%.

17. What was the impact of industrialization on women? In 1855, women's struggle for equality was and is a long and hard battle. Though suffrage was gained in 1920, the struggle for equality continues into the present time. The women who embarked on this crusade in the mid-1800s were courageous, defying most respectable standards of their time to stand up for what they believed. In the nineteenth century, most Americans assumed that there was a natural order in society which placed men and women in totally different spheres. The ideal woman was submissive; her job was to be a meek, obedient, loving wife who was totally subservient to

the men around her. Between 1750 and 1850, women's roles in America changed somewhat. In an agrarian society, it was necessary for both husband and wife to put in a full day's labor, for the success of the farm depended on them both. Industrialization produced further changes. As factories began to do many of the things women had done at home previously, such as spinning and weaving, women were left with a little more time to devote to other projects. Clergymen began to recruit them for various reforms but always they, the women, would work in their proper sphere, influencing only the men In their family. By the early 1800s women were ready to branch out from their families and make an impression on the world. Numerous women's organizations were formed, some social, but many bound on doing social work. One example: Female associations ran charity schools and for refugees for women in need.

18. How did the Second Great Awakening transform American religious culture? The second great awakening made people greatly sway to more religion

19. How did slaves resist the demands of slaveholders?If you mean how did slavery stop, abolitionists were the main cause, they fought for slaves and tried to get an act going throughout America that would make slavery illegal. Some parts of America made slavery illegal whilst some parts encouraged it. Some abolitionists helped slaves escape and lead them to Canada where Slavery was illegal.

20. Describe the political philosophy of the Republican Party

I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability, and responsibility must be honored. •I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age, or disability. I believe free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth, and prosperity. I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least. I believe the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government that is closest to the people. I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom, and human rights throughout the world. Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government. incoln's Ten Guidelines . . . You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift You cannot help small men by tearing down big men

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income You cannot further brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred You cannot establish security on borrowed money You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do themselves

21. What role did women play in the Civil War?Mainly nurses but also housing troops, spies, laundresses, vivandieres, sanitary and christian commission workers, newspaper writers, and undercover soldiers. One ex-slave spied of Jefferson Davis by working for him as a maid! And dont forget, women played a big role in the Civil war, if there weren't women nurses, A LOT of more men would have died

22. To what extent is it valid to claim that Reconstruction was a failure? To what extent was it a success?Failure becuase it basically crippled the south, helped out the north a bit though

23. How did the newly freed people try to take control of their fate during Reconstruction?

As the Civil War ended in 1865, Congress created the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Land, popularly known as the Freedmen's Bureau, to help former slaves make the transition to freedom. Throughout the South, the Freedmen's Bureau established schools and hospitals, helped negotiate labor contracts, leased or sold confiscated lands to the freedmen, and generally tried to protect them from former masters.The unpopularity of the Freedmen's Bureau among white Southerners caused President Andrew Johnson to veto an 1866 bill to extend the life of the bureau. The veto outraged both moderate and radical Republicans in Congress and united them against the President. Congress passed the second Freedmen's Bureau Act over the President's veto and started down the collision course that would result in Johnson's impeachment in 1868.

24. Describe the economic fate of newly freed people during and immediately following Reconstruction.From 1789 to 1865 the Supreme Court's most compelling concerns had been to establish its own constitutional authority, to establish the scope of the powers of the national government, and to define the relations between the national and the state governments. By the end of the Civil War in 1865, the Court's authority as expositor of the Constitution was well accepted. Moreover, the war itself established the national character of the central government and the apparent breadth of its powers. The proslavery record of the Court, however, especially its disastrous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), had weakened its authority (see Slavery). It seemed quite possible that the now dominant ‐Republican party would challenge the Court's claim to review national legislation. At the same time, the Civil War and Reconstruction precipitated a potentially revolutionary change in the federal system. Finally, tremendous economic and social changes, associated with the rise of modern American industrialism, took place in the decades following the Civil War. These raised constitutional issues about property rights and government regulation that

would come to dominate the Supreme Court's agenda. ReconstructionAfter the Civil War, Americans faced the difficult problem of how to reconstruct both the Union and the individual southern states. Despite significant opposition on the part of northern Democrats aided by President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln, the Republican party was able to maintain control of the national government. Republicans were deeply committed to protecting the basic rights of the newly freed slaves and of white southern unionists. Closely related was a determination that unreconstructed Confederates not be permitted to resume control of the southern states. But these commitments had to be reconciled with the general desire for a speedy restoration of the Union, for generosity to rebels who demonstrated renewed loyalty, and for the maintenance of a balanced federal system. Republicans determined to establish a program to secure these goals before they restored southern states to normal relations in the Union. Ultimately, Congress passed a Reconstruction Act (1867) that declared the Johnson authorized governments provisional and ‐placed them under military authority until Congress recognized new governments to be established by constitutional conventions and subsequent elections. These decisions raised the profound constitutional question of the status of the southern states and people upon the close of the war. White Southerners, northern Democrats, and President Johnson were convinced that Republicans were abrogating the rights of the southern states and unconstitutionally subjecting the southern people to military government. As northern Democrats and Johnson lost the political struggle to the Republicans, white southerners appealed to the Supreme Court. They had some hope of success, because in Ex parte Milligan (1866) five of the justices opined that Congress could suspend the privilege of habeas corpus and authorize military trials—a key element of military supervision of the South—only when ordinary courts were closed by invasion or insurrection. Moreover, in Cummings v. Missouri (1867) and Ex parte Garland (1867) the justices by 5 to 4 margins had signaled their distaste for the ‐ ‐Republican program by ruling that test oaths could not be used to bar former rebels from practicing their professions. The “test oath” laws made the ability to take an oath of past loyalty a test for admission to the bar, clergy, or other influential professions. These decisions led to charges that the Court was continuing its old proslavery ways. Leading Republicans in Congress proposed to strip the Court of the power to review national laws or to require two thirds majorities to rule federal laws unconstitutional. But in ‐Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) and Georgia v. Stanton (1868), the Court refused requests from the Johnson organized state governments for injunctions restraining the president and ‐his secretary of war from enforcing the Reconstruction Acts (see Judicial Review). The Court exercised judicial restraint again in Ex parte McCardle (1869), in which southerners challenged the Reconstruction Act's provision for military trials and the

constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act in general. Although several justices wanted to speed the decision, the majority refused, allowing Congress to repeal the legal provision under which the case had been brought. The Court then agreed that the repeal had destroyed its jurisdiction, even though the case had been pending. The Court's discretion helped to restore its moral authority as a neutral expositor of law. But despite their concerns, most Republicans never intended to attack the Court as an institution. On the contrary, they recognized that it would be a crucial instrument for carrying out their program to provide federal protection for civil and political rights. The Republican Program

here were two aspects to the Republican Reconstruction program. First, Republicans tried to reshape the southern states in such a way that the state governments would themselves provide equal protection for the rights of citizens. Rejecting radical proposals to redistribute property, take over education, and reduce the states to territories directly subject to congressional control, Republicans relied primarily on giving black men the right to vote through the Reconstruction Act and the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1870. If politically empowered, black Southerners would be able to demand protection in their rights in exchange for their votes, Republicans believed. The second element of the Republican Reconstruction program was to pass national laws and constitutional amendments barring states from depriving citizens of basic rights and mandating their equal protection. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined as citizens everyone born in the United States except untaxed Native Americans, who were still subject to tribal government (see Citizenship). It then declared that every citizen was entitled to the same basic rights (which it listed) as white citizens, notwithstanding any law, ordinance, rule, or custom to the contrary. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 barred discrimination in inns, transportation, and amusement places. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1866, abolished slavery. The Fourteenth, ratified in 1868 declared all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction to be citizens of the Court. It forbade states from abridging the privileges or immunities of United States citizens; from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and from denying any person equal protection of the laws. The Fifteenth Amendment, as already noted, barred both the states and the United States from making racial discriminations in voting rights. Each amendment authorized Congress to pass appropriate legislation to enforce it, and the Republicans did so immediately upon their ratification. Potential in these laws and amendments was a radical change in the federal system. The primary responsibility for protecting the ordinary rights of citizens had always lain with the states; the national government had never been able to enforce the few provisions in the pre–Civil War Constitution that guaranteed civil liberties against state invasion. If the states themselves did protect rights equally obeying the mandates of the new laws and constitutional amendments, then the practical change in the federal system would be minimal. But if they refused, then Congress would have to enforce them. In that case Reconstruction would mark a revolutionary change in the federal system, with the national government passing laws forcing the states to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities and perhaps directly assuming the job itself. Therefore, the more successfully the Republicans completed the first part of their program, the less radical would be the practical effect on federalism of the second. The form of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments indicated the leading role Republicans expected the courts to take in their enforcement. Republicans framed them on the pattern of limitations that Article I, section 10 of the Constitution had placed on state authority to impair the obligation of contracts, regulate interstate or foreign commerce, and other matters—limitations that the federal courts had vigorously enforced before the war and that Article VI of the Constitution obligated the state courts to enforce as well. Moreover, in a series of laws culminating in the Removal Act of 1875, Republicans authorized parties to remove cases to federal courts when they could not secure federally guaranteed rights in the state courts. In fact, the 1875 act authorized the removal to the federal courts of any case arising under the federal Constitution, laws, or treaties, and for the first time gave the lower federal courts original jurisdiction in all such cases. Republicans hoped that further national legislation would be unnecessary because more direct national enforcement would threaten the balance of the federal system, something

most Republican policymakers themselves did not desire and something that might cost them political support. But when black voters placed Republicans in control of the governments of most of the southern states, the great majority of southern whites refused to accept their legitimacy. They resisted with terror and violence. When southern Republican governments proved unable to protect their citizens, the Republican Congress and President Ulysses S. Grant were reluctantly forced to protect them by direct legislation. Congress passed laws making it illegal to conspire to violate rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. At first the Republicans aimed the laws at people acting under the color of state authority, but finally they had to direct the laws at terrorism carried out by private citizens. The Force Act of 1871—often called the Ku Klux Klan Act—authorized President Grant to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus and use troops to suppress violence. Grant regularly sent federal troops to keep the peace during election campaigns, at the request of state authorities or United States marshals and district attorneys. Republican legislation after 1870 made the revolution in federalism that had been potential in the Civil War Amendments real. A vocal and influential minority of Republican leaders insisted that these laws went beyond the powers delegated by the amendments, arguing they were aimed at state action alone. Democrats took an even narrower view of their meaning. By the mid 1870s enough northerners were alienated by the course of events to threaten ‐Republican control of the national government. As a consequence, Republicans ended their most dramatic efforts to intervene in the South, allowing southern Democrats to regain control of their state governments through violence and fraud. ual Federalismt first the federal courts seemed to sustain a broad interpretation of the power the Civil War Amendments had delegated to the national government to protect civil and political rights. However, by the time cases reached the Supreme Court, many Americans had begun to worry that national efforts to protect rights were undermining the federal system. In 1872 the Supreme Court heard its first case testing a Reconstruction law, Blyew v. United States. The Court's decision demonstrated its concern that congressional legislation might alter the federal system too radically. Blyew and an accomplice had been convicted in federal court of murdering blacks in Kentucky. Kentucky had indicted them, but federal marshals removed them from state hands and brought them to trial in the federal district court because Kentucky did not allow blacks to testify in cases to which they were not parties. The Court ruled that only the state and the defendant were parties in a criminal case and that therefore Kentucky's indictment of Blyew raised no issues under the Civil Rights Act. Congress, the justices held, could not have intended that the federal courts take jurisdiction of any case in which a party alleged that a black witness might give evidence. This concern reflected the general understanding of federalism that most Americans shared in the nineteenth century. No matter where they drew it, nearly all agreed that there was some line separating state from federal jurisdiction and marking an area where state authority was supreme. Ordinary criminal law enforcement, health and safety regulations, and the day to day relations of local citizens all were on the state side of that line. ‐ ‐Although the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court after the Civil War identified with the Republican party, they made clear that they adhered to this traditional understanding, which scholars call dual federalism. In cases such as Texas v. White (1869), the justices affirmed that the national and state governments were equally sovereign and supreme in their own spheres, with neither subject to the other within those spheres. In Collector v. Day (1871), the Court held that the Constitution imposed implied limitations

on national authority to legislate within state jurisdiction, even when carrying out expressly delegated powers. Like other Republicans, most of the justices were committed to the principle that in carrying out these responsibilities the states must not invade the liberty of citizens or discriminate against citizens on racial grounds. But the Blyew case had raised the specter that the national government would enforce that policy by replacing state law enforcement in general—in this case replacing the state's murder prosecution with its own. Since the enforcement sections of the Civil War Amendments gave the broadest latitude to congressional power, authorizing all legislation “appropriate” to carry out their provisions, the prospect was very real. According to the principle firmly established in the great case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), any federal laws that “are plainly adapted” to achieving a purpose authorized by the Constitution were “appropriate” and thus constitutional (p. 421). The first dispute to directly test the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment before the Supreme Court raised the problem starkly. It did not involve the rights of blacks at all. Instead, the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) involved Louisiana butchers who claimed that a health law regulating the slaughtering of animals deprived them of their right as citizens to freely practice their occupations. Nothing could have been better calculated to demonstrate to the justices the far reaching potential of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if ‐the justices ruled that the law was a reasonable exercise of the state's police power, it would encourage future Fourteenth Amendment challenges to ordinary state laws simply by considering the issue. It would, the majority of the justices said, make the Court “a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the states” that could be construed to violate someone's civil rights (p. 78). To avoid the result, the majority of the justices arrived at a tortured construction of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment barred the states only from depriving persons of those privileges or immunities they held as United States citizens, as distinct from those they held as state citizens. Ordinary rights, such as those to follow one's occupation, make contracts, and dispose of property were associated with state citizenship and were not the subject of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judges in effect avoided a result that Republicans had not intended when they passed the Fourteenth Amendment by construing an important section of it in a way they had not intended either. The result of this opinion, never reversed, was virtually to eliminate the Privileges or Immunities Clause as protection for civil liberty. The Slaughterhouse decision did not make clear just what were the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Some federal law enforcement officials maintained that ‐they must include those specified in the Bill of Rights, since those were the privileges Americans had held in their relationship to the government of the United States. In Hurtado v. California (1884), the Court interpreted the meaning of the amendment's Due Process Clause in a way that clearly precluded it from protecting any of the liberties specified in the Bill of Rights. The justices manifested a similar concern for maintaining the federal system in cases involving federal prosecutions of criminal conspiracies to deprive persons of their constitutional rights. They sustained the Ninth Circuit Court's vigorous defense of the rights of Chinese against discriminatory legislation in California and Nevada. The justices also firmly sustained national power to prosecute any state officer, even a judge, who violated Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment rights or laws governing federal elections; they rejected arguments that prosecution of state officials violated the basic tenet of dual federalism—that the state and national governments were equally sovereign and that neither

could be subjected to the other. The justices dismissed dual federalist objections and ‐sustained Congress's power to authorize the removal of cases from state to federal courts when parties could not secure equal rights there. But the Court drew the line when the federal government tried to prosecute private citizens who did not act under state authority. Replacing state enforcement of ordinary laws with federal enforcement posed too great a threat to the federal system. he Court Restricts Reconstruction Reformsn a series of cases, the justices tried to work out a position that both preserved the federal system and saved national power to protect the fundamental civil and political rights of the former slaves. To preserve traditional federalism the Court posited the state action doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, articulated with particular clarity in ‐the Civil Rights Cases (1883). The amendment did not authorize the national government to protect rights directly, the justices held. The government could act only against state action that deprived rights. The Court's language has been taken to mean that only positive state actions are subject to the amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment, which was not framed in terms of state action, did authorize Congress to protect basic rights of freedom against violation from any source. But only the most fundamental of rights came under that protection. Despite its apparent state action language, the Fifteenth Amendment did invest ‐people with a positive right to vote without racial discrimination, and Congress could enforce that right against anyone who violated it whether under color of state authority or not. Finally, the nature of the federal system implied that Congress had plenary authority over federal elections, and it could pass any law whatsoever to protect their integrity. All this suggested rather broad congressional power to protect civil and political rights, but the actual decisions in which these positions were taken badly undermined the Republican Reconstruction program. Ironically, Republicans had avoided framing Reconstruction statutes in such a way as to specifically protect blacks from discrimination. The Court therefore declared several provisions of the Enforcement Acts unconstitutional because they failed to specify that private individuals could be prosecuted only if they deprived people of rights on account of their race or previous condition of servitude. Likewise, the Court found indictments wanting for failing to specify such racial motivations. In the political climate of the times, the decisions were perceived to be virtual endorsements of southern violence and signs of hostility to Reconstruction in general. Likewise, the Civil Rights Cases, while articulating grounds under which Congress could protect fundamental rights under the Thirteenth Amendment, ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. Observers naturally noted its trenchant articulation of the state‐action doctrine and the apparent endorsement of racial discrimination more than its reservation of power to Congress. Finally, after Congress narrowly failed to pass a tough, new law to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment in 1890, new justices on the Supreme Court did take overtly racist constitutional positions. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the Court sustained state required segregation of ‐government and other public facilities in an opinion that not only found the laws constitutional but that seemed to endorse them. Although the decision found separate but‐ ‐equal facilities to conform to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court for decades ignored the equality part of the separate but equal doctrine and never ‐ ‐applied it to laws mandating segregation of private business. In James v. Bowman (1903) the Court applied the state action doctrine to the Fifteenth Amendment (see Segregation, De ‐Jure). In sum, the Supreme Court's effort to preserve both the federal system and national power

to protect rights proved a failure, and it has generally been condemned by historians and legal scholars, who have often failed to recognize the degree to which the effort was made. Beginning in the 1910s, the Court began a slow process of ruling unconstitutional state laws that too overtly violated the Civil War Amendments. Not until the middle of the twentieth century would it reverse the crippling decisions of the 1890s and 1900s. Federalism and Economic ChangeFrom its founding, the United States had always been a commercial nation. The Constitution itself was framed and ratified by men who believed that commercial success required stronger central government. But between the Civil War and the first decade of the twentieth century, commercial activity expanded and changed radically. A great revolution in transportation, precipitated by the application of steam engines to sea and land travel, created a national, and to some degree international, marketplace. American agricultural products, always exported in large amounts, came into competition with newly opened European and Asian agricultural regions. Prices declined for many crops and economic pressure on farmers intensified, especially in the West and South, where farm debt was highest. Local manufacturers, no longer isolated, had to meet competitors from around the nation, although a system of protective tariffs kept international competitors out of American markets. Companies sought to survive price competition by increasing output while reducing production costs. Both goals were accomplished by the application of technology to manufacturing. Not only did new industrial technology increase the amount one worker could produce, it simplified jobs, permitting the substitution of low paid unskilled ‐and semiskilled labor for highly skilled craftsmen. Huge industrial concerns began to replace small producers. In 1900 nearly eleven million people worked in manufacturing, mining, construction, and transportation, with another three million in trade and finance, outnumbering those in agriculture by some three million. The nationalization of the economy led the federal government to take a larger role in promoting and regulating it. Congress established a protective tariff to shelter American industries from international competition in their home market, created a national banking system, and regulated both the amount of currency in circulation and its distribution. It subsidized railroad and canal building, the improvement of harbors, the establishment of rural roads and stage lines, and the operation of international steamship companies. In 1887 Congress established the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroads, and in 1890 it passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to combat overconcentration of economic power. It came under pressure to set an example in labor relations by establishing an eight hour day ‐for government employees. Slowly, it began to exercise a national police power through regulation of interstate and foreign commerce and by barring the importation of undesirable goods and banning their distribution through the mail or interstate commerce. Some of these activities came under attack in the courts for going beyond the powers the Constitution delegated to the national government. State Regulationeconomic and social changes also put pressure on state governments, which had to provide services to a growing, more urban population and faced demands from various groups to help cope with problems that grew out of the economic transition. Like the national government, state governments had always responded to demands to help develop American transportation and industry, but in a simpler society the free market had seemed to provide adequate regulation, with individuals protecting their own interests through freely made contracts. The triumphant antislavery movement had embodied this understanding, granting to black Americans the same ability to protect their interests as whites.

The fervor of the antislavery struggle recommitted most Americans to this system just as economic change made its effectiveness questionable. The traditional system had been based on a equality of power between contracting parties that the growth of big business destroyed. Yet many objected to demands for government regulation to protect farmers, workers, and others from the sometimes devastating effects of the change, or to protect consumers in general from the growing power of producers and transportation companies. Such regulations smacked of “class legislation”—the use of government power to benefit one person or class in the community at the expense of another. Shocked by the proliferation of demands for such legislation—by farmers, by workers, by blacks in the South and immigrants in the cities of the North—many Americans perceived a concentrated “socialistic” or “agrarian” demand for the redistribution of property. In response, they insisted that government had no right to redistribute wealth. The free market distributed rewards justly, they maintained, and the government must not intervene; it must follow the “let alone” ‐principle—what political economists call “laissez faire.” ‐Moreover, since the national companies, especially the railroads and insurance industry, were controlled by northeastern financial interests, southerners and westerners viewed excess profits and rates that favored eastern over local merchants as exactions, unfairly transferring wealth from one region of the country to another. Some state regulations were designed to bring these “alien” forces under a degree of local control and prevent the worst abuses. In turn, the owners and managers of the regulated industries complained of local bias. Nonetheless, state governments often responded to demands for regulations. At the behest of farmers and small businessmen many states passed so called Granger laws (named after the ‐farmers' organization, the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grange). These laws created commissions to regulate the practices and rates charged by railroads and grain warehouses. They created safety bureaus to set working conditions in mines and dangerous industries. They barred contracts that called for payment in company scrip; they set maximum working hours; and they forbade the employment of women and children in certain capacities. As labor began to organize, some states banned yellow dog contracts, which made employment dependent on an agreement not to join a union. Defeated in the legislatures, businessmen often turned to the courts—and ultimately the Supreme Court—for succor, arguing that such legislation violated constitutional protections of liberty, unfairly oppressed out of state corporations, or infringed on interstate ‐ ‐commerce. The Court had to deal with the beginnings of the modern regulatory state in the framework of a federal system; it had to decide not only what the Constitution permitted government to do, but which government had the constitutional authority to do it. The problem of adjusting constitutional doctrines of federalism to the modern national economy proved particularly difficult. The Court was committed to preserving the traditional federal system, yet it was extremely sensitive to the pressure on local governments to discriminate against outside economic interests on behalf of their own. Likewise, the justices were aware of the economic burdens that a myriad of conflicting local regulations placed upon national businesses. The Court took a firm line when western and southern state and local governments tried to escape paying the principle and interest on bonds issued to subsidize railroad building or to avoid fulfilling guarantees to pay off railroad company bonds when a company defaulted. The issue arose as many railroads failed to complete their lines or went bankrupt in the hard times of the late 1860s and the 1870s. If the states succeeded in repudiating the debts, eastern and foreign bondholders would be the losers. Local governments alleged that many of the bonds were secured or issued fraudulently. State courts ruled guarantees of

railroad bonds null and void because legislatures had lacked the constitutional authority to issue them. But in a line of cases stemming from Gelpcke v. Dubuque (1864) the Court protected the out of state investors, holding that such repudiation violated the ‐ ‐Constitution's obligation of contracts clause. ‐ ‐The Court likewise protected representatives of out of state corporations from special ‐ ‐taxes and discriminatory license fees. The key cases were Welton v. Missouri (1876) and Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby County (1887). The first overturned a law requiring licenses to sell goods produced out of state, the second overturned a law requiring a license of all traveling salesmen. Similarly, the Court overturned freight taxes levied on interstate commerce. The federal courts also took a generous view of the Removal Act of 1875, permitting almost any out of state corporation to remove a case from the state to the federal courts on an ‐ ‐allegation of bias. At the same time, out of state corporations became more and more likely ‐ ‐to take advantage of new laws to bring cases in federal rather than state courts. All this end to a significant increase in the business of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts, which ultimately forced Congress to restructure the federal judiciary in the circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891 (see Judiciary Act of 1869). That law created federal circuit courts of appeals with final jurisdiction in many areas, subject only to the supreme Court's certification by writ of certiorari that it accepted an appeal. Yet the justices also tried to maintain states' authority to regulate businesses within their boundaries. In Paul v. Virginia (1869), for example, they declared that the insurance business involved state rather than interstate commerce. They then reaffirmed the old rule that states could bar companies incorporated elsewhere from doing business within their boundaries. The Court sustained state taxes challenged on the ground that they inhibited interstate commerce. It sustained state temperance and prohibition legislation against challenges that it trespassed on the interstate commerce power reserved to Congress. The Court at first sustained state efforts to regulate interstate railroads. In Munn v. Illinois (1877), it upheld the far reaching authority states granted to their railroad ‐commissions. By the 1880s, however the Court decided that such authority was incompatible with the national transportation system that had developed. It began to overturn various health, safety, and civil rights laws that states had applied to interstate transportation companies. In Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886), it limited state power over railroads in general, precipitating the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887.

25. By 1877, why were there were no Republican governments left in the South?In order to settle the contested 1876 election, a bargain was struck that also ended Reconstruction. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden led Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in popular votes, and 203-165 in the electoral college, but fraud and violence in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, and questions about an Oregon elector's eligibility, left 20 electoral votes in doubt. Splitting over each state's contradictory returns, the Democratic House and Republican Senate created a fifteen-member electoral commission of ten congressmen and five Supreme Court justices, divided by party, with one independent, Justice David Davis. When Davis declined to serve, Republican Joseph Bradley replaced him, and the commission gave Hayes all 20 votes, prompting a Democratic filibuster.Representatives of the candidates and parties then negotiated a compromise through

correspondence and at a meeting at Washington's Wormley House. The South would accept Hayes's election, back Republican James A. Garfield for House Speaker, and protect black rights; Republicans would provide federal aid for internal improvements, patronage, and, especially, home rule. But Garfield was defeated for Speaker, the government failed to subsidize improvements, and Hayes dispensed patronage and followed existing policy by removing federal troops from the South. The final southern Republican governments, all in the disputed states, collapsed, leading to the Democratic Solid South and violence and discrimination toward blacks.