HIST 105

 

Please answer the following questions. For essay questions 1 and 2, select either A or B to answer. Do not answer both options. Be specific and provide plenty of examples and evidence to support you answer. A complete answer to these questions will require drawing upon multiple readings and evidence from the course. The provided sources are in a different font. Questions are in bold following the sources. Good luck!

 

1. Please answer either A or B (50 Points)

 

1. This is a copy of a printed petition. It was designed for the blank to be filled in with the petitioners’ home county in Ohio and then they would sign their respective names to the bottom:

 

TO THE HON. THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED

 

Petition of Ladies resident in __________________ County, State of Ohio

 

Fathers and Rulers of our Country,

Suffer us, we pray you, with the sympathies which we are constrained to feel as wives, as mothers, and as daughters, to plead with you in behalf of a long oppressed and deeply injured class of native Americans [referring to American-born slaves], residing in that portion of our country which is under your exclusive control. We should poorly estimate the virtues which ought ever to distinguish your honorable body could we anticipate any other than a favorable hearing when our appeal is to men, to philanthropists, to patriots, to the legislators and guardians of a Christian people. We should be less than women, if the nameless and unnumbered wrongs of which the slaves of our sex are made the defenseless victims, did not fill us with horror and constrain us, in earnestness and agony of spirit to pray for their deliverance. By day and by night, their woes and wrongs rise up before us, throwing shades of mournful contrast over the joys of domestic life, and filling our hearts with sadness at the recollection of those whose hearths are desolate.

Nor do we forget, in the contemplation of their other sufferings, the intellectual and moral degradation to which they are doomed; how the soul formed for companionship with angels, is despoiled and brutified, and consigned to ignorance, pollution, and ruin.

 

Surely then, as the representatives of a people professedly christian, you will bear with us when we express our solemn apprehensions in the language of the patriotic Jefferson “we tremble for our country when we remember that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever,” and when in obedience to a divine command “we remember them who are in bonds as bound with them.” Impelled by these sentiments, we solemnly purpose, the grace of God assisting, to importune high Heaven with prayer, and our national Legislature with appeals, until this christian people abjure forever a traffic in the souls of men, and the groans of the oppressed no longer ascend to God from the dust where they now welter.

 

We do not ask your honorable body to transcend your constitutional powers, by legislating on the subject of slavery within the boundaries of any slaveholding State; but we do conjure you to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia where you exercise exclusive jurisdiction. In the name of humanity, justice, equal rights and impartial law, our country’s weal, her honor and her cherished hopes we earnestly implore for this our humble petition, your favorable regard. If both in christian and in heathen lands, Kings have revoked their edicts, at the intercession of woman, and tyrants have relented when she appeared a suppliant for mercy, surely we may hope that the Legislators of a free, enlightened and christian people will lend their ear to our appeals, when the only boon we crave is the restoration of rights unjustly wrested from the innocent and defenseless. — And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

 

Question: The good ladies of Ohio desire Congress not “to transcend [their] constitutional powers,” but rather want them to “abolish slavery in the District of Columbia where you exercise exclusive jurisdiction” First, what are the women petitioning for and what is the historical context of this petition? Second, aspects of their petition highlight not only the role of gender and women in society at this time, but also the means by which those gendered norms could be circumvented. What are the gendered relationships exposed by this document, and what societal roles were women adopting in nineteenth-century American society?

 

 

 

1843. This is a memorial [a written statement presented to a governing body] to the legislature of Massachusetts written by Dorothea Dix in 1843.

 

Gentlemen,–I respectfully ask to present this Memorial, believing that the cause, which actuates to and sanctions so unusual a movement, presents no equivocal claim to public consideration and sympathy. . .

About two years since leisure afforded opportunity and duty prompted me to visit several prisons and almshouses in the vicinity of this metropolis. I found, near Boston, in the jails and asylums for the poor, a numerous class brought into unsuitable connection with criminals and the general mass of paupers. I refer to idiots and insane persons, dwelling in circumstances not only adverse to their own physical and moral improvement, but productive of extreme disadvantages to all other persons brought into association with them. I applied myself diligently to trace the causes of these evils, and sought to supply remedies. As one obstacle was surmounted, fresh difficulties appeared. Every new investigation has given depth to the conviction that it is only by decided, prompt, and vigorous legislation the evils to which I refer, and which I shall proceed more fully to illustrate, can be remedied. I shall be obliged to speak with great plainness, and to reveal many things revolting to the taste, and from which my woman’s nature shrinks with peculiar sensitiveness. But truth is the highest consideration. I tell what I have seen–painful and shocking as the details often are–that from them you may feel more deeply the imperative obligation which lies upon you to prevent the possibility of a repetition or continuance of such outrages upon humanity. . . .

I come to present the strong claims of suffering humanity. I come to place before the Legislature of Massachusetts the condition of the miserable, the desolate, the outcast. I come as the advocate of helpless, forgotten, insane, and idiotic men and women; of beings sunk to a condition from which the most unconcerned would start with real horror; of beings wretched in our prisons, and more wretched in our almshouses. . . .

I must confine myself to few examples, but am ready to furnish other and more complete details, if required….

Springfield. In the jail, one lunatic woman, furiously mad, a State pauper, improperly situated, both in regard to the prisoners, the keepers, and herself. It is a case of extreme self-forgetfulness and oblivion to all the decencies of life, to describe which would be to repeat only the grossest scenes. She is much worse since leaving Worcester. In the almshouse of the same town is a woman apparently only needing judicious care, and some well-chosen employment, to make it unnecessary to confine her in solitude, in a dreary unfurnished room. Her appeals for employment and companionship are most touching, but the mistress replied she had no time to attend to her. . . .

Lincoln. A woman in a cage. Medford. One idiotic subject chained, and one in a close stall for seventeen years. Pepperell. One often doubly chained, hand and foot; another violent; several peaceable now. Brookfield. One man caged, comfortable. Granville. One often closely confined; now losing the use of his limbs from want of exercise. Charlemont. One man caged. Savoy. One man caged. Lenox. Two in the jail, against whose unfit condition there the jailer protests.

Gentlemen, I commit to you this sacred cause. Your action upon this subject will affect the present and future condition of hundreds and of thousands. In this legislation, as in all things, may you exercise that “wisdom which is the breath of the power of God.”

Question: Dix is famously advocating on behalf of those with intellectual disabilities who had found themselves impoverished. Dix did not exist in a vacuum, however, and it is not surprising that this memorial was presented in 1843. There are elements within her memorial that reflect broader social movements in the United States before the Civil War. What is going on in American society broadly of which Dix is playing but a single part? What other social movements are occurring and how do they relate to one another?

 

1. Please answer either A or B (50 Points)

 

1. As the United States moved towards the critical election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln increased his national fame with a speech in New York City’s Cooper Union (Cooper Square & Astor Place). This “Cooper Union AIDress” on February 27, 1860 further clarified his stance on slavery and the role of the federal government.

Mr. President and fellow citizens of New York: –

The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation….

What is the frame of government under which we live?

The answer must be: “The Constitution of the United States.” That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which the present government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the “thirty-nine” who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these “thirty-nine,” for the present, as being “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.”

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood “just as well, and even better than we do now?”

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue – this question – is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood “better than we.”

Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine,” or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it – how they expressed that better understanding?

In 1784, three years before the Constitution – the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the “thirty-nine” who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four – James M’Henry – voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the “thirty-nine” who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition – thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of ’87.

The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the “thirty-nine,” or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of ’87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the “thirty-nine,” Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition…..

And now, if they would listen – as I suppose they will not – I would aIDress a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: – You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Republicans.” In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of “Black Republicanism” as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite – license, so to speak – among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section – gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started – to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live” thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment’s consideration……

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shuIDer at the prospect held up.”

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution…..

Question: The Cooper Union aIDress relies heavily on Constitutional and Congressional history. What beliefs regarding the institution of slavery does Lincoln voice? What is his position on slavery in 1860 and is he an abolitionist? Building upon the Cooper Union aIDress, explain Lincoln’s beliefs about slavery and the federal government and whether others in the nation agreed with him.

1875. These excerpts are from letters written by Anna Dickinson to her mother in 1875. Originally from Philadelphia, Dickinson earned a living as a travelling lecturer. She was an advocate for the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and educational reform. Naturally, she thought a grand lecture tour of the south in 1875 (hint: the place and the year are important) was a capital idea. These are a few of her observations from that trip:

 

 

Letter dated April 28, 1875 detailing her experiences in Charlotte, North Carolina:

 

We were scowled at when went abroad as tho’ we had been dangerous wild beasts, & the man who drove us would have been more happy—from the way behaved—to have broken our necks, if he could have done so with safety to his own.

 

Finally when we got back to the hotel, where we were scowled at by clerk & “clerkess” & people generally we were regaled by a specimen of “Civil Rights” in this neighborhood.

 

Three or four nights previous there came to this house, with his family (wife & child) a member of the S.C. State Gov. on his way home from some business at Washington,–very gentlemanly & well dressed & so white they let him pass unsuspected. But almost an hour after he got in, & while he was in the dining room (the others being in their rooms) a rush was made on the place from the people outside, who, in some way had discovered who the man was.—The hotel keeper having the fear of the law before his eyes,–& a wholesome $500fine fashioned the front of the house so that the “respectable” mob could not get in,–enraged at that they rushed round to the back, & were going to make a promiscuous assault on everything,–but again the hotel keeper, being wise in his generation, turned off all the gas in the house—in a second, at the metre,–& the colored cook seized his opportunity to get the man away & hide him, & in hiding he had to keep for two days, when he at last got fairly away, & his family was sent after him.

 

“They might have made it as lively as they pleased for the nigger”—said the landlord “but I wasn’t going to have my furniture destroyed.”

 

Excerpt from the same letter after Dickinson had moved on to Columbia, South Carolina:

 

The State house is built on the plan of the [United States] Capitol…inside the building is beastly looking—the red brick arches are not even plastered. It is curious to see the number of colored people of all shades, men & women, slaves ten years ago, who are not only well & elegantly dressed, but who carry themselves—not with the peacock shirt you often see in these people—but with real—dignity & air of command—a great many of them have held, or do hold office, & the effect of that thing is seen in the negroes all through the state. Elsewhere in the South, as far as I have seen,–specially in Georgia the manners if the darkies are very like those of slavery,–a certain subdued almost cringing air,–but in South Carolina they act like men.

 

My house at Columbia was the best I had anywhere & was a curious mixture of really elegant looking “rebels”–& really elegant looking colored people. Whatever they thought of one another they made no sign. “Civil Rights” is an established fact in S.C.

Letter dated May 3, 1875 detailing her experiences in Nashville, Tennessee:

I had almost no audience the next night. An officer (police) had attempted to arrest a negro on the ground that he had been quarreling with his wife (he was not quarrelling when the officer entered the house) & the negro drew his revolver on him, & the officer was shot dead.

The negro was arrested, & all afternoon there was the wildest uproar through the place, thousands being gathered in the streets & about the jail. The whole place, Gov. Mayor, Sheriff, everybody knew the man was to be lynched, & not the slightest effort was made in any way to prevent it. The riot-bell was rung about nine o’clock, only to call out a greater mob, & make a worse disorder, & the Mayor was actually walking about, as a citizen among the mobocrats.

The jailor was the only one who behaved like a man, in spite of all efforts & threats he refused to give up the keys, or to tell where they could be found, & the mob broke in seven doors to get at their victim,–dragged him out with a rope round his neck, ran him up the street, then men deliberately, one after another firing at him, & then flung him off the bridge 50 feet into the Cumberland [River] below….

The man deserved hanging, no doubt,–but the whole barbarous proceeding against him, is a fair sample of the feeling here against the “niggers”–& of the respect, in any way, for “law & order.”

My barber told me yesterday that thiry of the colored people had left the city since Thursday night, –& that a great many were leaving all the time,–they felt so “insecure” since the Democrats had got back into power. “Where have they gone?” I asked. “Dey all congregating into Mississippi”—he answered—in which they are doing well.

Question: There is a lot going on in this series of letters. Remember that the year 1875 is critical along with the locations Dickinson visited. This is a letter from the final year of “Reconstruction” (hint: there is an important difference between South Carolina and Tennessee in 1875). What elements of the Reconstruction period do we see highlighted in these letters? What does this suggest about American society after the Civil War? What problems did Americans face as they rebuilt the nation?