located in Cuzco. The Inca Empire arose from the highlands of Peru sometime in early 13th century. From 1438 to 1533, the Incas used a variety of methods, from conquest to peaceful assimilation, to incorporate a large portion of western South America, centered on the Andean mountain ranges, including large parts of modern Ecuador, Peru, western and south central Bolivia, northwest Argentina, and north and north-central Chile. The Incas identified themselves as "children of the sun."
Most headrights were for 50 to 100 acres of land, and were given to anyone willing to cross the Atlantic Ocean and help populate the colonies. These were granted to anyone who would pay for the transportation costs of a laborer or Indentured servant. By giving the land to the landowning masters, the indentured servants had little or no chance to procure their own land. This kept many colonials poor and led to strife between the poor servants and wealthy landowners.
Dissident - (July, 1591 – July, 1643). She was the unauthorized Puritan preacher of a dissident church discussion group and a pioneer settler in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Netherlands. Anne held Bible study meetings for women, but because of how popular they were men soon came too, and she went beyond scriptural study to bold declarations of her own religious philosophy. Controversy ensued, and she was eventually banished from her colony. She is a key figure in the study of the development of religious freedom in Britain's American colonies.
The Restoration of the English monarchy began in 1660 when the English, Scottish and Irish monarchies were all restored under Charles II after the Interregnum that followed the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The term Restoration is used to describe both the actual event by which the monarchy was restored, and the period of several years afterwards in which a new political settlement was established. It is very often used to cover the whole reign of Charles II (1660-1685) and often the brief reign of his younger brother James II (1685-1688).
THE AMERICAN ENLIGHTENMENT
• The American Enlightenment is a term sometimes employed to describe the intellectual culture of the British North American colonies and the early United States (as they became known following the American Revolution). It was a part of a larger intellectual movement known as the Age of Enlightenment.
• Influenced by the scientific revolution of the 17th century, the Enlightenment took scientific reasoning and applied it to human nature and society. There was a shift from God-centered thinking to human being centered. Instead of going through life unhappy and thinking they had to suffer so they could enjoy the afterlife - people began to think about what they could accomplish on earth.
• The American Enlightenment began during the 1690s but didn’t become fully realized until the 1730s. The origins of the American Enlightenment are predominantly European. However Puritan culture also contributed to the prominence of the Enlightenment in America. Small Puritan religious colleges were one of the few places where philosophy was discussed prior to the Enlightenment. During the American Enlightenment these colleges rapidly expanded and became the breeding grounds for the Enlightenment thinkers.
• Throughout the colonies "Enlightened" individuals focused on classical writings for inspiration. The American Enlightenment was categorized not only by knowledge of classical writings but also an atmosphere where people craved new knowledge and wisdom. It was that craving that inspired people to make new developments in science, religion, and politics.
The Townshend Acts were a series of acts passed, beginning in 1767, by the Parliament of Great Britain relating to the British colonies in North America. The acts are named after Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who proposed the program. Historians vary slightly in which acts they include under the heading "Townshend Acts", but five laws are often mentioned: the Revenue Act of 1767, the Indemnity Act, the Commissioners of Customs Act, the Vice Admiralty Court Act, and the New York Restraining Act. The purpose of the Townshend Acts was to raise revenue in the colonies to pay the salaries of governors and judges so that they would remain loyal to Great Britain, to create a more effective means of enforcing compliance with trade regulations, to punish the province of New York for failing to comply with the 1765 Quartering Act, and to establish the precedent that the British Parliament had the right to tax the colonies. The Townshend Acts were met with resistance in the colonies, prompting the occupation of Boston by British troops in 1768, which eventually resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770
As a result of widespread protest in the American colonies, Parliament began to consider a motion to partially repeal the Townshend duties. Most of the new taxes were repealed, but the tax on tea was retained. The British government continued in its attempt to tax the colonists without their consent and the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution followed.
–Olive Branch Petition - The Olive Branch Petition, written in the early days of the American Revolution, was a letter to King George III from members of the Second Continental Congress who—for the final time—appealed to their king to redress colonial grievances in order to avoid more bloodshed. It was drafted by John Dickensian and was an attempt to keep the colonies within the English Empire. But, England rejected this offer. The Olive Branch Petition has been called different names over the years, the most popular of which include The Second Petition to the King and The Humble Petition.
Declaration of Sentiments
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their powers from theconsent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed, but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
|He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.|
|He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.|
|He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners.|
|Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.|
|He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.|
|He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.|
|He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.|
|He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.|
|After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.|
|He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.|
|He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.|
|He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.|
|He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.|
|He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.|
|He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.|
|He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.|
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.
In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.
•Mercantilism is an economic theory that the prosperity of a nation depends upon its capital, and that the volume of the world economy and international trade is unchangeable. Government economic policy based on these ideas is also sometimes called mercantilism, but is more properly known as the mercantile system. Some scholars conceive the mercantile system as a subset of, or synonymous with, the early stages of capitalism, while others consider mercantilism to be a distinct economic system.
The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (James VII of Scotland and James II of Ireland) by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange). William's successful invasion of England with a Dutch fleet and army led to his ascending of the English throne as William III of England jointly with his wife Mary II of England.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
A bill of particulars documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties.
|Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the
present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
This section essentially finished the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.
|Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.|
The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.
|We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.|
Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention 1787
Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural
world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the
rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Deism
gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of
Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany and America—among
intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with
organized religion and could not believe in supernatural events such as
miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.
Deism is derived from deus, the Latin word for god. The
earliest known usage in print of the English term deist is 1621, and deism
is first found in a 1675 dictionary. Deistic ideas influenced several leaders of
the American and French Revolutions. Two main forms of deism currently exist:
classical deism and modern deism.
JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY was built
on the following general principles:
The Jacksonians believed that
voting rights should be extended to all white men . By 1820, universal
white male suffrage was the norm, and by 1850 nearly all requirements to own property or pay
taxes had been dropped.
This was the belief that white
Americans had a destiny to settle the American West and
to expand control from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and that the West
should be settled by yeoman
farmers. However, the Free Soil Jacksonians, notably Martin Van Buren,
argued for limitations on slavery in the new areas to enable the poor white man to
flourish; they split with the main party briefly in 1848. The Whigs generally
opposed Manifest Destiny and expansion, saying the nation should build up its
Also known as the spoils system,
patronage was the policy of placing political supporters into appointed
offices. Many Jacksonians held the view that rotating political appointees in
and out of office was not only the right but also the duty of winners in
political contests. Patronage was theorized to be good because it would
encourage political participation by the common man and because it would make
a politician more accountable for poor government service by his appointees.
Jacksonians also held that long tenure in the civil service was corrupting, so
civil servants should be rotated out of office at regular intervals. However,
it often led to the hiring of incompetent and sometimes corrupt officials due
to the emphasis on party loyalty above any other qualifications.
Like the Jeffersonians who
strongly believed in the Kentucky
and Virginia Resolutions, Jacksonians initially favored a federal government of
limited powers. Jackson said that he would guard against "all
encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State sovereignty." However,
he was not a states' rights
extremist; indeed, the Nullification
find Jackson fighting against what he perceived as state encroachments on the
proper sphere of federal influence. This position was one basis for the
Jacksonians' opposition to the Second
Bank of the United States. As the Jacksonians consolidated power, they more often
advocated expanding federal power, presidential power in particular.
Complementing a strict
construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians generally favored a
hands-off approach to the economy, as opposed to the Whig program sponsoring
modernization, railroads, banking, and economic growth. The leader was William Leggett of
the Locofocos in New York City.
In particular, the Jacksonians
opposed government-granted monopolies to banks, especially the national bank,
a central bank known as the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson said,
"The bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" And he did so.
The Whigs, who strongly supported the Bank, were led by Daniel Webster and Nicholas
bank chairman. Jackson himself was opposed to all banks because he believed
they were devices to cheat common people; he and many followers believed that
only gold and silver should be money.
In the United States in the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. This concept, born out of "A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example ... generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". The phrase itself meant many different things to many different people, and was rejected by many people. Some argue that nevertheless American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity. That is, most Democrats strongly supported Manifest Destiny and most Whigs strongly opposed it.
Manifest destiny provided the rhetorical tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with Great Britain. But Manifest Destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says historian Frederick Merck. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.
The Freeport Doctrine
The Freeport Doctrine
Freeport Doctrine was articulated by Stephen
A. Douglas at the second of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on August 27,
1858, in Freeport,
Illinois. Lincoln tried to force Douglas to choose between the
principle of popular
sovereignty proposed by the Kansas-Nebraska
Act and the majority decision of the United
States Supreme Court in the case of Dred
Scott v. Sandford, which stated that slavery could not legally be
excluded from U.S. territories (since Douglas professed great respect for
Supreme Court decisions, and accused the Republicans of disrespecting the court,
yet this aspect of the Dred Scott decision was contrary to Douglas' views and
politically unpopular in Illinois). Instead of making a direct choice, Douglas'
response stated that despite the court's ruling, slavery
could be prevented from any territory by the refusal of the people living in
that territory to pass laws favorable to slavery. Likewise, if the people of the
territory supported slavery, legislation would provide for its continued
is the act of withdrawing from a union, or political entity. It is not to be
confused with succession, the act of following in order or sequence. Typically
there is a strong issue difference that drives the withdrawal (in our case,
slavery). The word is derived from the Latin term secessio
states declared their secession from the United States, joining together to
form the Confederate States of America. These states were Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Missouri, and Kentucky. The last two states
were never controlled by the Confederate government and both also had
pro-Union governments. This secession movement brought about the American
Civil War. The position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a
sovereign nation but instead a collection of states in revolt. (See Lecture
Postings for the Ordinance of Secession of the State of Texas)
Lincoln on Slavery and the Union
August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he
had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter
in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New
York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln
differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he
can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views.
Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free
all the slaves:
would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.
The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be
"the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union,
unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If
there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time
destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle
is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I
could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could
save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about
slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to
save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts
the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the
cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt
new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my
purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of
my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
THE TRENT AFFAIR
The Trent Affair was an international
diplomatic incident that occurred during the American Civil War. On
November 8, 1861, the USS San Jacinto,
commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet
(ship) RMS Trent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell. The envoys were bound for Great Britain and
France to press the Confederacy's case for diplomatic recognition and financial
support for the Confederacy in the name of King Cotton.
The initial reaction in the United States was to rally
against Britain, threatening war; but President Abraham Lincoln and his top advisors did not want to risk war.
In the Confederate States,
the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Anglo-American
relations and even diplomatic recognition by Britain of the
Confederacy. Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on a
war between Britain and the U.S. In Britain, the public expressed outrage at
this violation of neutral
rights and insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an
apology and the release of the prisoners while it took steps to strengthen its
military forces in Canada and the Atlantic.
After several weeks of tension and loose talk of war, the
crisis was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions. No formal apology was
issued. Mason and Slidell resumed their voyage to Britain but failed in their
goal of achieving diplomatic recognition.