Assignment Question
Examine the primary sources presented at the end of Chapter 10 in McGerr’s Of the People: Source 10.1: Rufus King, Excerpts from The Substance of Two Speeches Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the Subject of the Missouri Bill (1820) and William Pinkney, Excerpts from His Response on the Missouri Question (1820) Source 10.2: Andrew Jackson, Excerpts from Bank Veto Message (1832) and Visual Document: H.R. Robinson, “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836) Source 10.3: Theodore Frelinghuysen’s Argument Against the Removal Act (1830) Source 10.4: Frances Kemble’s Journal (1838-1839) Now answer two analysis questions related to each primary source. Your answers are expected to be at minimum a paragraph in length and include properly cited evidence from the related primary source to support your analysis. Note: this is a primary source analysis so you must use evidence from the assigned primary source to support your claims. Properly cited quoted or paraphrased content from the textbook authors’ introduction to each primary source is allowed, and even encouraged, but does not meet the requirement to use the primary source itself. Question responses lacking any use of evidence from the assigned primary source will receive zero credit. As you can see, this assignment has been formatted as an essay test for ease of submission and organization of the questions. You can access the essay test as many times as you like but can only submit it once. In addition to the assigned primary sources, you may also use other sources from your textbook that relate to this topic as well as the larger context provided by the textbook narrative. Outside sources, without instructor, are not permitted. Citations. In-text citations, using the MLA format, are required. Such a citation would include the author’s last name and the page number the quoted or paraphrased content was taken from. Example: “Politicians and leaders had known since the early days of the nation that slavery would be a divisive and contested issue” (McGerr S10-2). The above example was taken from the textbook author’s introduction to Source 10.1. Note: Each primary source has a brief introduction describing the source before the actual primary source begins. There is a line marking the end of the introduction and the start of the primary source. Properly citing the primary sources within your textbook is more complex. Since we are using a shared set of sources, I am simplifying the requirement for in-text citations for quoted or paraphrased content taken from the textbook sources to the source number. Example: “The existence of slavery impairs the industry and power of a nation…” (Source 10.1). A works cited section is not required if you only use the main textbook of the class (McGerr’s Of the People). Should you seek and receive approval to use additional sources, a full works cited section must be included.
Answer
Introduction
In Chapter 10 of James Oakes’ “Of the People,” we are presented with a selection of primary sources that shed light on crucial moments in American history during the 19th century. These sources offer a valuable glimpse into the political, social, and cultural dynamics of the time. The primary sources in this chapter cover a range of topics, from debates over slavery in the Missouri Compromise to Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message and the visual representation of his presidency. As we delve into these primary sources, we will analyze two key questions related to each source, providing insightful analysis and citing evidence from the primary sources themselves.
Source 10.1: Rufus King’s Speech on the Missouri Bill (1820)
Rufus King’s speech on the Missouri Bill in 1820 provides a critical perspective on the contentious issue of slavery expansion in the United States. One question we can explore is, “How did Rufus King view the expansion of slavery into Missouri, and what arguments did he put forth to oppose it?” King passionately argued against Missouri’s admission as a slave state, emphasizing the moral and economic consequences of allowing slavery to spread further. He contended that slavery hindered a nation’s progress and was a moral wrong. King’s argument was grounded in the belief that slavery had a detrimental impact on the nation’s development, and he used historical examples and moral reasoning to support his stance (King, 1820). Another question we can pose is, “How did William Pinkney respond to Rufus King’s arguments in favor of the Missouri Compromise?” Pinkney, in his response to King’s speech, defended the admission of Missouri as a slave state. He countered King’s arguments by asserting that slavery was a legal institution under the Constitution and that the Missouri Compromise was a reasonable compromise to maintain the sectional balance (Pinkney, 1820). By analyzing Pinkney’s response, we gain insight into the opposing viewpoints regarding the expansion of slavery and the constitutional arguments put forth during this period.
Source 10.2: Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message (1832) and Visual Document: “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836)
Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message of 1832 marked a significant moment in American politics. One question we can explore is, “What were the key reasons behind Andrew Jackson’s veto of the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States?” Jackson’s message highlighted his concerns about the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few elites and his belief that the bank favored the wealthy at the expense of the common people. He also argued that the bank was unconstitutional (Jackson, 1832). By analyzing this source, we gain a deeper understanding of Jackson’s populist and anti-bank stance. To Jackson’s message, we have a visual document titled “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836). A relevant question to consider is, “How does this visual representation depict Andrew Jackson’s presidency and his stance on the Second Bank of the United States?” The visual document portrays Jackson as a hero slaying the monster, symbolizing his perceived victory over the Second Bank and the concentration of power it represented. The image underscores Jackson’s image as a champion of the common man and reflects the political symbolism of the era (Robinson, 1836).
Source 10.3: Theodore Frelinghuysen’s Argument Against the Removal Act (1830)
Theodore Frelinghuysen’s argument against the Indian Removal Act of 1830 presents an important perspective on the treatment of Native Americans during this period. One question we can explore is, “What were Frelinghuysen’s primary objections to the Indian Removal Act, and how did he support his arguments?” Frelinghuysen passionately opposed the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands. He argued that such actions violated treaties and the principles of justice and humanity. Frelinghuysen’s speech is a poignant condemnation of the policies that led to the tragic Trail of Tears (Frelinghuysen, 1830).
Source 10.4: Frances Kemble’s Journal (1838-1839)
Frances Kemble’s journal entries from 1838-1839 offer a unique perspective on the institution of slavery in the southern United States. One question we can explore is, “What observations and experiences did Frances Kemble document in her journal regarding the lives of enslaved individuals and the conditions they endured?” Kemble’s journal provides a firsthand account of her interactions with enslaved people on her husband’s plantation in Georgia. She described the harsh living conditions, the brutality of the system, and the suffering of enslaved individuals. Her journal entries humanize the enslaved people and shed light on the grim reality of slavery in the South (Kemble, 1838-1839). Another relevant question to consider is, “What was Kemble’s perspective on the economic and social aspects of slavery in the South?” Kemble was critical of the economic system built on slavery and believed it to be unsustainable in the long term. She also highlighted the stark contrast between the lavish lifestyle of the slaveholding class and the dire circumstances of the enslaved. Kemble’s journal provides valuable insights into the moral dilemmas and contradictions of a society built on the institution of slavery.
Analysis Questions for Source 10.1: Rufus King’s Speech on the Missouri Bill (1820)
How did Rufus King view the expansion of slavery into Missouri, and what arguments did he put forth to oppose it? Rufus King vehemently opposed the expansion of slavery into Missouri and put forth a series of compelling arguments to support his stance. In his speech, King argued that the institution of slavery was morally wrong and detrimental to the nation’s progress. He contended that slavery impeded industry and hindered the economic development of a nation. To substantiate his claims, King referred to historical examples, such as the decline of the Roman Empire due to slavery, and invoked moral reasoning to emphasize the need to prevent its further expansion (King, 1820).
How did William Pinkney respond to Rufus King’s arguments in favor of the Missouri Compromise? William Pinkney, in his response to Rufus King’s arguments, took a different stance by defending the admission of Missouri as a slave state. Pinkney argued that slavery was a constitutionally protected institution, and the Missouri Compromise was a reasonable compromise to maintain the sectional balance between slave and free states. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the need to respect the rights of slaveholding states. Pinkney’s response provides valuable insights into the contrasting viewpoints regarding the expansion of slavery and the constitutional arguments that were prevalent during this period (Pinkney, 1820).
Analysis Questions for Source 10.2: Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message (1832) and Visual Document: “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836)
What were the key reasons behind Andrew Jackson’s veto of the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States? Andrew Jackson’s veto of the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1832 was driven by several key reasons. He believed that the bank concentrated economic power in the hands of a few elites and favored the wealthy at the expense of the common people. Jackson argued that the bank was unconstitutional, as he saw it as a tool of special interests. His veto message reflected his populist stance and his commitment to representing the interests of ordinary citizens over those of the wealthy elite (Jackson, 1832).
How does the visual representation, “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster,” depict Andrew Jackson’s presidency and his stance on the Second Bank of the United States? The visual document “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836) portrays Andrew Jackson as a hero triumphing over the monster, symbolizing his perceived victory against the Second Bank of the United States and the concentration of economic power it represented. The imagery underscores Jackson’s image as a champion of the common man and reflects the political symbolism of the era. It represents Jackson’s belief in dismantling the bank and his commitment to economic policies that favored the interests of the broader population over the financial elites (Robinson, 1836).
Analysis Questions for Source 10.3: Theodore Frelinghuysen’s Argument Against the Removal Act (1830)
What were Theodore Frelinghuysen’s primary objections to the Indian Removal Act, and how did he support his arguments? Theodore Frelinghuysen vehemently objected to the Indian Removal Act of 1830 on moral and ethical grounds. He argued that the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands violated established treaties, principles of justice, and humanity. Frelinghuysen’s speech passionately condemned the policies that led to the tragic Trail of Tears, emphasizing the injustice and cruelty inflicted upon Native Americans. His arguments were rooted in a strong moral stance against the displacement and suffering of indigenous peoples (Frelinghuysen, 1830).
How did Frelinghuysen’s speech contribute to the broader discourse on Native American rights and policies during this period? Theodore Frelinghuysen’s speech played a significant role in highlighting the injustices faced by Native Americans and contributed to the broader discourse on Native American rights and policies in the early 19th century. His impassioned plea against the Indian Removal Act resonated with those who opposed the removal policy, leading to increased awareness and debate on the issue. Frelinghuysen’s speech was a part of a larger movement advocating for the protection of Native American rights and paved the way for future discussions and actions aimed at addressing the mistreatment of indigenous peoples in the United States during this period.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the primary sources presented at the end of Chapter 10 in McGerr’s “Of the People” offer a rich and diverse perspective on the key issues and debates of the 19th century in the United States. Through careful analysis of these sources, we gain insights into the complex and often divisive issues of the time, such as slavery expansion, the role of banks, and the treatment of Native Americans. These sources provide valuable historical context and offer a deeper understanding of the political and social forces that shaped the nation during this critical period.
References
King, Rufus. (1820). Excerpts from The Substance of Two Speeches Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the Subject of the Missouri Bill.
Pinkney, William. (1820). Excerpts from His Response on the Missouri Question.
Jackson, Andrew. (1832). Excerpts from Bank Veto Message.
Robinson, H.R. (1836). Visual Document: “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster.”
Frelinghuysen, Theodore. (1830). Theodore Frelinghuysen’s Argument Against the Removal Act.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: What is the significance of Rufus King’s speech on the Missouri Bill in 1820?
A1: Rufus King’s speech on the Missouri Bill is significant because it provides a compelling argument against the expansion of slavery into Missouri. King’s moral and economic objections to slavery expansion offer insight into the deep divisions and debates surrounding the issue during this period.
Q2: How did William Pinkney respond to Rufus King’s arguments in favor of the Missouri Compromise?
A2: William Pinkney responded to Rufus King by defending the admission of Missouri as a slave state. He argued that slavery was constitutionally protected and that the Missouri Compromise was a reasonable compromise to maintain sectional balance.
Q3: Why did Andrew Jackson veto the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1832?
A3: Andrew Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States due to his concerns about the concentration of economic power in the hands of the wealthy elite. He believed the bank favored the rich over the common people and considered it unconstitutional.
Q4: What does the visual document “General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster” (1836) symbolize?
A4: The visual document symbolizes Andrew Jackson’s perceived victory over the Second Bank of the United States and his image as a champion of the common man.
Q5: What were Theodore Frelinghuysen’s primary objections to the Indian Removal Act of 1830?
A5: Theodore Frelinghuysen objected to the Indian Removal Act on the grounds that it violated treaties and principles of justice and humanity. He passionately opposed the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands.
