The Declaration of Independence and Other Great Documents of American History

1775-1865

John Grafton

• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780486411248
• eBook ISBN: 9780486110684
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: North American History
• Index: Literature

The great documents in this important collection helped form the foundation of American democratic government. Compelling, influential, and often inspirational, they range from Patrick Henry's dramatic "Give me liberty or give me death" speech at the start of the American Revolution to Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, issued in the closing weeks of the Civil War.
Also included are:

• The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson's classic rationale for rejecting allegiance to the government of King George III.
• The Constitution of the United States, America's most important political and social document in structuring its government.
• The Monroe Doctrine, the cornerstone of American foreign policy.
• Father of the Constitution, author of the Bill of Rights, and fourth President of the United States James Madison's The Federalist, No. 10.
• George Washington's First Inaugural Address and Farewell Address.
• Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address.
• William Lloyd Garrison's Prospectus for The Liberator.
• Andrew Jackson's Veto of the Bank Bill.
• Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, Emancipation Proclamation, and Gettysburg Address.

An introductory note precedes the text of each document, providing fascinating background history and information about the author. An indispensable reference for students, this handy compendium will also serve as an invaluable introduction for general readers to American political writing.

William Lloyd Garrison: The Liberator January 1, 1831

Born in 1805, from a middle-class New England family, William Lloyd Garrison became in his twenties one of the nation’s dominant voices against the evils of slavery. Apprenticed to a newspaper editor at age thirteen, Garrison was a few years later publishing his own paper, hammering away at the issue of slavery. While he was working in Baltimore in the late 1820s with co-editor Benjamin Lundy on a paper called The Genius of Universal Emancipation, the force of his convictions landed Garrison in prison for libel when he called the owner of a slave transport ship a murderer. After serving seven weeks of a six-month sentence, he was freed when supporters donated the money necessary to pay his fine. Back in Boston, Garrison launched a new paper, The Liberator, the editorial philosophy of which he issued in a prospectus reprinted here and first published on January 1, 1831. The spokesman for the immediate, not the gradual, end of slavery in America, Garrison campaigned tirelessly for this cause. His views were so strongly expressed that in Columbia, South Carolina, for example, the local Vigilance Committee offered a $1,500 reward for the arrest of anyone distributing The Liberator.

Garrison’s strong and unyielding beliefs brought him into conflict with others in the anti-slavery movement, as well as with those on the other side of the issue. He disdained political action, attacked religious leaders for not being active enough in the cause of freedom, and was an early proponent of peaceful disobedience—positions not necessarily shared by everyone in the emancipation movement. Slavery was the dominant issue of his life as an activist but not the only one: the pages of The Liberator were also used in the cause of women’s rights, temperance, against cruelty to animals, and many other causes. Ratification of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution in 1865 brought one phase of Garrison’s life as a crusader to a close. “I am unspeakably happy to believe,” he said with undisguised satisfaction at an occasion celebrating the end of slavery in America, “that the great mass of my countrymen are now heartily disposed to admit that I have not acted the part of a madman, fanatic, incendiary, or traitor.” Garrison died in 1879.

During my recent tour for the purpose of exciting the minds of the people by a series of discourses on the subject of slavery, every place that I visited gave fresh evidence of the fact that a greater revolution in public sentiment was to be effected in the free states—and particularly in New England—than at the South. I find contempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slaveowners themselves. Of course, there were individual exceptions to the contrary.

This state of things afflicted but did not dishearten me. I determined, at every hazard, to lift up the standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of Bunker Hill and in the birthplace of liberty. That standard is now unfurled; and long may it float, unhurt by the spo-liations of time or the missiles of a desperate foe—yea, till every chain be broken, and every bondman set free! Let Southern oppressors tremble—let all the enemies of the persecuted black tremble....

Assenting to the “self-evident truth” maintained in the American Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement of our slave population.... In Park Street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice, and absurdity....

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat in a single inch—and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

It is pretended that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question my influence—humble as it is—is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years—not perniciously, but beneficially—not as a curse, but as a blessing. And posterity will bear testimony that I was right.

The Liberator (Boston), Jan. 1, 1831.

Andrew Jackson: Veto of the Bank Bill July 10, 1832

In 1832, Nicholas Biddle, president of the Bank of the United States, asked Congress to recharter his institution four years before the bank’s charter was due to expire under law. The bank originated under Alexander Hamilton’s leadership during the Washington administration, and with its joint private and government directorship provided needed stability and focus to the country’s emerging commercial and financial infrastructure. The bill for the recharter of the bank passed the Senate on June 11th and the House on July 3rd. The House version included some revisions which were acceptable to the Senate. On July 10th, however, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bank bill, attacking the bank as undemocratic, monopolistic, and dangerous to American principles and institutions because of undue foreign influence. Jackson’s knowledge of banking and economics was primitive, but he had the frontiersman’s distrust of paper money and of all banks, which he saw as tools of the rich who expected Congress to pass laws to help make them richer.

Jackson’s veto statement on the bank bill, reprinted here in slightly abridged form, became one of the classic expositions of the philosophy of Jacksonian democracy, spotlighting new forces in America some five decades after the Constitution had been adopted. In a sense, it posed an older, aristocratic American politics—dominated by the heirs of venerable New England and Virginia families—in opposition to a newer American politics responsive to a more democratic population. Not tied to Europe or the Founding Fathers, and moving westward with the new country, these were the people Jackson and his supporters perceived as the foundation of their strength. An attempt to override the bank bill veto failed in the Senate, and the issue became the prime focus of the 1832 presidential campaign. Jackson may have known little about economics—and the judgment of history is that his long campaign against the Bank of the United States produced unintended consequences that impacted negatively on rich and poor alike for decades—but there was no doubt that in the immediate present he had struck a populist chord which couldn’t be denied. With Martin Van Buren as his running mate, Jackson easily won re-election over Henry Clay, with a substantial majority of the popular vote and a convincing 219—49 victory in the Electoral College.

The bill “to modify and continue” the act entitled “An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States” was presented to me on the 4th July instant. Having considered it with that solemn regard to the principles of the Constitution which the day was calculated to inspire, and come to the conclusion that it ought not to become a law, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections.

A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early period of my Administration to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.

An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands it is conceded that its passage will increase at least 20 or 30 per cent more the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act, thus adding in a moment one-fourth to its par value. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners, and to some of our own opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people. It is due to them, therefore, if their Government sell monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an advance of 50 per cent, and command in market at least $42,000,000, subject to the payment of the present bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is $17,000,000, and this the act proposes to sell for three millions, payable in fifteen annual installments of $200,000 each.

It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the Government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the Government sell out the whole stock and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchases with all the powers and privileges secured in this act and putting the premium upon the sales into the Treasury?

But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right not only to the favor but to the bounty of Government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth. This seems the less excusable because some of our citizens not now stockholders petitioned that the door of competition might be opened, and offered to take a charter on terms much more favorable to the Government and country.

But this proposition, although made by men whose aggregate wealth is believed to be equal to all the private stock in the existing bank, has been set aside, and the bounty of our Government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this moment wield the power of the existing institution. I can not perceive the justice or policy of this course. If our Government must sell monopolies, it would seem to be its duty to take nothing less than their full value, and if gratuities must be made once in fifteen or twenty years let them not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. It is but justice and good policy as far as the nature of the case will admit, to confine our favors to our own fellow-citizens, and let each in his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty. In the bearings of the act before me upon these points I find ample reasons why it should not become a law.

It has been urged as an argument in favor of rechartering the present bank that the calling in its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample, and if it has well managed its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own, and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government.

The modifications of the existing charter proposed by this act are not such, in my view, as make it consistent with the rights of the States or the liberties of the people. The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate, the limitation of its power to establish branches, and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the circulation of small notes are restrictions comparatively of little value or importance. All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation....

In another of its bearings this provision is fraught with danger. Of the twenty-five directors of this bank five are chosen by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. From all voice in these elections the foreign stockholders are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders the extent of suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed. Already is almost a third of the stock in foreign hands and not represented in elections. It is constantly passing out of the country, and this act will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the institution would necessarily fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be accomplished would be a temptation to designing men to secure that control in their own hands by monopolizing the remaining stock. There is danger that a president and directors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year, and without responsibility or control manage the whole concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.

If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200,000,000 could readily be obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture.

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as 4 to 1. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than one opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve....

The bank is professedly established as an agent of the executive branch of the Government, and its constitutionality is maintained on that ground. Neither upon the propriety of present action nor upon the provisions of this act was the Executive consulted. It has had no opportunity to say that it neither needs nor wants an agent clothed with such powers and favored by such exemptions. There is nothing in its legitimate functions which makes it necessary or proper. Whatever interest or influence, whether public or private, has given birth to th...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Introduction
• Table of Contents
• Patrick Henry: “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” March 23, 1775
• Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
• The Constitution of the United States September 17, 1787
• James Madison: The Federalist, Number 10 November 23, 1787
• George Washington: First Inaugural Address April 30, 1789
• George Washington: Farewell Address September 19, 1796
• Thomas Jefferson: First Inaugural Address March 4, 1801
• James Monroe: The Monroe Doctrine December 2, 1823
• William Lloyd Garrison: The Liberator January 1, 1831
• Andrew Jackson: Veto of the Bank Bill July 10, 1832
• Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861
• Abraham Lincoln: The Emancipation Proclamation January 1, 1863
• Abraham Lincoln: The Gettysburg Address November 19, 1863
• Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address March 4, 1865
• DOVER • THRIFT • EDITIONS