Search this site

Colonial Era Chapter 3: Intercolonial Wars 1675 ― 1763 First Intercolonial War 1675-1702 Second Intercolonial War 1702-1727 Third Intercolonial War 1727-1749 Fourth Intercolonial War 1749-1763 Nova Britannia 1603 ― 1675 Previous Chapter Join or Die 1763 ― 1775 Next Chapter Colonial Era Sponsors In Grateful Recognition Patrons of the Past: (Sponsoring all nine Eras) Doug Shubert Adam Shubert Cathy Gillespie Sponsors of the Colonial Era: Bernie Frischer Sponsor an Era Documents Filter by Type Filter by Author Reset Filter by Era Master Index Read Document 04/17/1492 The formal agreement between Christopher Columbus and the Catholic Monarchs, outlining the terms of his voyage, including titles, governance, and a share of profits from any lands discovered. It provides a primary record of how Spain officially authorized and incentivized overseas exploration, establishing Columbus’s authority and the framework for his expeditions. Ferdinand of Aragon Capitulations of Santa Fe Read Document 04/30/1492 Issued by Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the charter grants Christopher Columbus hereditary titles of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Viceroy, and Governor over discovered lands, along with a share of profits. It establishes a legal and economic framework for exploration, showing how the Spanish Crown incentivized expansion through private enterprise while maintaining authority over commerce, territory, and governance. Ferdinand of Aragon Privileges Granted to Columbus Read Document 08/03/1492 Columbus sailed west under the Spanish Crown seeking a route to Asia, making landfall in the Bahamas on 12 October 1492 and initiating sustained contact between Europe and the Americas. He explored Cuba and Hispaniola and founded the short-lived La Navidad. His 1492–1493 journal, the earliest detailed European account of the Caribbean, survives only through the abstracted transcription of Bartolomé de las Casas. Christopher Columbus Columbus' Diary of His First Voyage Read Document 02/15/1493 Columbus’s letter announcing the results of his first voyage was published across Europe, describing the islands he encountered, their peoples, and the vast potential for wealth and Christian expansion. Framing the discovery as a triumph for Spain, the letter promised new lands rich in resources and ripe for conversion, bolstering Spanish prestige and competition with rival European powers. Christopher Columbus Columbus' Letter of His First Voyage Read Document 05/04/1493 Issued in 1493, Pope Alexander VI grants Spain rights to lands “discovered” west of a line of longitude while recognizing prior Portuguese claims to lands east of it. Written in Latin, this bull established the principle that non-Christian lands could be claimed by European powers, forming the basis for future colonization of the Americas. Pope Alexander VI Inter caetera Read Document 06/07/1494 An agreement between Spain and Portugal, mediated by the Pope, that divided newly discovered lands outside Europe along a meridian 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. This treaty granted Spain rights to most of the Americas while Portugal secured control over Africa, Asia, and later Brazil, shaping the course of global empire. Pope Alexander VI Treaty of Tordesillas Read Document 03/05/1496 Venetian explorer John Cabot, sailing under commission from England’s Henry VII, made landfall on the coast of North America, likely Newfoundland, on June 24, becoming the first known European since the Norse to reach the mainland. His voyage laid the foundation for England’s territorial claims in the New World, shaping the future of English colonization. Henry VII John Cabot's First Patent Read Document 05/10/1497 Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine navigator working for Spain, claimed to have sailed on a 1497–1498 voyage along the coast of the New World, possibly reaching Central America, though the authenticity of this voyage remains disputed by historians. Amerigo Vespucci Amerigo Vespucci First Voyage Read Document 07/22/1497 The Spanish Crown issued royal instructions authorizing Christopher Columbus to promote permanent settlement on Hispaniola by distributing land and requiring colonists to cultivate crops and develop the island’s resources. This decree marked an early shift from exploration toward organized colonization and agricultural exploitation in Spain’s emerging American empire. Ferdinand of Aragon Decree to Cultivate American Colonies Read Document 03/05/1498 Second letters patent issued by Henry VII granting John Cabot authority to outfit up to six ships and return to newly discovered lands (February 3, 1498), expanding royal support for exploration while relying on private financing, after which Cabot departed later that year on a voyage whose date, route, and fate remain unknown, with his pension ending in 1499 suggesting he likely died during or shortly after the expedition. Henry VII John Cabot's Second Patent Read Document 1503 Mundus Novus is a letter, attributed to Amerigo Vespucci, describing his voyages to the newly encountered lands across the Atlantic. Written in Latin and first printed in 1503, it introduced European readers to the idea that these lands were not Asia, but a “New World” previously unknown to Europeans. The letter emphasizes the vast size, natural wealth, and distinct peoples of these territories, fueling curiosity and prompting further exploration. Amerigo Vespucci Mundus Novus Read Document 12/27/1512 Promulgated by King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Juana of Castile in Burgos, Spain; the first comprehensive legal code regulating Spanish conduct, labor obligations, living conditions, and religious instruction of Indigenous peoples in the Americas, initially on Hispaniola and later applied to Puerto Rico and Jamaica, establishing the Crown’s framework for colonial governance and the treatment of native populations. Ferdinand of Aragon The Laws of Burgos 1 2 3 ... 135 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 ... 135 Biographies Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) was a Genoese navigator who sailed under the Spanish Crown and completed four transatlantic voyages beginning in 1492. He is best known for making sustained European contact with the Americas while searching for a western sea route to Asia. His expeditions initiated the Columbian Exchange and Spanish colonization of the Caribbean, though his governance and treatment of Indigenous peoples remain deeply controversial. View Bio Christopher Columbus John Rolfe (c. 1585–1622) was an English colonist who became one of the most important figures in the early development of Virginia. He helped establish Virginia’s tobacco industry and married Pocahontas in 1614, contributing to a period of improved relations between the English and the Powhatan Confederacy. His legacy is closely tied to the economic growth of Jamestown, the colonization of Virginia, and the complex history of English-Indigenous relations in early America. View Bio John Rolfe John Winthrop (1588–1649) was an English Puritan leader who helped establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony and served as its governor for much of its early history. In 1630, he led a large group of Puritan settlers to New England as part of the Great Migration, seeking to establish a religious community based on Puritan principles. As governor, Winthrop shaped the colony's government and society, leaving a lasting legacy as one of the most influential leaders in early New England. View Bio John Winthrop Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) rose from humble beginnings as a runaway printer’s apprentice to become a leading writer, scientist, diplomat, and statesman whose influence shaped every stage of America’s founding. Through intellect, wit, and practical wisdom, he helped secure independence, unite the colonies, and design a constitutional republic that could endure. View Bio Benjamin Franklin Roger Sherman (1721–1793) was a Connecticut statesman and lawyer who played a central role in America’s founding and is the only person to sign all four key founding documents: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution. A delegate to both Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, he later served in the first U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, shaping the early structure of the federal government. View Bio Roger Sherman Samuel Adams (1722–1803) was an American revolutionary, Founding Father, and political leader who became one of the most influential organizers of resistance to British rule. He helped mobilize opposition to British taxation, supported American independence, signed the Declaration of Independence, and later served as governor of Massachusetts. He opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. View Bio Samuel Adams Reset Filter by Era Filter by Office 1 2 3 ... 18 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 18 Search by Name

Revolutionary Era Chapter 5: Independence 1775 ― 1784 Dissolving the Bands 1775-1776 The Great Revolution 1776-1782 Novus Ordo Seclorum 1782-1784 Join or Die 1763 ― 1775 Previous Chapter More Perfect Union 1784 ― 1789 Next Chapter Revolutionary Era Sponsors In Grateful Recognition "Patrons of the Past" (Sponsoring all nine Eras) Doug Shubert Adam Shubert Cathy Gillespie Sponsor an Era Documents Filter by Type Filter by Author Reset Filter by Era Master Index Read Document 04/17/1492 The formal agreement between Christopher Columbus and the Catholic Monarchs, outlining the terms of his voyage, including titles, governance, and a share of profits from any lands discovered. It provides a primary record of how Spain officially authorized and incentivized overseas exploration, establishing Columbus’s authority and the framework for his expeditions. Ferdinand of Aragon Capitulations of Santa Fe Read Document 04/30/1492 Issued by Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the charter grants Christopher Columbus hereditary titles of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Viceroy, and Governor over discovered lands, along with a share of profits. It establishes a legal and economic framework for exploration, showing how the Spanish Crown incentivized expansion through private enterprise while maintaining authority over commerce, territory, and governance. Ferdinand of Aragon Privileges Granted to Columbus Read Document 08/03/1492 Columbus sailed west under the Spanish Crown seeking a route to Asia, making landfall in the Bahamas on 12 October 1492 and initiating sustained contact between Europe and the Americas. He explored Cuba and Hispaniola and founded the short-lived La Navidad. His 1492–1493 journal, the earliest detailed European account of the Caribbean, survives only through the abstracted transcription of Bartolomé de las Casas. Christopher Columbus Columbus' Diary of His First Voyage Read Document 02/15/1493 Columbus’s letter announcing the results of his first voyage was published across Europe, describing the islands he encountered, their peoples, and the vast potential for wealth and Christian expansion. Framing the discovery as a triumph for Spain, the letter promised new lands rich in resources and ripe for conversion, bolstering Spanish prestige and competition with rival European powers. Christopher Columbus Columbus' Letter of His First Voyage Read Document 05/04/1493 Issued in 1493, Pope Alexander VI grants Spain rights to lands “discovered” west of a line of longitude while recognizing prior Portuguese claims to lands east of it. Written in Latin, this bull established the principle that non-Christian lands could be claimed by European powers, forming the basis for future colonization of the Americas. Pope Alexander VI Inter caetera Read Document 06/07/1494 An agreement between Spain and Portugal, mediated by the Pope, that divided newly discovered lands outside Europe along a meridian 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. This treaty granted Spain rights to most of the Americas while Portugal secured control over Africa, Asia, and later Brazil, shaping the course of global empire. Pope Alexander VI Treaty of Tordesillas Read Document 03/05/1496 Venetian explorer John Cabot, sailing under commission from England’s Henry VII, made landfall on the coast of North America, likely Newfoundland, on June 24, becoming the first known European since the Norse to reach the mainland. His voyage laid the foundation for England’s territorial claims in the New World, shaping the future of English colonization. Henry VII John Cabot's First Patent Read Document 05/10/1497 Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine navigator working for Spain, claimed to have sailed on a 1497–1498 voyage along the coast of the New World, possibly reaching Central America, though the authenticity of this voyage remains disputed by historians. Amerigo Vespucci Amerigo Vespucci First Voyage Read Document 07/22/1497 The Spanish Crown issued royal instructions authorizing Christopher Columbus to promote permanent settlement on Hispaniola by distributing land and requiring colonists to cultivate crops and develop the island’s resources. This decree marked an early shift from exploration toward organized colonization and agricultural exploitation in Spain’s emerging American empire. Ferdinand of Aragon Decree to Cultivate American Colonies Read Document 03/05/1498 Second letters patent issued by Henry VII granting John Cabot authority to outfit up to six ships and return to newly discovered lands (February 3, 1498), expanding royal support for exploration while relying on private financing, after which Cabot departed later that year on a voyage whose date, route, and fate remain unknown, with his pension ending in 1499 suggesting he likely died during or shortly after the expedition. Henry VII John Cabot's Second Patent Read Document 1503 Mundus Novus is a letter, attributed to Amerigo Vespucci, describing his voyages to the newly encountered lands across the Atlantic. Written in Latin and first printed in 1503, it introduced European readers to the idea that these lands were not Asia, but a “New World” previously unknown to Europeans. The letter emphasizes the vast size, natural wealth, and distinct peoples of these territories, fueling curiosity and prompting further exploration. Amerigo Vespucci Mundus Novus Read Document 12/27/1512 Promulgated by King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Juana of Castile in Burgos, Spain; the first comprehensive legal code regulating Spanish conduct, labor obligations, living conditions, and religious instruction of Indigenous peoples in the Americas, initially on Hispaniola and later applied to Puerto Rico and Jamaica, establishing the Crown’s framework for colonial governance and the treatment of native populations. Ferdinand of Aragon The Laws of Burgos 1 2 3 ... 135 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 ... 135 Biographies Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) was a Genoese navigator who sailed under the Spanish Crown and completed four transatlantic voyages beginning in 1492. He is best known for making sustained European contact with the Americas while searching for a western sea route to Asia. His expeditions initiated the Columbian Exchange and Spanish colonization of the Caribbean, though his governance and treatment of Indigenous peoples remain deeply controversial. View Bio Christopher Columbus John Rolfe (c. 1585–1622) was an English colonist who became one of the most important figures in the early development of Virginia. He helped establish Virginia’s tobacco industry and married Pocahontas in 1614, contributing to a period of improved relations between the English and the Powhatan Confederacy. His legacy is closely tied to the economic growth of Jamestown, the colonization of Virginia, and the complex history of English-Indigenous relations in early America. View Bio John Rolfe John Winthrop (1588–1649) was an English Puritan leader who helped establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony and served as its governor for much of its early history. In 1630, he led a large group of Puritan settlers to New England as part of the Great Migration, seeking to establish a religious community based on Puritan principles. As governor, Winthrop shaped the colony's government and society, leaving a lasting legacy as one of the most influential leaders in early New England. View Bio John Winthrop Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) rose from humble beginnings as a runaway printer’s apprentice to become a leading writer, scientist, diplomat, and statesman whose influence shaped every stage of America’s founding. Through intellect, wit, and practical wisdom, he helped secure independence, unite the colonies, and design a constitutional republic that could endure. View Bio Benjamin Franklin Roger Sherman (1721–1793) was a Connecticut statesman and lawyer who played a central role in America’s founding and is the only person to sign all four key founding documents: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution. A delegate to both Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, he later served in the first U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, shaping the early structure of the federal government. View Bio Roger Sherman Samuel Adams (1722–1803) was an American revolutionary, Founding Father, and political leader who became one of the most influential organizers of resistance to British rule. He helped mobilize opposition to British taxation, supported American independence, signed the Declaration of Independence, and later served as governor of Massachusetts. He opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. View Bio Samuel Adams Reset Filter by Era Filter by Office 1 2 3 ... 18 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 18 Search by Name

Colonial Era Chapter 2: Nova Britannia 1603 ― 1675 Jacobean Age 1603-1625 Caroline Age 1625-1649 Interregnum 1649-1660 Restoration 1660-1675 La Conquista 1492 ― 1603 Previous Chapter Intercolonial Wars 1675 ― 1763 Next Chapter Colonial Era Sponsors In Grateful Recognition Patrons of the Past: (Sponsoring all nine Eras) Doug Shubert Adam Shubert Cathy Gillespie Sponsors of the Colonial Era: Bernie Frischer Sponsor an Era Documents Filter by Type Filter by Author Reset Filter by Era Master Index Read Document 04/17/1492 The formal agreement between Christopher Columbus and the Catholic Monarchs, outlining the terms of his voyage, including titles, governance, and a share of profits from any lands discovered. It provides a primary record of how Spain officially authorized and incentivized overseas exploration, establishing Columbus’s authority and the framework for his expeditions. Ferdinand of Aragon Capitulations of Santa Fe Read Document 04/30/1492 Issued by Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the charter grants Christopher Columbus hereditary titles of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Viceroy, and Governor over discovered lands, along with a share of profits. It establishes a legal and economic framework for exploration, showing how the Spanish Crown incentivized expansion through private enterprise while maintaining authority over commerce, territory, and governance. Ferdinand of Aragon Privileges Granted to Columbus Read Document 08/03/1492 Columbus sailed west under the Spanish Crown seeking a route to Asia, making landfall in the Bahamas on 12 October 1492 and initiating sustained contact between Europe and the Americas. He explored Cuba and Hispaniola and founded the short-lived La Navidad. His 1492–1493 journal, the earliest detailed European account of the Caribbean, survives only through the abstracted transcription of Bartolomé de las Casas. Christopher Columbus Columbus' Diary of His First Voyage Read Document 02/15/1493 Columbus’s letter announcing the results of his first voyage was published across Europe, describing the islands he encountered, their peoples, and the vast potential for wealth and Christian expansion. Framing the discovery as a triumph for Spain, the letter promised new lands rich in resources and ripe for conversion, bolstering Spanish prestige and competition with rival European powers. Christopher Columbus Columbus' Letter of His First Voyage Read Document 05/04/1493 Issued in 1493, Pope Alexander VI grants Spain rights to lands “discovered” west of a line of longitude while recognizing prior Portuguese claims to lands east of it. Written in Latin, this bull established the principle that non-Christian lands could be claimed by European powers, forming the basis for future colonization of the Americas. Pope Alexander VI Inter caetera Read Document 06/07/1494 An agreement between Spain and Portugal, mediated by the Pope, that divided newly discovered lands outside Europe along a meridian 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. This treaty granted Spain rights to most of the Americas while Portugal secured control over Africa, Asia, and later Brazil, shaping the course of global empire. Pope Alexander VI Treaty of Tordesillas Read Document 03/05/1496 Venetian explorer John Cabot, sailing under commission from England’s Henry VII, made landfall on the coast of North America, likely Newfoundland, on June 24, becoming the first known European since the Norse to reach the mainland. His voyage laid the foundation for England’s territorial claims in the New World, shaping the future of English colonization. Henry VII John Cabot's First Patent Read Document 05/10/1497 Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine navigator working for Spain, claimed to have sailed on a 1497–1498 voyage along the coast of the New World, possibly reaching Central America, though the authenticity of this voyage remains disputed by historians. Amerigo Vespucci Amerigo Vespucci First Voyage Read Document 07/22/1497 The Spanish Crown issued royal instructions authorizing Christopher Columbus to promote permanent settlement on Hispaniola by distributing land and requiring colonists to cultivate crops and develop the island’s resources. This decree marked an early shift from exploration toward organized colonization and agricultural exploitation in Spain’s emerging American empire. Ferdinand of Aragon Decree to Cultivate American Colonies Read Document 03/05/1498 Second letters patent issued by Henry VII granting John Cabot authority to outfit up to six ships and return to newly discovered lands (February 3, 1498), expanding royal support for exploration while relying on private financing, after which Cabot departed later that year on a voyage whose date, route, and fate remain unknown, with his pension ending in 1499 suggesting he likely died during or shortly after the expedition. Henry VII John Cabot's Second Patent Read Document 1503 Mundus Novus is a letter, attributed to Amerigo Vespucci, describing his voyages to the newly encountered lands across the Atlantic. Written in Latin and first printed in 1503, it introduced European readers to the idea that these lands were not Asia, but a “New World” previously unknown to Europeans. The letter emphasizes the vast size, natural wealth, and distinct peoples of these territories, fueling curiosity and prompting further exploration. Amerigo Vespucci Mundus Novus Read Document 12/27/1512 Promulgated by King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Juana of Castile in Burgos, Spain; the first comprehensive legal code regulating Spanish conduct, labor obligations, living conditions, and religious instruction of Indigenous peoples in the Americas, initially on Hispaniola and later applied to Puerto Rico and Jamaica, establishing the Crown’s framework for colonial governance and the treatment of native populations. Ferdinand of Aragon The Laws of Burgos 1 2 3 ... 135 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 ... 135 Biographies Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) was a Genoese navigator who sailed under the Spanish Crown and completed four transatlantic voyages beginning in 1492. He is best known for making sustained European contact with the Americas while searching for a western sea route to Asia. His expeditions initiated the Columbian Exchange and Spanish colonization of the Caribbean, though his governance and treatment of Indigenous peoples remain deeply controversial. View Bio Christopher Columbus John Rolfe (c. 1585–1622) was an English colonist who became one of the most important figures in the early development of Virginia. He helped establish Virginia’s tobacco industry and married Pocahontas in 1614, contributing to a period of improved relations between the English and the Powhatan Confederacy. His legacy is closely tied to the economic growth of Jamestown, the colonization of Virginia, and the complex history of English-Indigenous relations in early America. View Bio John Rolfe John Winthrop (1588–1649) was an English Puritan leader who helped establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony and served as its governor for much of its early history. In 1630, he led a large group of Puritan settlers to New England as part of the Great Migration, seeking to establish a religious community based on Puritan principles. As governor, Winthrop shaped the colony's government and society, leaving a lasting legacy as one of the most influential leaders in early New England. View Bio John Winthrop Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) rose from humble beginnings as a runaway printer’s apprentice to become a leading writer, scientist, diplomat, and statesman whose influence shaped every stage of America’s founding. Through intellect, wit, and practical wisdom, he helped secure independence, unite the colonies, and design a constitutional republic that could endure. View Bio Benjamin Franklin Roger Sherman (1721–1793) was a Connecticut statesman and lawyer who played a central role in America’s founding and is the only person to sign all four key founding documents: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution. A delegate to both Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, he later served in the first U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, shaping the early structure of the federal government. View Bio Roger Sherman Samuel Adams (1722–1803) was an American revolutionary, Founding Father, and political leader who became one of the most influential organizers of resistance to British rule. He helped mobilize opposition to British taxation, supported American independence, signed the Declaration of Independence, and later served as governor of Massachusetts. He opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. View Bio Samuel Adams Reset Filter by Era Filter by Office 1 2 3 ... 18 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 18 Search by Name

Landing of Columbus — John Vanderlyn 1847 Low Res. Landing of Columbus — John Vanderlyn 1847 Low Res. Maximilian I - Bernhard Strigel, c. 1508 Voyages of Christopher Columbus - Simeon Netchev 2021 Real Cedula (Royal Order) for exporting African Slaves to the Americas - September 16, 1501 A letter from Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabel to Nicolas Ovando allowing black slaves of African descent to be imported to Hispaniola (present day Dominican Republic and Haiti), 16 September 1501, courtesy of the Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla, Spain. The monarchs reasoned that recent converts, heretics, and peoples of other religions would harm the American Indians’ conversion to Catholicism. However, they permitted slaves of sub-Saharan African descent provided that they were born in Spain. This is the first known example of Europeans transporting black slaves across the Atlantic to work in the New World. Isabella's Letter to Ovando on establishing the Encomienda - December 20, 1503 Letter from the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabel to Nicolas Ovando, Spain, 20 March 1503, courtesy of the Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla, Spain. The monarchs, on Ovando's recommendation, ban the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In the fourth paragraph from the top, the Spanish monarchs address Ovando’s concern that escaped black slaves might inspire the American Indians on Hispaniola to revolt and, on Ovando’s recommendation, Ferdinand and Isabel ban the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Spanish Atrocities during the Conquest of Hispaniola - Theodor de Bry ca. 1552 Bobadilla Betrays Columbus - Luigi Gregori c. 1883 Vasco Núñez de Balboa - 1791. Map of the Voyages of Amerigo Vespucci - Simeon Netchev Real Cedula 1501 Nicolas Ovando Cover of "Leyes Nuevas" of 1542 The death of Queen Isabella the Catholic - Eduardo Rosales Germaine of Foix Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar - 1728 Henry VIII — Meynnart Wewyck, 1509 Possibly Catherine of Aragon c. 1502 — Michael Sittow 1514 An account of the Magellian Expedition Narvaez Failed Expedition/Cabeza de Vaca Odessy The Trial of Queen Catherine of Aragon - Henry Nelson O'Neil 1846–1848 Portrait of Anne Boleyn, Henry's second queen 1534 The annulment verdict given by Thomas Cranmer, 1533 Jane Seymour De Soto Expedition Niccolo Machiavelli Anne of Cleves - Hans Holbein the Younger 1539 Coronado Expedition Catherine Howard - Hans Holbein the Younger 1540 Catherine Parr, Henry's sixth and last wife Portrait of Edward VI of England Lady Jane Grey Mary I Mary and Philip Philip II - Jooris van der Straeten, c. 1554 Bernardino de Sahagun The Abdication of Emperor Charles V in Favor of his son Philip II - Louis Gallait 1842 Ferdinand I - Hans Bocksberger the Elder Elizabeth in her Coronation Robes Maximilian II - Nicolas Neufchatel c. 1566 (became HRE July 25, 1564 - October 12, 1576 Henry Morgan's Panama Expedition Rudolf II - Martino Rota, c. 1576-1583 (October 12, 1576 - January 20, 1612) Francis Drake's First Expedition Failed Assassination of Admiral de Coligny One morning at the gates of the Louvre - Édouard Debat-Ponsan. Historia general de las Cosas de Nueva España Sir Humphrey Gilbert Sir Humphrey Gilbert's Expedition Charter to Sir Walter Raleigh Sir Raleigh Knighted Roanoke Colony Map - John White The Death of Mary Stuart - Abel de Pujol Baptism of Virginia Dare John White Returns to Roanoke English Blockade of Western Cuba The arrival of the Great Carrack 'Madre de Dios' at Dartmouth Harbour, 18th Sept 1592 - 19th century illustration. Recife in the early 17th century - Gillis Peeters Raleigh's raid on the island of Trinidad. The captured Spanish Governor de Berrío is being escorted - Theodore de Bry Burial of Drake off Panama - Thomas Davidson British illustration of the battle Elizabeth's Death - Paul Delaroche 1828 Matthias - Lucas van Valckenborch, 1583 (June 13, 1612 - March 20, 1619) Ferdinand II - Ferdinand, c. 1614 (August 28, 1619 - February 15, 1637) Ferdinand III - Frans Luycx, c. 1660–68 (February 15, 1637 - April 2, 1657) James I Treaty of London Engraving by Champlain of the Battle Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition - Cristiano Banti 1857 Mayflower Compact Massacre of Jamestown - Matthaeus Merian 1628 Cannon from Nuestra Señora de Atocha at the Archivo General de Indias, Seville Attack on San Salvador (c. 1624), oil painting by Andries van Eertvelt (1590–1652) Charles I Galileo before the Holy Office - Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury Pequot War Mystic Massacre Treaty of Hartford Cover of the Bloody Tenent Rump Parliament Appoints a Council of State Leviathan - Thomas Hobbes Battle of Worcester Oliver Cromwell Becomes Lord Protector of the Commonwealth Flushing Remonstrance Richard Cromwell Charles II Lands in England Charles II becomes King Charter of Connecticut Rhode Island Royal Charter Concession and Agreement of New Jersey Dutch Surrender of New Netherlands to England Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina A Bill of Mortality for the plague in 1665 Great Fire of London Burning of the English fleet at Chatham — Willem Schellinks James II Declaration For Liberty of Conscience Mathematical Principles of Natural Philasophy - Isaac Newton William and Mary become co-monarchs Second Treatise of Government - John Locke Charter of Massachusetts Bay Colony 1691 Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland by Michael Dahl George I - Godfrey Kneller George II - Thomas Hudson The Walk Frederick during his early reign by Antoine Pesne Maria-Theresa An Incident in the Rebellion of 1745 - David Morier 1750 Third Attack on the Cartagena de Indias Siege of Arcot - Harry H. Johnston 1913 Robert Clive and Mir Jafar after the Battle of Plassey, 1757, by Francis Hayman The Spirit of Laws- Montesquieu Jumonville affair Fort Necessity - Robert Griffing. Braddock Expedition Robert Monckton - Benjamin West Battle of Monongahela (Braddock's Defeat) Battle of Fort Oswego Siege of Fort William Henry Fort William Henry Massacre Cover of The Law of Nations - Emerich de Vattel Capture of the Foudroyant by HMS Monmouth - Francis Swaine Siege of Louisbourg - Richard Paton 1758 The Victory of Montcalm's Troops at Carillon - Henry Alexander Ogden Battle of Fort Frontenac An Iroquois pipe tomahawk from the Easton peace talks George Washington planting the Union Flag on the ruins of Fort Duquesne The battle off Lagos - Richard Paton 1760 The Death of General Wolfe - Benjamin West 1770 The Battle of Quiberon Bay - Dominic Serres 1779 The Battle of Sainte-Foy - George B. Campion A view of the City of Quebec - Captain Hervey Smyth A Bend in the St. Lawrence - Elizabeth Simcoe Battle of Restigouche Articles of Capitulation of Montreal George III Becomes King Capture of Belle Ile Battle of Cape Finisterre Battle of Signal Hill

Congress' Declaration Replying to the King's Proclamation December 6, 1775 IN CONGRESS DECEMBER 6, 1775. WE the Delegates of the Thirteen United Colonies in North America have taken into our most serious consideration a Proclamation issued from the Court of St. James's on the Twenty Third day of August last. The name of Majesty is used to give it a sanction and influence; and, on that account, it becomes a matter of importance to wipe off, in the name of the people of these United Colonies, the aspersions, which it is calculated to throw upon our cause; and to prevent, as far as possible, the undeserved punishments, which it is designed to prepare for our friends. We are accused of “forgetting the allegiance which we owe to the power that has protected and sustained us.” Why all this ambiguity and obscurity in what ought to be so plain and obvious, as that he who runs may read it? What allegiance is it that we forget? Allegiance to Parliament? We never owed--we never owned it. Allegiance to our King? Our words have ever avowed it--our conduct has ever been consistent with it. We condemn, and, with arms in our hands--a resource which Freemen will never part with--we oppose the claim and exercise of unconstitutional powers, to which neither the Crown or Parliament were ever entitled. By the British Constitution, our best inheritance, rights, as well as duties, descend upon us: We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act in diametrical opposition to both, if we permitted the claims of the British Parliament to be established, and the measures pursued in consequence of those claims to be carried into execution among us. Our sagacious ancestors provided mounds against the inundation of tyranny and lawless power on one side, as well as against that of faction and licentiousness on the other. On which side has the breach been made? Is it objected against us by the most inveterate and the most uncandid of our enemies, that we have opposed any of the just prerogatives of the Crown, or any legal exertion of those prerogatives? Why, then, are we accused of forgetting our allegiance?-- We have performed our duty: We have resisted in those cases, in which the right to resist is stipulated as expressly, on our part, as the right to govern is, in other cases, stipulated on the part of the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our resistance as far as tyranny is removed from legal government. It is alledged that “we have proceeded to an open and avowed rebellion.” In what does this rebellion consist? It is thus described-- “Arraying ourselves in hostile manner to withstand the execution of the Law, and traiterously preparing, ordering and levying war against the King.” We know of no laws binding upon us, but such as have been transmitted to us by our ancestors, and such as have been consented to by ourselves or our representatives elected for that purpose. What laws, stampt with these characters, have we withstood? We have indeed defended them; and we will risque every thing, do every thing, and suffer every thing in their defence. To support our laws, and our liberties established by our laws, we have prepared, ordered, and levied war: But is this traiterously, or against the King? We view him as the Constitution represents him: That tells us he can do no wrong. The cruel and illegal attacks, which we oppose, have no foundation in the royal authority. We will not, on our part, lose the distinction between the King and his Ministers: Happy it would have been for some former Princes, had it been always preserved on the part of the Crown! Besides all this we observe, on this part of the proclamation, that “rebellion” is a term undefined and unknown in the law. It might have been expected, that a proclamation, which, by the British constitution, has no other operation than merely that of enforcing what is already law, would have had a known legal basis to have rested upon. A correspondence between the inhabitants of Great-Britain and their brethren in America produced, in better times, much satisfaction to individuals, and much advantage to the public. By what criterion shall one, who is unwilling to break off this correspondence, and is, at the same time, anxious not to expose himself to the dreadful consequences threatened in this This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter V Broadside of the Dec. 6, 1775 Declaration from Congress Annotation: the Second Continental Congress adopted a declaration prepared by Richard Henry Lee, James Wilson, and William Livingston, responding to George III's proclamation of 23 August that characterized the colonies as being in open rebellion. The broadside maintains that Americans remain loyal to the King but have never owed allegiance to Parliament, and argues that their armed resistance is a defense of inherited constitutional rights and laws rather than an act of rebellion. It also challenges the legal basis of the King's proclamation and warns that if Britain punishes Americans for supporting liberty, Congress will retaliate against those in American custody who support what it calls “ministerial oppression.” Its significance lies in the fact that it represents one of Congress's clearest pre-Independence statements that resistance to Parliament could be justified as a constitutional right while allegiance to the King was still maintained, illustrating the constitutional argument that preceded the eventual declaration of independence. Authors: Richard Henry Lee — Charles Willson Peale, c. 1795–1805 James Wilson William Livingston — John Wollaston, c. 1750. Text Source: https://www.loc.gov/item/90898004 proclamation--by what criterion should he regulate his conduct? He is admonished not to carry on correspondence with the persons now in rebellion in the colonies. How shall he ascertain who are in rebellion, and who are not? He consults the law to learn the nature of the supposed crime: the law is silent upon the subject. This, in a country where it has been often said, and formerly with justice, that the government is by law and not by men, might render him perfectly easy. But proclamations have been sometimes dangerous engines in the hands of those in power. Information is commanded to be given to one of the Secretaries of State of all persons “who shall be found carrying on correspondence with the persons in rebellion, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators or abettors of such dangerous designs.” Let us suppose, for a moment, that some persons in the colonies are in rebellion, and that those, who carry on correspondence with them, might learn, by some rule, which Britons are bound to know, how to discriminate them: Does it follow that all correspondence with them deserves to be punished? It might have been intended to apprise them of their danger, and to reclaim them from their crimes. By what law does a correspondence with a criminal transfer or communicate his guilt? We know that those who aid and adhere to the King's enemies; and those, who correspond with them in order to enable them to carry their designs into effect; are criminal in the eye of the law. But the law goes no farther. Can proclamations, according to the principles of reason and justice and the constitution go farther than the law? But, perhaps, the principles of reason and justice and the constitution will not prevail: Experience suggests to us the doubt: If they should not, we must resort to arguments drawn from a very different source. We, therefore, in the name of the people of these United Colonies, and by authority, according to the purest maxims of representation, derived from them, declare, that whatever punishment shall be inflicted upon any persons in the power of our enemies for favouring aiding or abetting the cause of American liberty shall be retaliated in the same kind and the same degree upon those, in our power, who have favoured, aided or abetted, or shall favour, aid or abet the system of ministerial oppression. The essential difference between our cause and that of our enemies might justify a severer punishment: The law of retaliation will unquestionably warrant one equally severe. We mean not, however, by this declaration, to occasion or to multiply punishments: Our sole view is to prevent them. In this unhappy and unnatural controversy, in which Britons fight against Britons and the descendants of Britons, let the calamities immediately incident to a civil war suffice. We hope additions will not, from wantonness be made to them on one side: We shall regret the necessity, if laid under the necessity of making them on the other. Extract from the Minutes, CHARLES THOMSON, Sec. PRINTED BY JOHN DUNLAP.

Thaddeus Stevens’ Speech on Reconstruction January 3rd, 1867 Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious that this bill should be proceeded with until finally acted upon. I desire that as early as possible, without curtailing debate, this House shall come to some conclusion as to what shall be done with the rebel States. This becomes more and more necessary every day; and the late decision of the Supreme Court of the United States has rendered immediate action by Congress upon the question of the establishment of governments in the rebel States absolutely indispensable. That decision, although in terms perhaps not as infamous as the Dred Scott decision, is yet far more dangerous in its operation upon the lives and liberties of the loyal men of this country. That decision has taken away every protection in everyone of these rebel States from every loyal man, black or white, who resides there. That decision has unsheathed the dagger of the assassin and places the knife of the rebel at the throat of every man who dares proclaim himself to be now, or to have been heretofore, a loyal Union man. If the doctrine enunciated in that decision be true, never were the people of any country anywhere, or at any time, in such terrible peril as are our loyal brethren at the South, whether they be black or white, whether they go there from the North or are natives of the rebel States. Now, Mr. Speaker, unless Congress proceeds at once to do something to protect these people from the barbarians who are now daily murdering them; who are murdering the loyal whites daily and daily putting into secret graves not only hundreds but thousands of the colored people of that country; unless Congress proceeds at once to adopt some means for their protection, I ask you and every man who loves liberty whether we will not be liable to the just censure of the world for our negligence or our cowardice or our want of ability to do so? Now, sir, it is for these reasons that I insist on the passage of some such measure as this. This is a bill designed to enable loyal men, so far as I could discriminate them in these States, to form governments which shall be in loyal hands, that they may protect themselves from such outrages as I have mentioned. In States that have never been restored since the rebellion from a state of conquest, and which are this day held in captivity under the laws of war, the military authorities, under this decision and its extension into disloyal States, dare not order the commanders of departments to enforce the laws of the country. One of the most atrocious murderers that has ever been let loose upon any community has lately been liberated under This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter 14 Annotation: Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania addressed the House of Representatives in support of stronger congressional Reconstruction, arguing that Congress, not the President, possessed the constitutional authority to reconstruct the former Confederate states and determine the conditions for their restoration to the Union. He maintained that Reconstruction had to establish genuinely republican governments founded on liberty and justice, including political participation for African Americans, because without Black suffrage loyal citizens in the South would remain vulnerable to oppression by former Confederates. Stevens also defended the use of federal power to protect those rights, declaring that the nation could not call itself a true republic while millions of Americans remained subjects rather than citizens. Authors: Thaddeus Stevens Text Source: https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1867-thaddeus-stevens-reconstruction/ this very decision, because the Government extended it, perhaps according to the proper construction, to the conquered States as well as to the loyal States. A gentleman from Richmond, who had personal knowledge of the facts, told me the circumstances of the murder. A colored man, driving the family of his employer, drove his wagon against a wagon containing Watson and his family. The wagon of Watson was broken. The next day Watson went to the employer of the colored man and complained. The employer offered to pay Watson every dollar that he might assess for the damage that had been done. “No” said he , “I claim the right to chastise the scoundrel.” He followed the colored man, took out his revolver, and deliberately shot him dead in the presence of that community. No civil authority would prosecute him; and, when taken into custody by the military authority, he is discharged by order of the President under this most injurious and iniquitous decision. Now, sir, if that decision be the law, then it becomes the more necessary that we should proceed to take care that such a construction as that shall not open the door to greater injuries than have already been sustained. Thus much I have said at the outset of my remarks, which shall not be very long. The people have once more nobly done their duty. May I ask, without offense, will Congress have the courage to do its duty? Or will it be deterred by the clamor of ignorance, bigotry, and despotism from perfecting a revolution begun without their consent, but which ought not to be ended without their full participation and concurrence? Possibly the people would not have inaugurated this revolution to correct the palpable incongruities and despotic provisions of the Constitution; but having it forced upon them, will they be so unwise as to suffer it to subside without erecting this nation into a perfect Republic? Since the surrender of the armies of the confederate States of America a little has been done toward establishing this Government upon the true principles of liberty and justice; and but a little if we stop here. We have broken the material shackles of four million slaves. We have unchained them from the stake so as to allow them locomotion, provided they do not walk in paths which are trod by white men. We have allowed them the unwonted privilege of attending church, if they can do so without offending the sight of their former masters. We have even given them that highest and most agreeable evidence of liberty as defined by the “great plebeian” the “right to work.” But in what have we enlarged their liberty of thought? In what have we taught them the science and granted them the privilege of self-government? We have imposed upon them the privilege of fighting our battles, of dying in defense of freedom, and of bearing their equal portion of taxes; but where have we given them the privilege of ever participating in the formation of the laws for the government of their native land? By what civil weapon have we enabled them to defend themselves against oppression and injustice? Call you this liberty? Call you this a free Republic where four millions are subjects but not citizens? Then Persia, with her kings and satraps, was free; then Turkey is free! Their subjects had liberty of motion and of labor, but the laws were made without and against their will; but I must declare that, in my judgment, they were as really free governments as ours is to-day. I know they had fewer rulers and more subjects, but those rulers were no more despotic than ours, and their subjects had just as large privileges in governing the country as ours have. Think not I would slander my native land; I would reform it. Twenty years ago I denounced it as a despotism. Then, twenty million white men enchained four million black men. I pronounce it no nearer to a true Republic now when twenty-five million of a privileged class exclude five million from all participation in the rights of government. The freedom of a Government does not depend upon the quality of its laws, but upon the power that has the right to enact them. During the dictatorship of Pericles his laws were just, but Greece was not free. During the last century Russia has been blessed with most remarkable emperors, who have generally decreed wise and just laws, but Russia is not free. No Government can be free that does not allow all its citizens to participate in the formation and execution of her laws. There are degrees of tyranny. But every other government is a despotism. It has always been observed that the larger the number of the rulers the more cruel the treatment of the subject races. It were better for the black man if he were governed by one king than by twenty million. What are the great questions which now divide the nation? In the midst of the political Babel which has been produced by the intermingling of secessionists, rebels, pardoned traitors, hissing Copperheads, and apostate Republicans, such a confusion of tongues is heard that it is difficult to understand either the questions that are asked or the answers that are given. Ask, what is the “President’s policy?” and it is difficult to define it. Ask, what is the “policy of Congress?” and the answer is not always at hand. A few moments may be profitably spent in seeking the meaning of each of these terms. Nearly six years ago a bloody war arose between different sections of the United States. Eleven States, possessing a very large extent of territory, and ten or twelve million people, aimed to sever their connection with the Union, and to form an independent empire, founded on the avowed principle of human slavery and excluding every free State from this confederacy. They did not claim to raise an insurrection to reform the Government of the country -a rebellion against the laws-but they asserted their entire independence of that Government and of all obligations to its laws. They were satisfied that the United States should maintain its old Constitution and laws. They formed an entirely new constitution; a new and distinct government, called the “confederate States of America.” They passed their own laws, without regard to any former national connection. Their government became perfectly organized, both in its civil and military departments. Within the broad limits of those eleven States the “confederate States” had as perfect and absolute control as the United States had over the other twenty-five. The” confederate States” refused to negotiate with the United States, except upon the basis of independence of perfect national equality. The two powers mutually prepared to settle the question by arms. They each raised more than half a million armed men. The war was acknowledged by other nations as a public war between independent belligerents. The parties acknowledged each other as such, and claimed to be governed by the law of nations and the laws of war in their treatment of each other. On the result of the war depended the fate and ulterior condition of the contending parties. No one then pretended that the eleven States had any rights under the Constitution of the United States, or any right to interfere in the legislation of the country. Whether they should ever have all men of both sections, without exception, agreed would depend on the will of Congress, if the United States were victorious. The confederate States claimed no rights unless they could conquer them by the contest of arms. President Lincoln, Vice President Johnson, and both branches of Congress repeatedly declared that the belligerent States could never again intermeddle with the affairs of the Union, or claim any right as members of the United States Government until the legislative power of the Government should declare them entitled thereto. Of course the rebels claimed no such rights; for whether their States were out of the Union as they declared, or were disorganized and “out of their proper relations” to the Government, as some subtle metaphysicians contend, their rights under the Constitution had all been renounced and abjured under oath, and could not be resumed on their own mere motion. How far their liabilities remained there was more difference of opinion. The Federal arms triumphed. The confederate armies and government surrendered unconditionally. The law of nations then fixed their condition. They were subject to the controlling power of the conquerors. No former laws, no former compacts or treaties existed to bind the belligerents. They had all been melted and consumed in the fierce fires of the terrible war. The United States, according to the usage of nations, appointed military provisional governors to regulate their municipal institutions until the law-making power of the conqueror should fix their condition and the law by which they should be permanently governed. True, some of those governors were illegally appointed, being civilians. No one then supposed that those States had any governments, except such as they had formed under their rebel organization. No sane man believed that they had any organic or municipal laws which the United States were bound to respect. Whoever had then asserted that those States had remained unfractured, and entitled to all the rights and privileges which they enjoyed before the rebellion, and were on a level with their loyal conquerors, would have been deemed a fool, and would have been found insane by any inquisition “de lunatico inquirendo.” In monarchical Governments, where the sovereign power rests in the Crown, the king would have fixed the condition of the conquered provinces. He might have extended the laws of his empire over them, allowed them to retain portions of their old institutions, or, by conditions of peace, have fixed upon them new and exceptional laws. In this country the whole sovereignty rests with the people, and is exercised through their Representatives in Congress assembled. The legislative power is the sole guardian of that sovereignty. No other branch of the Government, no other Department, no other officer of the Government, possesses one single particle of the sovereignty of the nation. No Government official, from the President and Chief Justice down, can do anyone act which is not prescribed and directed by the legislative power. Suppose the Government were now to be organized for the first time under the Constitution, and the President had been elected and the judiciary appointed: what could either do until Congress passed laws to regulate their proceedings? What power would the President have over anyone subject of government until Congress had legislated on that subject? No State could order the election of members until Congress had ordered a census and made an apportionment. Any exception to this rule has been a work of grace in Congress by passing healing acts. The President could not even create bureaus or Departments to facilitate his executive operations. He must ask leave of Congress. Since, then, the President cannot enact, alter, or modify a single law; cannot even create a petty office within his own sphere of duties; if, in short, he is the mere servant of the people, who issue their commands to him through Congress, whence does he derive the constitutional power to create new States; to remodel old ones; to dictate organic laws; to fix the qualification of voters; to declare that States are republican and entitled to command Congress to admit their Representatives? To my mind it is either the most ignorant and shallow mistake of his duties, or the most brazen and impudent usurpation of power. It is claimed for him by some as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. How absurd that a mere executive officer should claim creative powers! Though Commander- in-Chief by the Constitution, he would have nothing to command, either by land or water, until Congress raised both Army and Navy. Congress also prescribes the rules and regulations to govern the Army. Even that is not left to the Commander-in-Chief. Though the President is Commander-in-Chief, Congress is his commander; and, God willing, he shall obey. He and his minions shall learn that this is not a Government of kings and satraps, but a Government of the people, and that Congress is the people. There is not one word in the Constitution that gives one particle of anything but judicial and executive power to any other department of Government but Congress. The veto power is no exception; it is merely a power to compel a reconsideration. What can be plainer? “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. Such shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”Constitution United States, art.I, sec. I. To reconstruct the nation, to admit new States, to guaranty republican governments to old States are all legislative acts. The President claims the right to exercise them. Congress denies it and asserts the right to belong to the legislative branch. They have determined to defend these rights against all usurpers. They have determined that while in their keeping the Constitution shall not be violated with impunity. This I take to be the great question between the President and Congress. He claims the right to reconstruct by his own power. Congress denies him all power in the matter, except those of advice, and has determined to maintain such denial. “My policy” asserts full power in the Executive. The policy of Congress forbids him to exercise any power therein. Beyond this I do not agree that the “policy” of the parties are defined. To be sure many subordinate items of the policy of each may be easily sketched. The President is for exonerating the conquered rebels from all the expense and damages of the war, and for compelling the loyal citizens to pay the whole debt caused by the rebellion. He insists that those of our people who were plundered and their property burned or destroyed by rebel raiders shall not be indemnified, but shall bear their own loss, while the rebels shall retain their own property, most of which was declared forfeited by the Congress of the United States. He desires that the traitors (having sternly executed that most important leader, Rickety Weirze,7 as a high example) should be exempt from further fine, imprisonment, forfeiture, exile, or capital punishment, and be declared entitled to all the rights of loyal citizens. He desires that the States created by him shall be acknowledged as valid States, while at the same time he inconsistently declares that the old rebel States are in full existence, and always have been, and have equal rights with the loyal States. He opposes the amendment to the Constitution, which changes the base of representation, and desires the old slave States to have the benefit of their increase of freemen without increasing the number of votes; in short, he desires to make the vote of one rebel in South Carolina equal to the vote of three freemen in Pennsylvania or New York. He is determined to force a solid rebel delegation into Congress from the South, and, together with Northern Copperheads, could at once control Congress and elect all future Presidents. In opposition to these things, a portion of Congress seems to desire that the conquered belligerent shall, according to the law of nations, pay at least a part of the expenses and damages of the war; and that especially the loyal people who were plundered and impoverished by rebel raiders shall be fully indemnified. A majority of Congress desires that treason shall be made odious, not by bloody executions, but by other adequate punishments. Congress refuses to treat the States created by him as of any validity, and denies that the old rebel States have any existence which gives them any rights under the Constitution. Congress insists on changing the basis of representation so as to put white voters on an equality in both sections, and that such change shall precede the admission of any State. I deny that there is any understanding, expressed or implied, that upon the adoption of the amendment by any State, that such State may be admitted, (before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.? Such a course would soon surrender the Government into the hands of rebels. Such a course would be senseless, inconsistent, and illogical. Congress denies that any State lately in rebellion has any government or constitution known to the Constitution of the United States , or which can be recognized as part of the Union. How, then, can such a State adopt the amendment? To allow it would be yielding the whole question and admitting the unimpaired rights of the seceded States. I know of no Republican who does not ridicule what Mr. Seward thought a cunning movement, in counting Virginia and other outlawed States among those which had adopted the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. It is to be regretted that inconsiderate and incautious Republicans should ever have supposed that the slight amendments already proposed to the Constitution, even when incorporated into that instrument, would satisfy the reforms necessary for the security of the Government. Unless the rebel States, before admission, should be made republican in spirit, and placed under the guardianship of loyal men, all. our blood and treasure will have been spent in vain. I waive now the question of punishment which, if we are wise, will still be inflicted by moderate confiscations, both as a reproof and example. Having these States, as we all agree, entirely within the power of Congress, it is our duty to take care that no injustice shall remain in their organic laws. Holding them “like clay in the hands of the potter,” we must see that no vessel is made for destruction. Having now no governments, they must have enabling acts. The law of last session with regard to Territories settled the principles of such acts. Impartial suffrage, both in electing the delegates and ratifying their proceedings, is now the fixed rule. There is more reason why colored voters should be admitted in the rebel States than in the Territories. In the States they form the great mass of the loyal men. Possibly with their aid loyal governments may be established in most of those States. Without it all are sure to be ruled by traitors; and loyal men, black and white, will be oppressed, exiled, or murdered. There are several good reasons for the passage of this bill. In the first place, it is just. I am now confining my arguments to negro suffrage in the rebel States. Have not loyal blacks quite as good a right to choose rulers and make laws as rebel whites? In the second place, it is a necessity in order to protect the loyal white men in the seceded States. The white Union men are in a great minority in each of those States. With them the blacks would act in a body; and it is believed that in each of said States, except one, the two united would form a majority, control the States, and protect themselves. Now they are the victims of daily murder. They must suffer constant persecution or be exiled. The convention of southern loyalists, lately held in Philadelphia, almost unanimously agreed to such a bill as an absolute necessity. Another good reason is, it would insure the ascendancy of the Union party. Do you avow the party purpose? exclaims some horror-stricken demagogue. I do. For I believe, on my conscience, that on the continued ascendancy of that party depends the safety of this great nation. If impartial suffrage is excluded in the rebel States then everyone of them is sure to send a solid rebel representative delegation to Congress, and cast a solid rebel electoral vote. They, with their kindred Copperheads of the North, would always elect the President and control Congress. While slavery sat upon her defiant throne, and insulted and intimidated the trembling North, the South frequently divided on questions of policy between Whigs and Democrats, and gave victory alternately to the sections. Now, you must divide them between loyalists, without regard to color, and disloyalists, or you will be the perpetual vassals of the free trade, irritated, revengeful South. For these, among other reasons, I am for negro suffrage in every rebel State. If it be just, it should not be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be a punishment to traitors, they deserve it. But it will be said, as it has been said, “This is negro equality!” What is negro equality, about which so much is said by knaves, and some of which is believed by men who are not fools? It means, as understood by honest Republicans, just this much, and no more: every man, no matter what his race or color; every earthly being who has an immortal soul, has an equal right to justice, honesty, and fair play with every other man; and the law should secure him these rights. The same law which condemns or acquits an African should condemn or acquit a white man. The same law which gives a verdict in a White man’s favor should give a verdict in a black man’s favor on the same state of facts. Such is the law of God and such ought to be the law of man. This doctrine does not mean that a negro shall sit on the same seat or eat at the same table with a white man. That is a matter of taste which every man must decide for himself. The law has nothing to do with it. If there be any who are afraid of the rivalry of the black man in office or in business, I have only to advise them to try and beat their competitor in knowledge and business capacity, and there is no danger that his white neighbors will prefer his African rival to himself. I know there is between those who are influenced by this cry of “negro equality” and the opinion that there is still danger that the negro will be the smartest, for I never saw even a contraband slave that had not more sense than such men. There are those who admit the justice and ultimate utility of granting impartial suffrage to all men, but they think it is impolitic. An ancient philosopher, whose antagonist admitted that what he required was just but deemed it impolitic, asked him: “Do you believe in Hades?” I would say to those above referred to, who admit the justice of human equality before the law but doubt its policy: “Do you believe in heIl?” How do you answer the principle inscribed in Our political scripture, “That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?” Without such consent government is a tyranny, and you exercising it are tyrants. Of course, this does not admit malefactors to power, or there would soon be no penal laws and society would become an anarchy. But this step forward is an assault upon ignorance and prejudice, and timid men shrink from it. Are such men fit to sit in the places of statesmen? There are periods in the history of nations when statesmen can make themselves names for posterity; but such occasions are never improved by cowards. In the acquisition of true fame courage is just as necessary in the civilian as in the military hero. In the Reformation there were men engaged as able and perhaps more learned than Martin Luther. Melancthon and others were ripe scholars and sincere reformers, but none of them had his courage. He alone was willing to go where duty called though” devils were as thick as the tiles on the houses.” And Luther is the great luminary of the Reformation, around whom the others revolve as satellites and shine by his light. We may not aspire to fame. But great events fix the eye of history on small objects and magnify their meanness. Let us at least escape that condition.