Search this site

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.

Declaration of Rights and Grievances October 19, 1765 Declaration of Rights and Grievances The members of this Congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to His Majesty's Person and Government, inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British colonies on this continent; having considered as maturely as time will permit the circumstances of the said colonies, esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following declarations of our humble opinion, respecting the most essential rights and liberties Of the colonists, and of the grievances under which they labour, by reason of several late Acts of Parliament. That His Majesty's subjects in these colonies, owe the same allegiance to the Crown of Great-Britain, that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body the Parliament of Great Britain. That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies, are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great-Britain. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies, are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures. That all supplies to the Crown, being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British Constitution, for the people of Great-Britain to grant to His Majesty the property of the colonists. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies. That the late Act of Parliament, entitled, An Act for granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, etc., by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies, and the said Act, and several other Acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists. That the duties imposed by several late Acts of Parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be extremely burthensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies ultimately center in Great-Britain, to pay for the manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted there to the Crown. That the restrictions imposed by several late Acts of Parliament, on the trade of these colonies, will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great-Britain. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies, depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse with Great-Britain mutually affectionate and advantageous. That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies, to petition the King, Or either House of Parliament. This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter 4 Annotation: The Stamp Act Congress adopted its Declaration of Rights and Grievances, affirming the colonists' allegiance to George III while asserting that their constitutional rights as Englishmen included taxation only by their own representatives and trial by jury. The Declaration argued that Parliament's Stamp Act and expansion of admiralty jurisdiction threatened those rights and that the colonies' economic relationship with Britain made the new taxes particularly burdensome. It concluded by declaring that the colonies had both the right and duty to petition the King and Parliament for repeal of the Stamp Act and related restrictions. Authors: Delegates to the Stamp Act Congress Text Source: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html Lastly, That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to themselves, to endeavour by a loyal and dutiful address to his Majesty, and humble applications to both Houses of Parliament, to procure the repeal of the Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other Acts of Parliament, whereby the jurisdiction of the Admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late Acts for the restriction of American commerce.

Memorial to the House of Lords October 22, 1765 To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of Great-Britain in Parliament Assembled. The Memorial of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Government of the Counties of New-Castle, Kent and Sussex, upon Delaware, Province of Maryland, Most Humbly Sheweth, That the Inhabitants of these Colonies, Unanimously devoted with the warmest Sentiments of Duty and Affection to your Majesty’s Sacred Person and Government, Inviolably attached to the present Happy Establishment of the Protestant Succession in your Illustrious House, and deeply sensible of your Royal Attention to their Prosperity and Happiness, humbly beg Leave to approach the Throne, by representing to your Majesty, That these Colonies were originally planted by Subjects of the British Crown, who, animated with the Spirit of Liberty, encouraged by your Majesty’s Royal Predecessors, and confiding in the Public Faith for the Enjoyment of all the Rights and Liberties essential to Freedom, emigrated from their Native Country to this Continent, and by their successful Perseverance in the midst of innumerable Dangers and Difficulties, together with a Profusion of their Blood and Treasure, have happily added these vast and valuable Dominions to the Empire of Great-Britain. That for the Enjoyment of these Rights and Liberties, several Governments were early formed in the said Colonies, with full Power of Legislation agreeably to the Principles of the English Constitution. That under those Governments these Liberties thus vested in their Ancestors and transmitted to their Posterity, have been exercised and enjoyed, and by the inestimable Blessings thereof, under the Favour of Almighty God, the inhospitable Deserts of America have been converted into flourishing Countries; Science, Humanity, and the Knowledge of Divine Truth, diffused through remote Regions of Ignorance, Infidelity and Barbarism; the Number of British Subjects wonderfully increased, and the Wealth and Power of Great-Britain proportionably augmented. That by Means of these Settlements, and the unparalleled Success of your Majesty’s Arms, a Foundation is now laid for rendering the British Empire the most extensive and powerful of any recorded in History; our Connection with this Empire, we esteem our This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter 4 Annotation: The Stamp Act Congress petitioned the House of Lords to protect the constitutional liberties of the American colonies and to support repeal of the Stamp Act. The Memorial emphasized the colonies' loyalty to the Crown, their historical enjoyment of legislative self-government, and their claim to the rights of English subjects, particularly taxation through their own representatives and trial by jury. It appealed to the Lords as hereditary guardians of British liberty to use their constitutional authority to relieve the colonies from the Stamp Act and expanded admiralty jurisdiction. Authors: Delegates to the Stamp Act Congress Text Source: https://archives.nypl.org/mss/927#c58 greatest Happiness and Security, and humbly conceive it may now be so established by your Royal Wisdom, as to endure to the latest Period of Time. This, with most humble Submission to your Majesty, we apprehend will be most effectually accomplished, by fixing the Pillars thereof on Liberty and Justice, and securing the inherent Rights and Liberties of your Subjects here, upon the Principles of the English Constitution. For these invaluable Rights and Liberties, we humbly implore your Majesty’s Protection and Countenance. We humbly conceive that the most essential Rights of British Subjects, are the following: That the People of these Colonies are entitled to all the inherent Rights and Liberties of natural born Subjects within the Kingdom of Great-Britain. That the People of these Colonies are not, and from their local Circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain. That the only Representatives of the People of these Colonies, are Persons chosen therein by themselves; and that no Taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed upon them, but by their respective Legislatures. That all Supplies to the Crown, being free Gifts of the People, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the British Constitution, for the People of Great-Britain to grant to his Majesty the Property of the Colonists. That Trial by Jury is the inherent and invaluable Right of every British Subject in these Colonies. These Rights we humbly conceive to be confirmed to us by the great Charter of English Liberty, and by the other Acts of Parliament which secure the Liberties of the Subjects of Great-Britain. We therefore most humbly beseech your Lordships, to hear us in our humble Complaints, and to interpose your Authority in such a Manner as may be conducive to the Preservation of the Rights and Liberties of his Majesty’s Subjects in these Colonies. And whereas an Act of Parliament hath lately been passed, entitled, An Act for granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties, in the British Colonies and Plantations in America, etc., which, by imposing Taxes on the Inhabitants of these Colonies, is, as we humbly conceive, subversive of their most essential Rights and Liberties: We humbly beseech your Lordships to use your Influence for procuring the Repeal of the said Act, and of such Clauses of any other Acts of Parliament as extend the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Admiralty in the Colonies beyond their ancient Limits, and of such other Acts as impose Duties and Restrictions upon the Trade of these Colonies, which, from their local Circumstances, must necessarily be burdensome and grievous. We also humbly beseech your Lordships to take into your wise Consideration the Distresses of these Colonies, and to afford them such Relief as in your Wisdom and Justice shall seem meet. And your Memorialists, as in Duty bound, shall ever pray.

Washington's Letter to Madison of His Support for the Bill of Rights May 31, 1789 To James Madison As far as a momentary consideration has enabled me to judge, I see nothing exceptionable in the proposed amendments. Some of them, in my opinion, are importantly necessary; others, though of themselves (in my conception) not very essential, are necessary to quiet the fears of some respectable characters and well meaning men. Upon the whole, therefore, not foreseeing any evil consequences that can result from their adoption, they have my wishes for a favourable reception in both houses. This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter 7 Annotation: Washington expressed his support for adding a bill of rights to the Constitution, agreeing that amendments protecting individual liberties could strengthen public confidence in the new federal government. Author: George Washington — Gilbert Stuart ca. 1803 Recipient: James Madison — John Vanderlyn 1816 Text Transcript: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0305

An Act to Regulate the Time and Manner of Administering Certain Oaths June 1, 1789 Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eight nine. An Act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths. Be it enacted by the Senate and Representatives of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA in Congress assembled. That the oath is affirmation required by the sixth Articles of the Constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit: "I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." The said oath or affirmation shall be administered within three days after the passing of this act, by any one member of the Senate, to the President of the Senate, and by him to all the members and to the Secretary; and by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to all the members who have not taken a familiar oath, by virtue of the particular resolution of the said House, and to the Clerk: And in case of the absence of any member from the service of either House, at the time prescribed for taking the said oath or affirmation, the fame shall be administered to such member, when he shall appear to take his seat. And be it further enacted, That at the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath or affirmation aforesaid, shall be administered by any one member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by him to all the members present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the members who shall afterwards appear, previous to taking their seats. The President of the Senate for the time being, shall also administer the said oath or affirmation to each Senator who shall who shall hereafter be elected, previous to his taking his seat: And in any future case of a President of the Senate, who shall not have taken the said oath or affirmation, the same shall be administered to him by any one of the members of the Senate. And be it further enacted, That the members of the several State Legislatures, at the next sessions of the said Legislatures respectively, and all Executives and judicial Officers of the several States, who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or who shall be chosen or appointed before the first day of August next, and who shall then be in office, shall, within one month thereafter, take the same oath or affirmation, except where they shall have taken it before; which may be administered by any person authorized by the Law of the State, in which such Office shall be holden, to administer oaths. And the members of the several State Legislatures and all executive and judicial Officers of the several States, who shall be chosen or appointed after the said first day of August, shall before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective Offices, take the foregoing oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons, who by the Law of the State shall be authorized to administer the Oath of Office; and the person or persons so administering the oath hereby required to be taken, shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made, in the same manner, as by the Law of the State, he or they, shall be directed to record or certify the Oath of Office. And be it further enacted, That all Officers appointed, or hereafter to be appointed under the Authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective Offices, take the same oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall be authorized by Law to administer to such Officers their respective Oaths of Office; and such Officers shall incur the same penalties in case of failure, as shall be imposed by Law in case of failure in taking their respective Oaths of Office. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives for the time being. shall at the time of taking the oath of affirmation aforesaid, each take an oath or affirmation in the words following, to wit 'I, A.B. Secretary of the Senate, or Clerk of the House of Representatives. (as the case may be) of the United States of America, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will truly and faithfully discharge the duties of my said Office, to the best of my knowledge and abilities." Approved, June 1, 1789: George Washington, President of the United States. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives. John Adams Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter 7 Annotation: The Oath of Office Act, first act passed by Congress, prescribed the text of and procedure for administering the oath and read simply: “I, [name] do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” Authors: James Madison — John Vanderlyn 1816 Jonathan Trumbull Jr. — Harry Ives Thompson c. 1880 Nicholas Gilman Lambert Cadwalader Alexander White Signed Into Law By: George Washington — Gilbert Stuart ca. 1803 Text Source: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/596341

Washington's First Inaugural Address April 30, 1789 WASHINGTON'S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS Fellow Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend. Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated. Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter 7 Inauguration of George Washington — Ramon Elorriaga 1898 Annotation: Delivered on April 30, 1789, at Federal Hall in New York City, George Washington’s first inaugural address framed the new presidency as an act of reluctant duty at a moment when the survival of the Constitution itself was uncertain after years of weakness under the Articles of Confederation. He emphasized that the legitimacy of the new federal government rested on public virtue, constitutional restraint, and divine providence, presenting himself not as a ruler but as a temporary steward bound by law and accountable to the people. In doing so, Washington established the enduring model of the American presidency as powerful yet limited, energetic yet republican, setting the tone for civilian government under a written Constitution rather than personal authority. Author: George Washington — Gilbert Stuart ca. 1803 Text Source: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1634180 functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence. By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted. To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed. And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported into the United States July 4, 1789 CHAP. II.—An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported into the United States. SEC. 1. Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandises imported: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of August next ensuing, the several duties hereinafter mentioned shall be laid on the following goods, wares and merchandises imported into the United States from any foreign port or place, that is to say: On all distilled spirits of Jamaica proof, imported from any kingdom or country whatsoever, per gallon, ten cents. On all other distilled spirits, per gallon, eight cents. On molasses, per gallon, two and a half cents. On Madeira wine, per gallon, eighteen cents. On all other wines, per gallon, ten cents. On every gallon of beer, ale or porter in casks, five cents. On all cider, beer, ale or porter in bottles, per dozen, twenty cents. On malt, per bushel, ten cents. On brown sugars, per pound, one cent. On loaf sugars, per pound, three cents. On all other sugars, per pound, one and a half cents. On coffee, per pound, two and a half cents. On cocoa, per pound, one cent. On all candles of tallow, per pound, two cents. On all candles of wax or spermaceti, per pound, six cents. On cheese, per pound, four cents. On soap, per pound, two cents. On boots, per pair, fifty cents. On all shoes, slippers or goloshoes made of leather, per pair, seven cents. On all shoes or slippers made of silk or stuff, per pair, ten cents. On cables, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, seventy-five cents. On tarred cordage, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, seventy-five cents. On untarred ditto, and yarn, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, ninety cents. On twine or packthread, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, two hundred cents. On all steel unwrought, for every one hundred and twelve pounds, fifty-six cents. On all nails and spikes, per pound, one cent. On salt, per bushel, six cents. On manufactured tobacco, per pound, six cents. On snuff, per pound, ten cents. On indigo, per pound, sixteen cents. This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter 7 Annotation: The Tariff of 1789, formally An Act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported into the United States, established the new federal government's first system of duties on imported goods, providing revenue for the government and the payment of national debts while also encouraging and protecting domestic manufactures. James Madison of Virginia introduced the initial tariff bill in the House on April 8, 1789, but the legislation was substantially revised during debate, including an amendment proposed by Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania to protect American manufactures. Author: James Madison — John Vanderlyn 1816 Signed Into Law By: George Washington — Gilbert Stuart ca. 1803 Text Source: https://education.blogs.archives.gov/2014/08/28/why-did-we-need-a-new-constitution/?utm_source=chatgpt.com On wool and cotton cards, per dozen, fifty cents. On coal, per bushel, two cents. On pickled fish, per barrel, seventy-five cents. On dried fish, per quintal, fifty cents. On all teas imported from China or India, in ships built in the United States, and belonging to a citizen or citizens thereof, or in ships or vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation, as follows: On bohea tea, per pound, six cents. On all souchong, or other black teas, per pound, ten cents. On all hyson teas, per pound, twenty cents. On all other green teas, per pound, twelve cents. On all teas imported from Europe in ships or vessels built in the United States, and belonging wholly to a citizen or citizens thereof, or in ships or vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation, as follows: On bohea tea, per pound, eight cents. On all souchong, and other black teas, per pound, thirteen cents. On all hyson teas, per pound, twenty-six cents. On all other green teas, per pound, sixteen cents. On all teas imported, in any other manner than as above mentioned, as follows: On bohea tea, per pound, fifteen cents. On all souchong, or other black teas, per pound, twenty-two cents. On all hyson teas, per pound, forty-five cents. On all other green teas, per pound, twenty-seven cents. On all goods, wares and merchandises, other than teas, imported from China or India, in ships not built in the United States, and not wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof, nor in vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation, twelve and a half per centum ad valorem. On all looking-glasses, window and other glass (except black quart bottles), On all China, stone and earthen ware, On gunpowder, On all paints ground in oil, On shoe and knee buckles, On gold and silver lace, and On gold and silver leaf, ten per centum ad valorem. On all blank books, On all writing, printing or wrapping paper, paper-hangings and pasteboard, On all cabinet wares, On all buttons, On all saddles, On all gloves of leather, On all hats of beaver, fur, wool, or mixture of either, On all millinery ready made, On all castings of iron, and upon slit and rolled iron, On all leather tanned or tawed, and all manufacture of leather, except such as shall be otherwise rated, On canes, walking sticks and whips, On clothing ready made, On all brushes, On gold, silver, and plated ware, and on jewelry and paste work, On anchors, and on all wrought, tin, and pewter ware, On playing cards, per pack, ten cents, seven and a half per centum ad valorem. On every coach, chariot or other four wheel carriage, and on every chaise, solo, or other two wheel carriage, or parts thereof, fifteen per centum ad valorem. On all other goods, wares and merchandise, five per centum on the value thereof at the time and place of importation, except as follows: saltpetre, tin in pigs, tin plates, lead, old pewter, brass, iron and brass wire, copper in plates, wool, cotton, dyeing woods and dyeing drugs, raw hides, beaver, and all other furs, and deer skins. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the first day of December, which shall be in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety, there shall be laid a duty on every one hundred and twelve pounds, weight of hemp imported as aforesaid, of sixty cents; and on cotton per pound, three cents. SEC. 3. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all the duties paid, or secured to be paid upon any of the goods, wares and merchandises as aforesaid, except on distilled spirits, other than brandy and geneva, shall be returned or discharged upon such of the said goods, wares, or merchandises, as shall within twelve months after payment made, or security given, be exported to any country without the limits of the United States, as settled by the late treaty of peace; except one per centum on the amount of the said duties, in consideration of the expense which shall have accrued by the entry and safe-keeping thereof. SEC. 4. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That there shall be allowed and paid on every quintal of dried, and on every barrel of pickled fish, of the fisheries of the United States, and on every barrel of salted provision of the United States, exported to any country without the limits thereof, in lieu of a drawback of the duties imposed on the importation of the salt employed and expended therein, viz: On every quintal of dried fish, five cents. On every barrel of pickled fish, five cents. On every barrel of salted provision, five cents. SEC. 5. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That a discount of ten per cent, on all the duties imposed by this act, shall be allowed on such goods, wares and merchandises, as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and which shall be wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof, or in vessels built in foreign countries, and on the sixteenth day of May last, wholly the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and so continuing until the time of importation. SEC. 6. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That this act shall continue and be in force until the first day of June, which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six, and from thence until the end of the next succeeding session of Congress which shall be held thereafter, and no longer. Approved, July 4, 1789.

George Washington's Circular Letter to the States June 8, 1783 Circular Letter Sir The great object, for which I had the honor to hold an Appointment in the service of my Country being accomplished, I am now preparing to resign it into the hands of Congress, and to return to that domestic retirement; which it is well known I left with the greatest reluctance, a retirement for which I have never ceased to sigh through a long and painfull absence, and in which (remote from the noise and trouble of the World) I meditate to pass the remainder of life, in a state of undisturbed repose: But before I carry this resolution into effect, I think is a duty incumbent on me, to make this my last official communication, to congratulate you on the glorious events which Heaven has been pleased to produce in our favor, to offer my sentiments respecting some important subjects which appear to me to be intimately connected with the tranquility of the United States, to take my leave of your Excellency as a public Character, and to give my final blessing to that Country, in whose service I have spent the prime of my life, for whose sake I have consumed so many anxious days and watchful nights, and whose happiness, being extremely dear to me, will always constitute no inconsiderable part of my own. Impressed with the liveliest sensibility on this pleasing occasion, I will claim the indulgence of dilating the more copiously on the subjects of our mutual felicitation When we consider the magnitude of the prize we contended for, the doubtful nature of the contest, and the favorable manner in which it has terminated, we shall find the greatest possible reason for gratitude and rejoicing; this is a theme that will afford infinite delight to every benevolent and liberal mind, whether the event in contemplation, be considered as the source of present enjoyment or the parent of future happiness; and we shall have equal occasion to felicitate ourselves on the lot which Providence has assigned us, whether we view it in a natural, a political or moral point of light. The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and Independency; They are, from This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter V Annotation: George Washington issued his Circular Letter to the States, addressed to the governors of the states under the authority of Congress during the closing phase of the American Revolutionary War. In the letter, Washington reflected on the end of the war and urged the states to preserve unity, strengthen the national government under the Articles of Confederation, and support public credit by honoring financial obligations, especially debts owed to soldiers and foreign allies. He emphasized that the success of independence depended not only on military victory but also on maintaining a stable and cooperative union of the states in peacetime. Author: George Washington — Gilbert Stuart ca. 1803 Text Source: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11404 this period, to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity; Here, they are not only surrounded with every thing which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment, but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer oppertunity for political happiness, than any other Nation has ever been favored with. Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly, than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances, under which our Republic assumed its rank among the Nations; The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own. Such is our situation, and such are our prospects: but notwithstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us, notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it our own; yet, it appears to me there is an option still left to the United States of America, that it is in their choice, and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptable and miserable as a Nation; This is the time of their political probation, this is the moment when the eyes of the whole World are turned upon them, this is the moment to establish or ruin their national Character forever, this is the favorable moment to give such a tone to our Federal Government, as will enable it to answer the ends of its institution, or this may be the ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers of the Union, annihilating the cement of the Confederation, and exposing us to become the sport of European politics, which may play one State against another to prevent their growing importance, and to serve their own interested purposes. For, according to the system of Policy the States shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall, and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn Millions be involved. With this conviction of the importance of the present Crisis, silence in me would be a crime; I will therefore speak to your Excellency, the language of freedom and of sincerity, without disguise; I am aware, however, that those who differ from me in political sentiment, may perhaps remark, I am stepping out of the proper line of my duty, and they may possibly ascribe to arrogance or ostentation, what I know is alone the result of the purest intention, but the rectitude of my own heart, which disdains such unworthy motives, the part I have hitherto acted in life, the determination I have formed, of not taking any share in public business hereafter, the ardent desire I feel, and shall continue to manifest, of quietly enjoying in private life, after all the toils of War, the benefits of a wise and liberal Government, will, I flatter myself, sooner or later convince my Countrymen, that I could have no sinister views in delivering with so little reserve, the opinions contained in this Address. There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power: 1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head. 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice. 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community. These are the Pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country. On the three first Articles I will make a few observations, leaving the last to the good sense and serious consideration of those immediately concerned. Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature, or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness. As to the second Article, which respects the performance of public justice, Congress have in their late address to the United States almost exhausted the Subject, they have explained their ideas so fully and have enforced the obligations the States are under to render compleat justice to all the public Creditors, with so much dignity and energy, that in my opinion no real friend to the honour and Independancy of America, can hesitate a single moment respecting the propriety of complying with the just and honorable measures proposed—If their Arguments do not produce conviction, I know of nothing that will have greater influence, especially when we recollect that the System referred to, being the result of the collected wisdom of the Continent, must be esteemed, if not perfect, certainly the least objectionable of any that could be devised, and that if it shall not be carried into immediate execution, a National bankruptcy, with all its deplorable consequences, will take place before any different plan can possibly be proposed and adopted, so pressing are the present circumstances! and such is the alternative now offerd to the States! The ability of the Country to discharge the debts which have been incurred in its defence, is not to be doubted, an inclination I flatter myself will not be wanting: the path of our duty is plain before us—honesty will be found on every experiment to be the best and only true policy—let us then as a Nation be just—let us fulfill the public Contracts which Congress had undoubtedly a right to make for the purpose of carrying on the War, with the same good faith we suppose ourselves bound to perform our private engagements; in the mean time let an attention to the chearfull performance of their proper business as individuals and as members of Society be earnestly inculcated on the Citizens of America—then will they strengthen the hands of Government & be happy under its protection, every one will reap the fruit of his Labours, every one will enjoy his own acquisitions without molestation and without danger. In this state of absolute freedom and perfect security, who will grudge to yield a very little of his property to support the common interests of Society and ensure the protection of Government? who does not remember the frequent declarations at the commencement of the War that we should be completely satisfied, if at the expence of one half, we could defend the remainder of our possessions! where is the Man to be found who wishes to remain indebted for the defence of his own person and property to the exertions, the bravery and the blood of others, without making one generous effort to repay the debt of honor and of gratitude? In what part of the Continent shall we find any Man or body of Men who would not blush to stand up and propose measures purposely calculated to rob the Soldier of his Stipend and the public Creditor of his due and were it possible that such a flagrant instance of injustice could ever happen, would it not excite the general indignation and tend to bring down upon the authors of such measures the aggravated vengeance of Heaven? If after all, a spirit of disunion or a temper of obstinacy and perverseness should manifest itself in any of the States; if such an ungracious disposition should attempt to frustrate all the happy effects that might be expected to flow from the Union; if there should be a refusal to comply with the Requisitions for funds to discharge the annual Interest of the public Debts and if that refusal should revive again all those jealousies and produce all those evils which are now happily removed, Congress, who have, in all their transactions, shewn a great degree of magnanimity and justice, will stand justified in the sight of God and Man and the State alone which puts itself in opposition to the aggregate wisdom of the Continent and follows such mistaken and pernicious councils, will be responsible for all the Consequences. For my own part, conscious of having acted, while a servant of the public, in the manner I conceived best suited to promote the real interests of my Country, having in consequence of my fixed belief, in some measure, pledged myself to the Army that their Country would finally do them compleat and ample Justice and not wishing to conceal any instance of my official conduct from the eyes of the World, I have thought proper to transmit to your Excellency the inclosed collection of papers relative to the half-pay & commutation granted by Congress to the Officers of the Army. From these communications my decided sentiment will be clearly comprehended, together with the conclusive reasons which induced me, at an early period, to recommend the adoption of this measure in the most earnest and serious manner. As the proceedings of Congress, the Army and myself are open to all and contain in my opinion sufficient information to remove the prejudices and errors which may have been entertained by any, I think it unnecessary to say anything more, than just to observe, that the resolutions of Congress now alluded to, are undoubtedly as absolutely binding upon the United States, as the most solemn Acts of Confederation or Legislation. As to the idea which, I am informed, has in some instances prevailed, that the half pay and Commutation are to be regarded merely in the odious Light of a pension, it ought to be exploded forever—that provision should be viewed as it really was, a reasonable compensation offerd by Congress at a Time when they had nothing else to give to the Officers of the Army for services then to be performed. It was the only means to prevent a total dereliction of the Service—it was a part of their hire, I may be allowed to say, it was the price of their blood and of your Independancy—it is therefore more than a common debt, it is a debt of honor—it can never be considered as a pension or gratuity nor be cancelled untill it is fairly discharged. With regard to a distinction between Officers and Soldiers, it is sufficient that the uniform experience of every Nation of the World combined with our own, proves the utility and propriety of the discrimination—Rewards in proportion to the Aids the Public derives from them, are unquestionably due to all its Servants—In some Lines, the Soldiers have perhaps generally had as ample a compensation for their Services, by the large bounties which have been paid them, as their Officers will receive in the proposed commutation; in others, if besides the donation of Lands, the payment of Arrearages of Cloathing and Wages (in which Articles all the component parts of the Army must be on the same footing) we take into the estimate the bounties many of the Soldiers have received and the gratuity of one years full pay which is promised to all, possibly their situation (every circumstance being duly considered) will not be deemed less eligible than that of the Officers, should a farther Reward however be judged equitable, I will venture to asert no one will enjoy greater satisfaction than myself, on seeing an exemption from Taxes for a limitted time (which has been petitioned for in some instances) or any other adequate compensation or immunity, granted to the brave defenders of their Countrys cause; but neither the adoption or rejection of this proposition, will in any manner affect, much less militate against, the Act of Congress by which they have offer’d five Years full pay in lieu of half pay for life, which had been before promised to the Officers of the Army. Before I conclude the Subject of public justice, I cannot omit to mention the obligations this Country is under to that meritorious class of veteran non Commission’d Officers and Privates who have been discharged for inability, in consequence of the resolution of Congress of the 23d April 1782, on an annual pension for life; their peculiar sufferings, their singular merits and claims to that provision, need only be known, to interest all the feelings of humanity in their behalf; nothing but a punctual payment of their annual allowance, can rescue them from the most complicated misery, and nothing could be a more melancholy and distressing sight, than to behold those who have shed their blood or lost their limbs in the service of their Country, without a shelter, without a friend and without the means of obtaining any of the necessaries of life or comforts of life compelled to beg their daily bread from door to door! Suffer me to recommend those of this description belonging to your State to the warmest patronage of your Excellency and your Legislature. It is necessary to say but a few words on the third topic which was proposed and which regards particularly the defence of the Republic—As there can be little doubt but Congress will Recommend a proper Peace Establishment for the United States in which a due attention will be paid to the importance of placing the Militia of the Union upon a regular and respectable footing—If this should be the case, I would beg leave to urge the great advantage of it in the strongest terms—the Militia of this Country must be considerd as the Palladium of our security and the first effectual resort, in case of hostility; It is essential therefore, that the same system should pervade the whole—that the formation & discipline of the Militia of the Continent should be absolutely uniform and the same species of Arms, Accoutrements & Military Apparatus should be introduced in every part of the United States. No one, who has not learned it from experience, can conceive the difficulty, expence & confusion which result from a contrary System, or the vague Arrangements which have hitherto prevailed. If in treating of political points, a greater latitude than usual has been taken in the course of this address—the importance of the Crisis and the magnitude of the objects in discussion, must be my apology—It is, however, neither my wish or expectation, that the preceding observations should claim any regard, except so far as they shall appear to be dictated by a good intention, consonant to the immutable rules of Justice—calculated to produce a liberal system of Policy and founded on what ever experience may have been acquired by a long and close Attention to public business—Here I might speak with the more confidence, from my actual observations and if it would not swell this Letter (already too prolix) beyond the bounds I had prescribed myself, I could demonstrate to every mind open to conviction, that in less time & with much less expence than has been incurred, the War might have been brought to the same happy, conclusion if the resources of the Continent could have been properly drawn forth—that the distresses and disappointments, which have very often occurred, have in too many instances resulted more from a want of energy in the Continental Government, than a deficiency of means in the particular States—That the inefficacy of measures, arising from the want of an adequate authority in the supreme Power, from a partial compliance with the requisitions of Congress in some of the States and from a failure of punctuality in others, while it tended to damp the Zeal of those which where more willing to exert themselves, served also to accumulate the expences of the War and to frustrate the best concerted plans; and that the discouragement, occasioned by the complicated difficulties & embarrasments in which our affairs were by this means involved, would have long ago produced the dissolution of any Army, less patient, less virtuous and less persevering than that which I have had the honor to Command. But while I mention these things, which are notorious facts, as the defects of our Federal Constitution, particularly in the prosecution of a War, I beg it may be understood, that as I have ever taken a pleasure in gratefully acknowledging the assistance and support I have derived from every class of Citizens, so shall I always be happy to do justice to the unparralled exertions of the individual States on many interesting occasions. I have thus freely disclosed, what I wished to make known, before I surrendered up my Public trust to those who committed it to me—the task is now accomplished—I now bid adieu to your Excellency, as the Chief Magistrate of your State at the same time I bid a last farewell to the cares of Office and all the employments of public life. It remains then to be my final and only request, that your Excellency will communicate these sentiments to your legislature at their next meeting and that they may be considered as the Legacy of one who has ardently wished on all occasions to be usefull to his Country and who even in the shade of Retirement will not fail to implore the divine benediction upon it. I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination & obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field—and finally that he would most graciously be pleas’d to dispose us all to do Justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves, with that Charity, humility & pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion & without an humble immitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. With the greatest regard and esteem, I have the honor to be Sir Your Excellency’s Most Obedient and most humble Servant Go: Washington

James Madison's Address on the Bill of Rights June 8 1789 I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the house. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a committee of the whole, I think we might have rose, and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended on what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the legislatures of the several States, conformably to the 5th article of the constitution. I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments; and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this house. But I cannot do this; and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe that if congress will devote but one day to this subjects, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures. It appears to me that this house is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the state legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, as will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution, may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it, that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or depotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions, that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter VII Annotation: Representative James Madison of Virginia addressed the House of Representatives and proposed a series of constitutional amendments designed to secure individual rights and address objections raised during the Constitution’s ratification. Madison argued that amendments would strengthen public confidence in the new government while placing explicit limits on federal power, including protections for freedom of conscience, speech, the press, and other fundamental rights. The House referred his proposals to a committee, beginning the legislative process that ultimately produced the Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791. Author: James Madison — John Vanderlyn 1816 Text Source: https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished. It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents, their patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who as present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism, if they were satisfied in this one point: We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow citizens shew under the government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject; it is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community. I allude in a particular manner to those two states who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the confederacy: it is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those states that are not come in, that we have seen prevailing [in] those states which are. But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the general government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage, arising from the exercise of that power, shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose; and in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself: But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents, such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution: Some were levelled gainst its structure, because the president was without a council; because the senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose; and controuls the ordinary powers of the state governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provison against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary. It has been a fortunate thing that the objection to the government has been made on the gound I stated; because it will be practicable on that ground to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the government by those who promoted its adoption. The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures are these: First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration--That all power is orginally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. Secondly. That in article 2st. section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit, "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made." And that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit, "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amount to after which the proportion shall be so regulated by congress, that the number shall never be less than nor more than but each state shall after the first enumeration, have at least two representatives; and prior thereto." Thirdly. That in article 2st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit, "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of representatives." Fourthly. That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law. No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same office; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. Fifthly. That in article 2st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases. Sixthly. That article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words to wit: but no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to___dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law. Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the classes following, to wit: The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury, shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorised in some other county of the same state, as near as may be to the seat of the offence. In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate. Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit: The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments. The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively. Ninthly. That article 7th, be numbered as article 8th. The first of these amendments, relates to what may be called a bill of rights; I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the government and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper, nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of perhaps by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great-Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore the arguments drawn from that source, were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther, than to raise a barrier against the power of the crown; the power of the legislature is left altogether indefinite. Altho' I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which, the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution. But altho' the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many states, have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the states as well as the federal constitution, we shall find the altho' some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency. It may be said, in some instances they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind; this to be sure is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution. In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from the social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government; declaring, that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct: Perchaps the best way of securing this in practice is to provide such checks, as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other. But whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. In our government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker: It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least controul; hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority. It may be thought all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defence; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one mean to controul the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined. It has been said by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a republican government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say that this objection lies against such provisons under the state governments as well as under the general government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said that in the federal government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the state governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is them who are to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary or proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the state legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those governments. I will state an instance which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The general government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the state governments had in view. If there was reason for restraining the state governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the federal government. It may be said, because it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict. I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty. It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution. It has been said, that it is necessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular states. It is true, there are a few particular states in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but does it not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Beside this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquility of the public mind, and the stability of the government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of government, as a declaration of the rights of the people. In the next place I wish to see that part of the constitution revised which declares, that the number of representatives shall not exceed the proportion of one for every thirty thousand persons, and allows one representative to every state which rates below that proportion. If we attend to the discussion of this subject, which has taken place in the state conventions, and even in the opinion of the friends to the constitution, an alteration here is proper. It is the sense of the people of America, that the number of representatives ought to be increased, but particularly that it should not be left in the discretion of the government to diminish them, below that proportion which certainly is in the power of the legislature as the constitution now stands; and they may, as the population of the country increases, increase the house of representatives to a very unwieldy degree. I confess I always thought this part of the constitution defective, though not dangerous; and that it ought to be particularly attended to whenever congress should go into the consideration of amendments. There are several lesser cases enumerated in my proposition, in which I wish also to see some alteration take place. That article which leaves it in the power of the legislature to ascertain its own emolument is one to which I allude. I do not believe this is a power which, in the ordinary course of government, is likely to be abused, perhaps of all the powers granted, it is least likely to abuse; but there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without controul to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets; there is a seeming indecorum in such power, which leads me to propose a change. We have a guide to this alteration in several of the amendments which the different conventions have proposed. I have gone therefore so far as to fix it, that no law, varying the compensation, shall operate until there is a change in the legislature; in which case it cannot be for the particular benefit of those who are concerned in determining the value of the service. I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c." were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controuled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controuled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against. I think it will be proper, with respect to the judiciary powers, to satisfy the public mind on those points which I have mentioned. Great inconvenience has been apprehended to suitors from the distance they would be dragged to obtain justice in the supreme court of the United States, upon an appeal on an action for a small debt. To remedy this, declare, that no appeal shall be made unless the matter in controvers amounts to a particular sum: This, with the regulations respecting jury trials in criminal cases, and suits at common law, it is to be hoped will quiet and reconcile the minds of the people to that part of the constitution. I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the state conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated, should be reserved to the several states. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely, than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary; but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it. These are the points on which I wish to see a revision of the constitution take place. How far they will accord with the sense of this body, I cannot take upon me absolutely to determine; but I believe every gentlemen will readily admit that nothing is in contemplation, so far as I have mentioned, that can endanger the beauty of the government in any one important feature, even in the eyes of its most sanguine admirers. I have proposed nothing that does not appear to me as proper in itself, or eligible as patronised by a respectable number of our fellow citizens; and if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame, or abridging its usefulness, in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect. Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this house the subject of amendments, and also stated such as wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support; I shall content myself for the present with moving, that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States. By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the house. I should advocate greater dispatch in the business of amendments, if I was not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government.

Washington's Letter to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia May 10, 1789 Gentlemen: I request that you will accept my best acknowledgements for your congratulation on my appointment to the first office in the nation. The kind manner in which you mention my past conduct equally claims the expression of my gratitude. After we had, by the smiles of Heaven on our exertions, obtained the object for which we contended, I retired at the conclusion of the war, with an idea that my country would have no farther occasion for my services, and with the intention of never entering again into public life. But when the exigence of my country seemed to require me once more to engage in public affairs, an honest conviction of duty superseded my former resolution, and became my apology for deviating from the happy plan which I had adopted. If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. For you, doubtless, remember that I have often expressed my sentiment, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. While I recollect with satisfaction that the religious society of which you are members, have been, throughout America, uniformly, and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution; I cannot hesitate to believe that they will be the faithful supporters of a free, yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing reflection I rejoice to assure them that they may rely on my best wishes and endeavors to advance their prosperity. In the meantime be assured, Gentlemen, that I entertain a proper sense of your fervent supplications to God for my temporal and eternal happiness. G. Washington This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter VII Annotation: Washington assured the United Baptist Churches of Virginia that the new federal government would respect religious liberty, emphasizing that the Constitution and the emerging Bill of Rights would prevent government from infringing upon the free exercise of religion. Washington particularly rejected the idea that religious freedom existed merely by governmental tolerance, instead affirming that the people possessed fundamental rights that government was bound to protect. The letter therefore provides an important contemporary statement of the First Amendment's purpose: securing religious freedom and preventing the federal government from establishing or interfering with religion, while also reassuring religious minorities that the new constitutional order would protect their liberty. Author: George Washington — Gilbert Stuart ca. 1803 Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-united-baptist-churches-in-virginia/