Humanities 2319

Lecture 4:  The Polity-
Fraying the Edges: Race & Ethnicity TOP

The young, future, Dr. Samuel Huntington, during his qualifying exams for his PhD was asked by one of his professors, "What is the relation between political thought and political institutions?"¹  As a nascent academic, I would have been immediately overwhelmed by the magnitude of that question---it is a HUGELY important consideration, but one with strangely similar qualities to the inquiry,  'what came first:  the chicken or the egg?'   While there have been many attempts to address this question by many Political Scientists far more learned than myself, this is the question we will begin exploring in this lecture and through the rest of the semester.  

What influence can political culture and thought have on governmental institutions? Why do governments form in the manner they do?  Can institutions be transformed by political culture?  Outside the limitations defined by a Constitutional document, can these Leviathans  transmute themselves to reflect changes in a society's culture or are they static entities that can eventually become archaic? In this lecture, we will explore the institutions that we created and how these reflect and reinforce aspects of our political culture. 

....a more perfect union

We see how the ideas that provided a catalyst for the American as well as French Revolutions, also helped shaped the structure of the governments formed in the aftermath.  As you should recall, while there were Loyalist sympathizers in America, the overwhelming sentiment was for independence and self-rule.  Once independence was achieved however,  there was  no overwhelming agreement on how that self-rule would be put into practice. 

As Lecture 3 alluded, disagreements involved the structure and distribution of power between a central authority and the states evidenced by the Federalist Papers and the responses of the Anti-Federalist Papers.  What is more important to this discussion is who would be able to give their consent to be governed and who would not.  The immediate distinction that should be made is between those men, affectionately referred to as "the Founders" and those (Anti-Federalists and Loyalists) who did not support the new contract called the Constitution.   The Constitution being proposed was, after all, viewed by those supporting it, as an attempt to correct weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, the document establishing an organized government after the Revolution was fought and won. 

 

The four month convention included no women, no slaves, no Indians or other ethnic minorities,  nor were there any laborers.  Burns referred to this as a convention of "The well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed."²  The average age of the delegates was forty-three, and most were members of the new' elite-- merchants, lawyers and plantation owners.  Half of these were college-educated and about the same proportion were lawyers; most were veterans of the Continental Army – one of the few institutions that truly transcended various regional identities.  They were hardly representative of all America and as such, would seem hardly concerned with egalitarian views concerning 'the blessings of liberty' or even promoting the 'general welfare'.  They were certainly concerned with ensuring domestic tranquility; particularly where it involved their property rights!  Historians dispute this perspective and certainly, as Charles Beard wrote, an economic interpretation is not the only  interpretation one could make as to the founders' motives. 

Clearly, part of the culture of America involved a class struggle---not unlike that fomenting across the Atlantic in France; but here, the monarchy had already been disposed of and there hand never been a titled aristocracy established.  The new task was to create a more democratic form of government.  This word, democracy, however, needs to be qualified here.  In the sense that the founders believed those who were educated and vested (owned property) and quite naturally, were white males were best suited to make considered decisions respecting the governing, they were democratic.  Of course, by today's standards, this would hardly be considered so.   Madison remarked,

                It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the
                    real difference of interests lay, not between the large
                    and small but between Northern and Southern states.
                    The institution of slavery and its consequences  formed
                    the line of discrimination.³

It is with this understanding that the Constitution would eventually be ratified; this and the promise of a Bill of Rights.

Back to Top

.....that all men are created equal

                    Liberty!--Electric word! What is it? Is there anything more
                           in it than a name--a rhetorical flourish? Why, men and women
                           of America, does your hearts blood thrill at that word, for
                           which your fathers bled, and your braver mothers were
                           willing that their noblest and best should die? Is there
                           anything in it glorious and dear for a nation, that is not also
                           glorious and dear for a man?⁴ ----Harriet Beecher Stowe

While the concept of freedom or liberty was deeply engrained in American political culture, it was engrained with an understanding that not all individuals were capable of the responsibilities attached to freedom.  This understanding was reinforced by the political institutions through law.  Certainly the Native Americans' experience was not that different from the Africans.  Native Americans were not considered 'citizens' until 1924 and many states denied them voting rights well into the 1950s.

The Constitution prohibited Congress from ending the trade of slaves until 1808, though it certainly continued illegally many years after that.  The institutions in government were hardly non-committal on the issue of slavery though.  From Lecture 3, you were introduced to the Fugitive Slave Law (1793),  which was basically legislative language that would enforce Article IV, Section2, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution.  It would be unfair however, to not mention that there were other Acts by Congress which attempted to thwart the slave trade after 1808.  This would seem to indicate that there were members who were troubled by the issue of slavery and attempted, where possible to mitigate its influence.

For slaves, which made up about 1/5 of the population by this point, the prospect of freedom was little more than a dream attainable by escape or death.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, two of the most prominent slave holders of the time, both found the institution of slavery reprehensible, but an integral component to the Southern colonies' economies.  The Northern delegates largely opposed slavery, but rather than risk rankling the Southern delegates, they used the issue of slavery to exact other compromises, sure that the institution would eventually meet its own demise.  In a way, America would become a country of two competing economic systems highly integrated with each other, each  distinct in values involving free vs. slave labor; however, those espousing free labor were more ambiguous about the status of African Americans in general.  The North would become the a huge center of agricultural commerce, bustling with trade, urbanization and immigration and in certain areas, industrialization; the South, while certainly growing, remained tied to plantation agriculture, the production of a few staple crops, and dependent on the use of slave labor. 

By 1830, America's population was almost 13 million, wherein almost 2 million slaves are reported.  By 1840 the number of slaves had increased by almost another half a million and by 1860, to almost 4 million.  Slavery became increasingly concentrated in states best suited for cotton production.  Cotton cultivation rapidly expanded to meet the needs of a rapidly industrializing textile production in Great Britain and New England.  The two went hand in hand.

Africans were acculturated and assimilated into the fabric of American culture, but only as chattel.  They were bought and sold, as any piece of property, but more importantly perhaps, slave traders and plantation owners attempted to strip them of their culture.  In spite of this, Africans were remarkably industrious in their attempts to retain aspects of it. 

A man's name is a principal component of his personality, perhaps even a portion of his soul .  ---Sigmund Freud

One example of an attempt to acculturate Africans was the practice of  renaming them using more 'traditional' Western or Biblical names or even names taken from literary classics was common.   Dehumanization was a critical factor---those slaves that proved obstinate or rebelled were whipped, or in the most dire of cases when they could not be sold off, killed.  While family ties were recognized,  men  were separated from women and women from their offspring when necessary.  Slavery, however, would prove to be only one means by which rights could be denied---ethnicity, sex and religion, and class factored in as well!  The issue of slavery would be settled by war almost 100 years after the Constitution was penned, but the vestiges of slavery would live long after the institution itself ended.  One thing was clear, by the 1830 Census, the South was entrenched in slavery. 

 

It is here that I will introduce a tourist.   Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian and political philosopher came to America in 1830 under the auspices of investigating prison reform.  He was exposed to quite a bit more than he had initially bargained.  He made his way from Rhode Island, west to Michigan, north to Canada and as far south as Louisiana and Alabama over the course of nine months.  Some call his work Democracy in America, the first example of sociological research, and to an extent they are correct.  In his travels, he documented his observations about the people, religion, government and geography.  "Democracy" could well be called 'biography' of America in its time.  De Tocqueville took great interest in the people he encountered, for example, he found the paradox of slavery and the American Indians perplexing.  De Tocqueville notes,

                    "The Negro makes a thousand fruitless efforts to insinuate
                      himself among men who repulse him; he conforms to the
                      taste of his oppressors, adopts their opinions, and hopes by
                      imitating them to form a part of their community. Having
                      been told from infancy that his race is naturally inferior to
                      that of the whites, he assents to the proposition and is ashamed
                      of his own nature.....The Negro, who earnestly desires to
                      mingle his race with that of the European, cannot do so;
                      while the Indian, who might succeed to a certain extent,
                     disdains to make the attempt. The servility of the one
                     dooms him to slavery, the pride of the other to death."⁵

During de Tocqueville's visit however, the abolitionist movement was well under way.  British abolitionists had already succeeded in abolishing slavery in the British Empire (Caribbean) and Americans set out to do the same.  They also preached an even more controversial idea of racial equality. American abolitionists had published such works as The Slave's Friend, a monthly pamphlet for children and The Anti-Slavery Picknick,  which was a collection of speeches, poems, dialogues, and songs intended for use in schools and anti-slavery meetings, and the Negro Woman's Appeal to her White Sisters which attempted to petition white women to become involved with the Abolitionist movement.    Outspoken abolitionists made speeches.  For example, in 1851, Sojourner Truth posed the question: "Ain't I a Woman?" and a year later,  Frederick Douglass would ask "What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"

By the 1860s, Americans, both Northern and Southern, reached an impasse on the issue of slavery.   Despite these deep fractures, Americans had successfully created a 'nation-state.'  Geographic expansion through the south and west enriched the white famer and the idea of Manifest Destiny emerged.  In 1845, John O'Sullivan, editor of the influential Democratic Review, thought up the phrase "Manifest Destiny" to describe a dream of a United States stretching from Atlantic to Pacific. Of course, this would require addressing the Indian 'problem' as well as face further potential confrontations with Great Britain and Mexico. Of course, this view was not a collective one because those with strong opinions about slavery (for or against) were concerned about the tenuous balance of slave/free states.  The nation was irreparably divided over the very issue that created the tenuous compromises initially. 

The Civil War was waged, won by the North and the institution of slavery was abolished.  Economic growth exploded and new technologies accelerated agricultural and industrial output.  Unfortunately, this growth came at a price--increased social stratification and unemployment, leading to public outcry for the restructuring of the American economic system.⁶   In terms of the former slaves, what opportunities existed? What place would he occupy in the now tattered fabric of America?  How would he now be assimilated into the culture that failed to recognize his humanity? 

Back to top

Much work was needed in repairing the torn nation.  The victorious North, and the vanquished South agreed upon the end of slavery but beyond that, there was no consensus.  The South, having slavery embedded so deeply into its history and culture, collectively shuddered to think of its 'way of life' being turned on its head, began immediately enacting Black Codes.  To many Northerners, who recognized the contribution of African Americans to the Union's war effort,  this Southern response was a provocation. As a result, the Republican-controlled Congress amended the US Constitution, adding what are called the "Reconstruction Amendments" (Amendments 13, 14, and 15), ending slavery, guaranteeing equality for all citizens and extending the right to vote to African-American males.   For example, when the white Southerners proved uncooperative, Congress created military occupations in the former Confederate states, and instituted polices designed to enhance opportunities for the former slaves; however, Northern public opinion quickly diminished when issues of land redistribution and other controversial methods were proposed.  In the end, after federal armies left the South in 1877, in light of white intransigence and Northern apathy, one might argue very little changed beyond the former slaves' status as chattel.

Citizenship, and the rights afforded by that status were never within the reach of slaves before or after the Constitution was ratified and in point of fact, even after the Civil War, significant changes were not going to emerge in the quality of life for most African-Americans for almost another century!  The 14th Amendment, while establishing equality among races, would not become a factor used to enforce equality until later in the 20th century, when in 1964 and 1965, Civil Rights Acts were passed to prohibit racial discrimination in public places, employment and to remove the last remaining statutory voting barriers.

.....well, maybe not ALL people

As noted by Rousseau, an educated population is critical if self-government is to work.  Many of you have learned about the doctrine of 'separate but equal' as was established by the Court in Plessy v Ferguson. This was a doctrine used to keep African-American, Native-Americans and other minority children from attending 'white schools.'  While arguments were made that as long as the facilities provided (whether they were schools, or bathrooms or seats on a bus were equal (translated: marginally adequate) was irrelevant) there was no reason to integrate racially---society clearly did not want this. 

The Supreme Court, on the other hand,  ultimately ruled that segregation was inherently unequal.  By segregating the races, the implication was that there was a valid reason that existed to do so; [segregation] "generates a feeling of inferiority as to [colored children's'] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to be undone" was the ruling of the Court in 1954 in the case of Brown v Board of Education.  The next year, the Court would have to determine how to implement the ruling, and issued guidance that states should desegregate "with all deliberate speed."

While there was significant outcry in the South, as well as foot-dragging, it was clear that the 14th Amendment would again be used to change the political landscape of America.  The Brown decision would ensure that all children would be provided an equal, public education---at least under the law.  In spite of the Brown ruling, today, there are still school districts in America that are under "Brown" orders to desegregate. 

Higher education, however, presented another matter entirely.  Unlike public schools, compulsory or mandatory enrollment and attendance was not required.  In fact, many colleges, now referred to as historically black colleges, were created even before the Civil War ended to provide education for African-Americans.   In 1950, however, like public schools, public universities were forced to desegregate as well. 

Change in Numbers of Minority-Serving Colleges and Other Colleges

Category	1984	2004
Historically black	96	94
Black-serving, non historically black	200	622
Hispanic-serving	58	366
Asian-serving	21	76
American-Indian serving (includes tribal)	26	46
Other minority-serving	13	50
All minority-serving	414	1,254
Non-minority serving	2,646	2,681
All colleges	3,060	3,935

In terms of where minority students are enrolled, the period studied showed increases for all types of minority-serving institutions, but wide variation in how the sectors changed in the percentage of all minority students they enrolled.

Enrollment of Minority Students at Minority-Serving Colleges and Other Colleges

Category	1984 minority enrollment	2004 minority enrollment	1984 percentage of all minority students enrolled in sector	2004 percentage of all minority students enrolled in sector
Historically black	166,498	238,040	8.7%	5.1%
Black-serving, non historically black	242,852	732,435	12.7%	15.6%
Hispanic-serving	164,051	1,257,411	8.6%	26.8%
Asian-serving	61,905	354,417	3.2%	7.5%
American-Indian serving (includes tribal)	9,709	28,824	0.5%	0.6%
Other minority-serving	73,921	121,140	3.9%	2.6%
All minority-serving	718,936	2,732,267	37.6%	58.2%
Non-minority serving	1,192,285	1,963,257	62.4%	41.8%
All colleges	1,911,221	4,695,524	100%	100%

By 2006, minority undergraduate enrollment explains the biggest increase in overall enrollment for most colleges and universities; however, in spite of the gains here, graduation rates are not on par with enrollment, hovering between 50 and 70 percent for most universities. 

Back to top

.....endowed by their creator

For other immigrants, merely arriving in America conferred upon them opportunities to assimilate and pursue opportunity and seek their fortunes. Arguably, in some of the Northern Colonies, 'citizenship' rights were tied to membership in a Congregationalist Church, and in fact, laws limiting civic participation  to the members were enacted in the early colonies.  Thomas Jefferson wrote respecting religion in his "Notes on Virginia", "They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect." In this regard, the Northern colonies welcomed only those who were like-minded and did not challenge the authority vested in their theocratic government.  Even Jefferson's own state of Virginia experienced periods of intolerance as he reveals in the first paragraph.  In as much as the Puritans sought refuge from oppression, they became the oppressors; Catholics, Amish, Quakers and Mennonites were murdered.  Of course, Christianity, while the prevalent faith tradition, was certainly not the only tradition---Jews from Brazil had migrated to America (Rhode Island mostly) after the Spanish Inquisition and set up synagogues.  One of the oldest Jewish families in America arrived in 1696---years before the birth of many of those delegates considered 'Founding Fathers."

While those delegates meeting during the constitutional convention were all of a Deist or Christian predilection, because of differences among those, religious freedom of conscience was assured.  Unlike the states, of which several had required religious qualifications of its citizens and office holders in particular, the new national government would not.   Further, the new nation would not proclaim that it was a nation founded upon a single faith tradition as it sought relations with other nations.  Arguably, perhaps, these were merely 'words' included in a treaty to ensure peaceful relations, but nevertheless, they exist.  Those Federalist men involved in the writing of our Constitution, were sure that religious freedom must be allowed and tolerance required more than merely ignoring differences.  For example, George Washington, in his response to a letter from Rabbi Moses Seixas, assured that "...the government of the United States....gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance..." 

....your tired, your hungry, your poor

Some refer to America as a 'melting pot', but that really isn't an accurate analogy as it implies the 'combining' into one, all immigrants who came to America.  Imagine, if you will, a meat grinder....what comes out is blended version of what went in....All the colonists, slaves and immigrants blend together and produce this amalgam of what we call "American" but their distinctiveness remains---recognizable in  differences in language, mannerisms, ethnicity, religion, and culture.  The common thread in the fabric, however are those important shared values discussed in Lecture 1: democracy, liberty and equality.  

What is important to note is that America initially had no laws on 'immigration'.  Congress wrote its first law in 1790 respecting who it would or would not consider a citizen---naturalization was limited to aliens who were "free white persons." In 1798, a new more stringent law was passed (Naturalization Act of 1798) which allowed the deporting of foreigners who were considered to be dangerous and increased the residency requirements from five to fourteen years. Thus began attempts to limit the influx and influence non-Anglo, and Eastern European populations might have on America.

                          In order that society should exist and prosper,
                          it is necessary that the mind of all the citizens
                          should be rallied and held together by certain
                          predominant ideas; and this cannot be the case
                          unless each of them draws his opinions from  the
                          common source and consents to accept certain
                          matters of belief already formed.⁴  

Immigrants began flooding into America; largely congregating in the Northern states, but while they were allowed in, it was not without some apprehension.  As the chart  and map below indicates, the Northern states of the US were becoming very heavily populated by immigrants and they were largely, still from western Europe.  It will not be until the latter 1800s that Eastern and Southern Europeans as well as Asians would begin arriving in America.  Immigrants from Western Europe referred to as the "Old Immigrants" were differentiated from the "New Immigrants."   In 1850, the US Census began including questions respecting country of birth (nativity) and concern about the origin of immigrants would again lead to legislation curbing it.

                      

Assimilating the "Old Immigrants" into American political culture was not a difficult task--after all, their origins were largely the same as those of the early colonists. That should not be taken to mean that all 'old immigrants' were welcomed and assimilated without problems.  The primary issue that proved divisive was that of religion:  Catholics and Protestants. 

The Irish Catholics faced extreme hardship during the 1850s but they had arrived during a time of economic expansion and were readily employed in the jobs of building cities' infrastructures as well as on the railroads.  Their industry and hard work connected them inextricably to their new country and in spite of the discrimination they faced because of their Catholicism, they created small communities for themselves and adopted, in large measure, those democratic values of their 'older immigrant Protestant' neighbors.  They created these small neighborhoods Hell's Kitchen in New York City, or areas of Bridgeport in Chicago, Illinois, that retain their legacy of history even today!  Over time, Irish Catholic Organizations gained strong political influence in large cities because of their collectiveness, contributed to the rise of political 'machines' as they are known in their modern context.  These 'machines' characterized often by the leadership of a single individual, sought out membership and strongly encouraged participating among the Irish Catholics.  In return for votes, the machines rewarded Irish Catholic neighborhoods with jobs, and social programs and services (sanitation/housing, etc).  All the machine leaders asked was for supporters to faithfully ally themselves with the machine; irrespective of perhaps, illegal acts or corruption on its part.   Many Protestant groups expressed concerns that the Irish Catholics would acquire too much political power and in turn, began organizing counter groups.  Organizations like the American Protective League and the Ku Klux Klan were formed and began to antagonize the Catholic immigrants.  More officially, the  Know-Nothings (American Political Party) formed to advocate for greater restrictions on the political participation of new immigrants. 

On the other hand, the "New Immigrants" from Southern and Eastern Europe or Asian presented entirely different problems.   In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was signed into law and thus began the attempts to except immigrants to which America would allow entrance.   Interestingly, American Indians still figure prominently in the citizenship debate. 

Back to top

.....America for Americans

In retrospect, there is remarkable evidence that supports the tendency of any national culture to challenge any sizable influx of new immigrants.  America has experienced several occurrences of this behavior---and certainly we are experiencing it again today---but we shall leave this for a later discussion.  By the turn of the century (1900s), economic migrants from southern and eastern Europe were entering America in such large numbers,  great debates ensued and even more laws were enacted to limit the number of immigrants entering the United States in hopes this would diminish their perceived effects on American culture.  For example, the Immigration Act of 1917, preventing ethnic immigrants from India and the 1924 Immigration Act, excluding Japanese.  Tracts, pamphlets and books were published extolling the virtues of the 'white' race' and particularly over the vices of southern and eastern Europeans.   Courts ruled against naturalized Americans and the "Red Scare" further fueled 'nationalist' sentiment.

Immigrants throughout American history have been viewed as a paradox:  their presence assisted in building cities and communities and imbibing the nation-state with a more diverse stock of people, however, their great numbers could prove overwhelming for cities already facing the significant social issues associated with rapid growth---increased in crime, sub-standard or insufficient infrastructure and services, and a propensity for the 'ghettoization'  of new immigrant members.  While many immigrants successfully assimilated,  created and grew businesses or obtained productive occupations; there were many others who, facing discrimination, were never fully integrated. 

.....America in the  late 20th century  

Three major pieces of legislation attempting to 'shift' aspects of American political culture that would expand civil rights; and voting rights specifically.

America has experienced three major waves of immigration.  The second wave which began in the early 1920s was the period known as the greatest migration in America. Even though immigration almost stopped during the Great Depression, between 1880 and 1930, over 27 million people came to America--this is roughly equivalent to the present population of Texas and Louisiana combined! 

The third wave began after World War II and largely reflects a ''two-phase' period of migration from Asia and Latin American countries, first with Asians followed by Hispanic migrants.  Beginning in the 1950s, as a result of war and conflict, significant numbers Asians originating from Korea, Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia arrived as refugees as did immigrants from Cuba shortly after.  These migrations would both be categorized as 'political' in nature.  Many of these early immigrants of the third wave entered America during a time of great political upheaval---the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights Movement, and various labor movements, or by the rise of Communism or another totalitarian form of government.

Immigrants have historically always done the backbreaking labor associated with building our country (3-D jobs); allowing them entrance to perform these jobs was not something many disputed---provided they returned home when the work was done.  One example of this was the bracero program which was a temporary worker program designed to allow Mexican farm workers to enter the US, work in the fields, and return home.  The program continued  for twenty-two years, until 1964 but many Mexicans remained and were naturalized. 

Hispanics present an interesting conundrum for American political culture however.  Hispanics are by definition, an amalgam of people from many different countries and are of different 'races.'  You should realize that there is a significant difference between the concept of race and the concept of ethnicity.  Having said this, to refer to those who identify as 'Hispanic' collectively, would be to imply that there is a shared political culture present, which is not the case.  Puerto Ricans, for example, are in every sense, "American" but have a distinctive political culture from that of Mexicans or Cubans---primarily due to experiential differences in treatment in America and through the process of acculturation and assimilation.

Mexicans, for example resided in America and were co-opted into our nation-state through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  The treaty conferred automatic citizenship to  Mexicans who continued to reside in the areas governed by the Treaty (or they could choose to retain their Mexican citizenship); in fact, the US government considered Mexicans as 'white' for the purposes of census tabulations until 1930.    Cubans came to America, primarily as refugees and Puerto Ricans are American citizens, at least since 1917 when it became a Commonwealth of the United States!  Each of these groups, came to America under different circumstances and their experiences influence how they view America and how they are woven into the fabric of American political culture.

By 1964, the Civil Rights Movement had achieved a monumental success when Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibited discrimination based upon race in public places and government facilities as well as institutionalized the Brown decision by tying it to federal funding.  Further, it called for the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which would ensure racial discrimination would be prohibited in the workplace.

In 1995, the Census Bureau reported that the foreign born population in the United States had reached its highest level since World War II, causing yet again another storm of discussion respecting immigration policy. 

Today, America is at a cross-road.  Do we revert to immigration policies that are based on quota systems? Do we attempt to guard our borders with fences and patrols?  What programs exist that effectively "weave" new immigrant "threads" into the "fabric" of the United States?  We are a nation of immigrants, how well immigrants assimilate into our political culture will eventually affect the stability of our institutions, the continuity of values we engender and transmit and, ultimately, how our nation-state operates in the larger global environment relating with other nation-states.

Activity 3

Back to top

^{________________________________}

1.  Huntington, Samuel. 1981.   American Politics and the Promise of Disharmony.  Cambridge,
      MA.:  Belknap Press.     Preface.
2.   Burns, James McGregor. 1982.  The Vineyard of Liberty.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
3.  Farrand, Max.  1966.  The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. 1 p 9-10.
4.  Stowe, Harriet Beecher. 1852.  Uncle Tom's Cabin.  Boston: Jeweitt & Co.  p. 441
5.   de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1835.  Democracy in America, p 344-35.
6.   http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds/ch8/summary2.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home |  Political Science Department | Professor Kaupert's Homepage |  SAC |  Student Services