THE DOCUMENTSIntroduction to Documents 1–4The first set of doc.docx

THE DOCUMENTS
Introduction to Documents 1–4
The first set of documents includes two anti-Jackson and two
pro-Jackson political broadsides. Three were used in the
campaign of 1828, and the fourth, entitled King Andrew the
First, was created in 1832 after Jackson’s controversial veto of
Congress’ rechartering of the Bank of the United States. What is
the intended message of each broadside? How does each
combine images and words to convey that message? [Note:
These images can be found at http://www.isidore-of-
seville.com/jackson/6-3.html.]
The Benefits of Jacksonian Democracy
Each document in this set advances the merits of Jackson and
his agenda. Document 5 is an editorial from a newspaper
published shortly after Jackson took office that warns the
Democrats not to become complacent, and Document 6 is an
advertisement published during Jackson’s reelection campaign
in 1832. Documents 7 and 8 are excerpts from pro-Jackson
speeches, the former delivered in 1835 by the eminent historian
and Democrat partisan George Bancroft, and the latter delivered
in 1837 by Jackson himself as his farewell address to the
American people. Based upon these selections, how did the
Jacksonians define the American creed and why did they
support this president? What assumptions underlay these
selections?
DOCUMENT 5 From The Democratic Republican.
The causes which have produced so great an excitement among
the freemen of these United States, during the late political
conflict, have ceased, and genuine Republicanism has once
more triumphed. Andrew Jackson has taken the chair of State,

and his enemies and calumniators are humbled at his feet. In
reflecting upon these important facts, and while we feel rejoiced
at so signal a victory over the remnant of Aristocracy, there is
imminent danger, that all this excitement and all this joy will be
succeeded by apathy, and a criminal, fatal neglect of the
important duties, which always devolve upon freemen. But,
Heaven forbid, that the advantages which have been gained, and
the pure principles, which have been so firmly established, by
the recent victory, should be forgotten or neglected. Every man,
we repeat it, every man has political duties devolving upon him,
of a nature calculated to awaken attention and call forth his best
energies. And, in this country of freedom, it would seem most
astonishing, that any individual should be indifferent to the
important concerns of the nation. It is indeed not sufficient, that
we appear at the ballot boxes and cast our suffrages for our
rulers—it is not sufficient, that we attach ourselves to a
particular party and perform the ordinary duties of freemen—we
must improve every opportunity of increasing our political
knowledge and unite heart and hand in promoting the cause of
liberty.
Are we essentially our own rulers?—and can we, with so great a
consideration before us, be contented to yield to others the
prerogative of judgment? That man is superlatively base, who
has so far degraded himself as to depend upon others for
direction, in the common duties of a freeman; and he is not less
a slave, who is thus dependant, than the sable African about
whose feet the iron shackle has been locked. Let freemen, and
especially the genuine democratic republicans of this nation,
reflect upon these subjects, and they will perceive, that all our
political prosperity depends upon them; and no man, however
humble his condition, should suffer himself to believe that his
opinion or his influence is trifling.…
We feel secure on account of our recent success, and this
feeling of security may prove our ruin. And, while we are
sluggish and inactive, our enemies are vigilant, and no arts or
devices will be left untried by them. The enemies of Jackson

have nothing to lose; and they are desperate to a degree of
madness never before exhibited in this country. Our venerated
Chief Magistrate has been the object of their bitterest and most
adhorred assaults for the last four years, and now, that he is
exalted by the free suffrages of his fellow citizens to the highest
and most enviable station on earth, their tongues have become
envenomed and their hearts hardened.… And they in their rage
have not been satisfied with hurling their poisoned shafts upon
Jackson alone—the partner of his bosom, while living was their
jest and sport; and the grave affords no security against their
slander. Yes, not only have the very portals of the tomb been
broken, by the hands of these worse than barbarians; but our
Hero, whose heart was filled with anguish for his loss, has been
himself the object of renewed attack. And what must we not
expect from those men, who deride the finer feelings of
humanity, and to the overwhelming sorrows of the afflicted, add
their most malignant poison? We must expect that such men,
destitute of the common feelings of our nature, will exercise the
grossest and most detested passions, in all their doings. It is not
a matter of wonder, that they object to every step, which
President Jackson takes, be it good, bad, or indifferent. It is not
surprising, that at this early hour, they should use every means
to embarrass his measures, and endeavor to cheat the public into
a belief that ‘all is wrong.’ These things they unblushingly do;
and nothing can defeat their malicious designs, but the
determination of his friends, honestly to defend him; and, to
make a sure defense, one and all must awake to duty, and rest
assured that although the ‘battle’s fought and victory’s won,’
‘the danger is not over.’
DOCUMENT 6 Ten Reasons for Advocating the Re-Election of
General Jackson
· 1. Because our country was never more prosperous than under
General Jackson’s administration.
· 2. Because by a majority of the votes of his countrymen, he
has twice been declared to be the choice of the people.
· 3. Because he will be the last President from the number of

Revolutionary heroes whom the people may honor with their
suffrages.
· 4. Because of his firmness in opposing the “great monied
aristocracy” which seeks to master our government, and
threatens to overthrow our free institutions.
· 5. Because of his wise and humane policy with regard to the
Indian tribes.
· 6. Because of his efforts to suppress “the undue exertion of
federal power” and his endeavors to maintain the rights of the
States.
· 7. Because of his wise policy as respects foreign nations, of
whom he “asks nothing that is not clearly right, and submits to
nothing that is wrong.”
· 8. Because he has settled difficulties with foreign nations
which have baffled the diplomacy of previous administrations.
· 9. Because he has ever shown himself anxious to cherish and
perpetuate the liberties of the people.
· 10. Because in the discharge of his duties he has invariably
taken a straight forward course, proving himself to be the
disinterested patriot, the upright statesman, and the honest man.
Utica Observer
DOCUMENT 7 Selections from George Bancroft’s The Office
of the People in Art, Government and Religion: An Oration
Delivered Before the Adelphi Society of Williamstown College,
in August 1835.
… [T]he best government rests on the people and not on the
few, on persons and not on property, on the free development of
public opinion and not on authority; because the munificent
Author of our being has conferred the gifts of mind upon every
member of the human race without distinction of outward
circumstances. Whatever of other possessions may be
engrossed, mind asserts its own independence. Lands, estates,
the produce of mines, the prolific abundance of the seas may be
usurped by a privileged class. Avarice, assuming the form of
ambitious power, may grasp realm after realm, subdue

continents, compass the earth in its schemes of aggrandizement,
and sigh after other worlds; but mind eludes the power of
appropriation. It exists only in its own individuality; it is a
property which cannot be confiscated and cannot be torn away;
it laughs at chains; it bursts from imprisonment; it defies
monopoly. A government of equal rights must, therefore, rest
upon mind; not wealth, not brute force, the sum of the moral
intelligence of the community should rule the State.…
The public happiness is the true object of legislation, and can be
secured only by the masses of mankind themselves awakening
to the knowledge and the care of their own interests. Our free
institutions have reversed the false and ignoble distinctions
between men; and refusing to gratify the pride of caste, have
acknowledged the common mind to be the true material for a
commonwealth. Everything has hitherto been done for the happy
few. It is not possible to endow an aristocracy with greater
benefits than they have already enjoyed; there is not room to
hope that individuals will be more highly gifted or more fully
developed than the greatest sages of past times. The world can
advance only through the culture of the moral and intellectual
powers of the people. To accomplish this end by means of the
people themselves is the highest purpose of government. If it be
the duty of the individual to strive after a perfection like the
perfection of God, how much more ought a nation to be the
image of Deity. The common mind is the true Parian marble, fit
to be wrought into likeness to a God. The duty of America is to
secure the culture and the happiness of the masses by their
reliance on themselves.…
[G]overnment by the people is in very truth the strongest
government in the world. Discarding the implements of terror, it
dares to rule by moral force and has its citadel in the heart.
Such is the political system which rests on reason, reflection,
and the free expression of deliberate choice. There may be those
who scoff at the suggestion that the decision of the whole is to
be preferred to the judgment of the enlightened few. They say in
their hearts that the masses are ignorant; that farmers know

nothing of legislation; that mechanics should not quit their
workshops to join in forming public opinion. But true political
science does indeed venerate the masses. It maintains, not as
has been perversely asserted, that “the people can make right,”
but that the people can discern right. Individuals are but
shadows, too often engrossed by the pursuit of shadows; the
race is immortal. Individuals are of limited sagacity; the
common mind is infinite in its experience. Individuals are
languid and blind; the many are ever wakeful. Individuals are
corrupt; the race has been redeemed. Individuals are time-
serving; the masses are fearless. Individuals may be false; the
masses are ingenuous and sincere. Individuals claim the divine
sanction of truth for the deceitful conceptions of their own
fancies; the Spirit of God breathes through the combined
intelligence of the people. Truth is not to be ascertained by the
impulses of an individual; it emerges from the contradictions of
personal opinions; it raises itself in majestic serenity above the
strife of parties and the conflict of sects; it acknowledges
neither the solitary mind nor the separate faction as its oracle,
but owns as its own faithful interpreter the dictates of pure
reason itself, proclaimed by the general voice of mankind. The
decrees of the universal conscience are the nearest approach to
the presence of God in the soul of man.
Thus the opinion which we respect is, indeed, not the opinion of
one or of a few, but the sagacity of the many. It is hard for the
pride of cultivated philosophy to put its ear to the ground and
listen reverently to the voice of lowly humanity; yet the people
collectively are wiser than the most gifted individual, for all his
wisdom constitutes but a part of theirs.… It is not by vast
armies, by immense natural resources, by accumulations of
treasure, that the greatest results in modern civilization have
been accomplished. The traces of the career of conquest pass
away, hardly leaving a scar on the national intelligence. The
famous battle grounds of victory are, most of them,
comparatively indifferent to the human race; barren fields of
blood, the scourges of their times but affecting the social

condition as little as the raging of a pestilence. Not one
benevolent institution, not one ameliorating principle in the
Roman state was a voluntary concession of the aristocracy; each
useful element was borrowed from the democracies of Greece or
was a reluctant concession to the demands of the people. The
same is true in the modern political life. It is the confession of
an enemy to Democracy, that “all the great and noble
institutions of the world have come from popular efforts.”
It is the uniform tendency of the popular element to elevate and
bless humanity. The exact measure of the progress of
civilization is the degree in which the intelligence of
the common mind has prevailed over wealth and brute force; in
other words, the measure of the progress of civilization is the
progress of the people.…
DOCUMENT 8 Selections from Jackson’s Farewell Address
entitled “The Cause of Freedom Will Continue to Triumph Over
All Its Enemies.”
The planter, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer all know
that their success depends upon their own industry and economy
and that they must not expect to become suddenly rich by the
fruits of their toil. Yet these classes of society form the great
body of the people of the United States; they are the bone and
sinew of the country; men who love liberty and desire nothing
but equal rights and equal laws and who, moreover, hold the
great mass of our national wealth, although it is distributed in
moderate amounts among the millions of freemen who possess
it. But, with overwhelming numbers and wealth on their side,
they are in constant danger of losing their fair influence in the
government, and with difficulty maintain their just rights
against the incessant efforts daily made to encroach upon them.
The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed
interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to
control; from the multitude of corporations with exclusive
privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining in the
different states and which are employed altogether for their

benefit; and unless you become more watchful in your states
and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive
privileges, you will, in the end, find that the most important
powers of government have been given or bartered away, and
the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands
of these corporations.
The paper money system and its natural associates, monopoly
and exclusive privileges, have already struck their roots deep in
the soil; and it will require all your efforts to check its further
growth and to eradicate the evil. The men who profit by the
abuses and desire to perpetuate them will continue to besiege
the halls of legislation in the general government as well as in
the states and will seek, by every artifice, to mislead and
deceive the public servants. It is to yourselves that you must
look for safety and the means of guarding and perpetuating your
free institutions. In your hands is rightfully placed the
sovereignty of the country and to you everyone placed in
authority is ultimately responsible. It is always in your power to
see that the wishes of the people are carried into faithful
execution, and their will, when once made known, must sooner
or later be obeyed. And while the people remain, as I trust they
ever will, uncorrupted and incorruptible and continue watchful
and jealous of their rights, the government is safe, and the cause
of freedom will continue to triumph over all its enemies.
But it will require steady and persevering exertions on your part
to rid yourselves of the iniquities and mischiefs of the paper
system and to check the spirit of monopoly and other abuses
which have sprung up with it and of which it is the main
support. So many interests are united to resist all reform on this
subject that you must not hope the conflict will be a short one
nor success easy.…
In presenting to you, my fellow citizens, these parting counsels,
I have brought before you the leading principles upon which I
endeavored to administer the government in the high office with
which you twice honored me. Knowing that the path of freedom
is continually beset by enemies who often assume the disguise

of friends, I have devoted the last hours of my public life to
warn you of the danger.
The progress of the United States under our free and happy
institutions has surpassed the most sanguine hopes of the
founders of the republic. Our growth has been rapid beyond all
former example—in numbers, in wealth, in knowledge, and all
the useful arts which contribute to the comforts and
convenience of man; and from the earliest ages of history to
the present day, there never have been 13 million people
associated together in one political body who enjoyed so much
freedom and happiness as the people of these United States.
You have no longer any cause to fear danger from abroad; your
strength and power are well known throughout the civilized
world, as well as the high and gallant bearing of your sons.
It is from within, among yourselves, from cupidity, from
corruption, from disappointed ambition and inordinate thirst for
power, that factions will be formed and liberty endangered. It is
against such designs, whatever disguise the actors may assume,
that you have especially to guard yourselves. You have the
highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence has
showered on this favored land blessings without number and has
chosen you as the guardians of freedom to preserve it for the
benefit of the human race. May He who holds in His hands the
destinies of nations make you worthy of the favors He has
bestowed and enable you, with pure hearts and pure hands and
sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time the
great charge He has committed to your keeping.
My own race is nearly run; advanced age and failing health
warn me that before long I must pass beyond the reach of human
events and cease to feel the vicissitudes of human affairs. I
thank God that my life has been spent in a land of liberty and
that He has given me a heart to love my country with the
affection of a son. And, filled with gratitude for your constant
and unwavering kindness, I bid you a last and affectionate
farewell.
Source: Farewell Address of Andrew Jackson to the People of

the United States: and the Inaugural Address of Martin Van
Buren, President of the United States, 1837, pp. 3–16.
Critics of the Jacksonian Vision
Because most of the original states limited suffrage to male
property owners or taxpayers, in the early years of the republic
only about one-half of white males were eligible to vote. Later
states, including Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, either opened suffrage to
all white males over 21 or lowered the taxpayer qualifications
to levels that allowed almost all white adult males in these
states to vote. Meanwhile, during the early decades of the
nineteenth century, some of the original states, including New
Jersey, Maryland, and New York, also adopted the practices of
the newer states by eliminating voter property qualifications.
Unfortunately, this movement toward universal white manhood
suffrage stymied or reversed the fortunes of free blacks and
propertied women, citizens who had enjoyed voting privileges
in some of the original states before “white manhood” replaced
property as the determining suffrage qualification. Although a
few states (Rhode Island, Virginia, and Louisiana) maintained
property qualifications, by 1840, more than 90 percent of the
adult white men in the United States could vote, but few other
Americans had this privilege.
Some Americans opposed the trend toward an electorate of all
white males because of who it left out, while others opposed it
because it opened government too broadly. Documents 9 and 10,
each published in 1829 when the commonwealth of Virginia was
considering the issue of revising its suffrage qualifications,
present arguments for each of these positions. Documents
11 and 12 are examples of anti-Democratic campaign pieces.
The final selection, Document 13, is an excerpt from a longer
article that equates Jacksonianism with radicalism. According to
the arguments in these selections, who opposed Jackson and
what were the defects and dangers inherent in this vision for

America? What did Jacksonianism threaten?
DOCUMENT 9 Headline: Rights of Women
… Why are we denied the privilege of voting? Why are we
eternally to be kept in the bondage of a despotic government?
‘Have we not eyes? have we not hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with
the same weapons,—subject to the same diseases, healed by the
same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and
summer, as a man is? if you prick us, do we not bleed? if you
tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and
if you wrong us,’ shall we not, (no not revenge!) but assert our
rights, and expose your gross injustice.
Aye: injustice; gross, flagrant injustice? You are born stronger
than we are; and that is the only advantage you have over us.
Nature has endowed you with more physical, brute strength, and
upon that foundation, you raise up all your boasted pretensions.
You can beat us, and therefore you make us your slaves. All
your pretended right revolves itself into might. It is the law of
tyrants; the triumph of the strong over the weak—and upon this
honorable basis, you raise the standard of your power.—Having
conquered us, you shut us out of the great means of
improvement. You are acting the party of the other discreet
conquerors. You first subdue us by force; and then by keeping
us in ignorance, you attempt to perpetuate your own power and
make us your slaves. This is the history of all despotism; and
upon this wise and noble hint you have justly acted?—Have you
any better reasons for your usurped dominion?
You say, we have not intellect enough to vote, and assist in the
government. Where are the proofs of your superiority? You
keep us in ignorance—and then you boast of your superior
attainments. You make us embroider for you; thrum upon the
guitar or piano; draw sketches of your lordly faces; convert us
into spinsters and seamstresses, to make your garments but you
exclude us from your best schools.—You prevent us from
cultivating science, studying politics, improving our
understanding; and then you insist upon our ignorance as the

evidence of our menial incapacity—forgetting that we rank
among our sex the De Staels and Daciers of France, and the
Moors and Edgeworths of England and Ireland.—Thank you,
that we have not as much native strength of mind to give our
votes properly, as more than half of your sovereign sex! And
that with a little advantage of education, we could select fit
officers, as well as you can?
You boast too, of your superior independence of mind.—You
say, that you alone can exercise the right of suffrage, firmly and
freely. Indeed! and what say the disfranchised non-freeholders
to this arrogant assumption—and what ought we say to it! That
it is not founded in truth—that if we enjoyed greater
opportunities of improvement, we too, who know how to make
you Lords of the Creation tremble at our feet, could think, and
feel and act for ourselves, in matters of government, with as
much independence as you do. Make us feel our consequence
more, and we shall know better how to value and assert it.’
DOCUMENT 10 Virginia Convention
Benj. Watkins Leigh, one of the most able members of that
Convention, is a strenuous advocate of excluding all
but Freeholders from the right of suffrage. His concluding
remark in the following speech is sound and worthy of
remembrance.…
Now, Mr. L said, he was against any rule whose natural
tendency was to work corruption. But if one man, through the
interposition of property, shall possess the power of completely
controlling another, to give that other the power of voting, was,
in effect, to invite corruption. Now if a landlord can, at will,
seize at quarter day, or at the end of the year, on any other fixed
term of payment, distrain the property of his tenant, seize
every particle of personal property he owns in the world, sell
the bed from under his sick wife, and sell the cradle on which
his infant reposes, he holds that man by the very strings of his
heart. The landlord can do this, and more; he can thereby
deprive his tenant voter of the very thing on which his power to

vote wholly depends; and therefore he exercises over him,
through the possession of property, the most absolute and
irresistible influence which one man can exercise over another.
He had no idea that any attempt would at this time be made, nor
for many years to come, to bring this power directly and openly
to bear, for the avowed purpose of controlling the vote of any
citizen of this Commonwealth. No man would dare to do it,
either now or for a long time to come. But, said Mr. L., let
gentlemen remember that this nation is in a state of progress; of
progress toward corruption.… It has been the case in all other
nations, all the world over: our nation is in its infancy,—and it
is with nations as with children, they are ever purest at their
birth.…
Sir, said Mr. L. to the Chairman, I am for a property
qualification that will act directly, openly, and not by
corruption. Yet, here, it is proposed to us, at the first hop, (if I
may be pardoned to use a very vulgar expression) to give the
right of suffrage to a mere tenant, a lessee for a single year, to a
man who is directly and entirely within the influence of another
man.
In North Carolina they have approached pretty nearly to the
exercise of universal suffrage—(I believe there is the payment
of some tax required,) and what is the consequence? Why, sir, I
am told that it is a part of the regular system of electioneering
to pay the tax for the poor man that he may be qualified. I do
not vouch for this statement—but I have it from respectable
sources—remember, sir, I do not say the poor man is
corrupted—he honestly means to vote, but his tax is paid merely
to put it in his power to do so.…
Mr. Chairman, if the general principle I have laid down be a
correct one, then the principle of this amendment ought not to
be sustained. If you are to have a property qualification at all, it
must be in such a shape that its effect can be guarded from
corruption: but by the measure proposed, corruption, instead of
being guarded against, is rendered all but inevitable. As to
universal suffrage, it is a plan for which I believe no gentleman

here is disposed to contend: but certainly, sir, some gentlemen
here are steering very near the wind.
The gentleman talks about a minority ruling the majority, but I
say, that a majority, however great, have no right to take the
property of the minority. I do contend, that if I stood alone, the
sole possessor of property in a society however large, that
society would have no right whatever to take my property away.
Such is not the purpose of Government. The purpose, and the
only purpose of Government, is to prevent men from doing
injustice to each other. All government is negative in its
principle: it is a system of restraints.
DOCUMENT 11 Why, What Evil Hath He Done?
‘Why, what evil hath he done?’—is an inquiry which a Jackson
press, (and but one in the country, has ever) had the temerity to
make with respect to the present executive. We will again
answer it, in the words of truth and soberness, drawn from
various sources and unimpeachable in point of fact.
General Jackson, since his election, has broken every promise,
forfeited every pledge, and departed from every principle,
which, before his election he professed to hold as sacred or
regard as important.—He has gone upon the avowed principle of
‘rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies;’ of turning
out those who had voted against him, and putting in those who
had voted for him.—He has compelled all who enjoy office, as a
compensation for their appointments, and under the penalty of
instant ejection, to support his measures, whether right or
wrong, and to submit to exactions upon their salaries for the
support of new presses and extra publications, and hired
election minions.—He has re-appointed men to office whom the
Senate have twice rejected, thereby entirely destroying the share
of the Senate in the appointing power, and the weight which the
constitution gives it as a body of advice and of restraint upon
the executive.
He has cruelly and wantonly refused to execute treaties made
with Indian nations, which have been ratified by the Senate,

approved by every President, and adjudged valid by the
Supreme Court.—He has claimed and exercised supreme power
over the people, congress and courts of the United States in his
late veto message, and advanced doctrines subversive of the
foundations of the government, connected with the disgraceful
and dishonest appeals of a demagogue, for the purpose of
prejudicing the different parts of the community against each
other.—He has made frequent and illegal use of the veto power,
without any reference to principle in its use; for he has applied
it in some cases, and not in others which were of a precisely
similar character. He has applied it in capricious and wanton
attempts to ruin the internal improvements of the country, to
break down industry and destroy its profits, to introduce an
unsettled currency, and depreciate to a great amount the value
of property.…
He has enacted in time of peace greater taxes for the people
than any previous President, and squandered them on profligate
favorites, for idle and totally useless purposes. He has
threatened to beat Senators, and rejoiced because
Representatives were cudgeled for the free expression of their
opinions. He has threatened to shoot fellow citizens while in the
peaceable pursuit of their business; invited ministers of the
gospel to his house under the pretence of cordial intercourse,
and then driven them into corners and bullied them; approved of
schemes to cheat the public treasury of its funds, and
appropriated those funds to a great extent in bribery and
corruption.
Will any of our fellow-citizens, after a proper consideration of
these charges, every one of which has been substantiated by
irrefutable proof, bestow their suffrages to continue the
elevation of a man, whose character is thus ‘marked by every
act which may define a tyrant?’
DOCUMENT 12 Reasons for Not Supporting the Democrats: A
Satire.
FOR THENEW-HAMPSHIRE SENTINEL.
Roman Catholics.

Those who are in fear of Roman Catholics getting too much
power, let them unite with the Catholics at the polls, and
support such men as wish to put the government into the hands
of one man; for they can do but little harm while the
government is in the hands of the whole people.
Slavery.
Those who are opposed to slavery, let them send such men to
Congress as will unite and assist in putting the government of
the U. States under the control of the slave-holding States.
Intemperance.
Those who are opposed to intemperance, let them send such
men to the Legislature to make laws, as are in the habit of using
ardent spirit themselves; also of selling it to the drunkard,
whose wives and children are suffering for want of victuals and
clothing.
Sin and Wickedness.
Those who are opposed to sin and wicked men; let them
encourage such, by rewarding them with the highest offices of
honor and profit.
Taxes.
Those who are opposed to paying large taxes, let them condemn
such men as were in office previous to 1829, for their
extravagant and wasteful expenditures, and support such men as
will expend and squander away nearly double the amount; also
send such men to Congress as are opposed to dividing the
proceeds of the PUBLIC LANDS among the States; whereas
New-Hampshire would probably receive yearly about sixty
thousand dollars; also such men as will unite with, and support
a President who has promised to give this land away to the
States wherein it is situated!!
Laborers’ Wages.
Those who have complained of the laborers’ wages being so
low, and of the rich grinding the poor; let them send such men
to Congresses as are opposed to encouraging our own industry;
such men as are in favor of destroying our own manufactories,
by reducing the duties of foreign goods, or taking them off

altogether, as in the article of silk brought from Europe, and
compete the laboring class of this country to enter into
competition with the paupers of Europe. By destroying our own
manufactories, you will release perhaps 10,000 females in New-
England alone, who are now at work for high wages in the
factories, and who will come home and soon reduce the wages
of those who are now otherwise employed.—The same with the
men.
Party Spirit.
Which has been the cause of civil wars, and of destroying the
lives of hundreds of thousands of men, if not millions, and
brought distress upon women and children: let all those who are
opposed to it, support a man for President who will turn out of
office every man that did not vote or hurrah for him, and put in
such as will hurrah for him.
Educating Children While Young.
Those who are in favor of public schools and of educating
children when young, and when they are incapable of doing
much business, instead of being obliged to go to school at the
age of 19 or 20, to get an education sufficient to do the common
business of life, as is the case with many for want of sufficient
funds; let them support such men as Mr Isaac Hill, who made
such a hue and cry about Mr Bell, when Governor, for
recommending that $60,000 literary fund money to be
distributed among the towns in the State for the benefit of
common schools; when Mr Isaac Hill wanted the same to be
appropriated to the building of a College in his own town.
However to the credit of Mr Bell and his friends in the
Legislature, and to the mortification of Mr Hill and many of his
friends, the money was distributed among the towns for the
benefit of common schools.
Internal Improvement.
Those who are opposed to the appropriation of the public money
for internal improvements, as the Legislature of New-Hampshire
did a few years ago; let them support a President who signed a
bill appropriating—thousand dollars toward the improvement of

the Cumberland river in his own State; also many other similar
bills, and refusing to sign the Wabash bill, and many others of a
similar kind.
Title: xxx
Attention-Getting Opening: xx
Context: xx
Thesis and Preview: xx
Transition to Main Point One: xx
Main Point One: xx
Transition to Main Point Two: xx
Main Point Two: xx
Transition to Main Point Three: xx
Main Point Three: xx
Transition to the Conclusion: xx
Conclusion: xx
Works Cited:
•xx
•xx

•xx
•xx
•xx
•xx
•xx
•xx
REQUIREMENTS | Formal Assignment #2 (Paper)
This section summarizes the requirements for the completion of
your second FORMAL ASSIGNMENT. Keep in mind that the
materials provided earlier in this module provide context to the
assignment requirements below. You must carefully read all of
the sections of the course leading up to this assignment in order
to expect to do well on this paper.
PURPOSE:
This assignment is designed to reinforce the importance of
examining multiple perspectives within a single controversy.
For this assignment, you will:
1. Re-examine The Laramie Project through the lens of a single
controversy of your choosing and discuss the interplay of
different positions on a single issue.
2. Practice the organizational and analytical skills you have
learned so far by comparing and contrasting three different
perspectives on a controversy within the text.
The Laramie Project is filled with numerous controversies, and
the characters exhibit many different perspectives that range

from one extreme to the other. For example, the people
interviewed for the text differ radically on such issues as
homosexuality, what constitutes a hate crime and whether hate
crime legislation should exist, where the guilt lies for
Matthew’s
death, what type of a town Laramie is, the type of person
Matthew was or his killers are, the role of the media in the
portrayal
of the Matthew Shepard case, and the death penalty, to name
just a few.
YOUR TASK:
Your task is to craft a polished, organized 4-6 page double-
spaced essay in which you discuss three different and
mutually exclusive perspectives on one issue that interests you
in the text (if you wish, you may also research other, relevant
perspectives outside of the text on the Matthew Shepard case or
The Laramie Project and include them in your paper),
represented by three different characters or groups of
characters, in relation to one another. It is crucial in this paper
that you
find a clear focus and develop the paper as fully as possible in
terms of the relative positions the characters you choose take
and the types of arguments they make. I urge you to use no
more than 2 characters per perspective covered (six total) so
that
you can support your examples fully.
As in your “Absolute Values” Speech, you will need to have (1)
a developed introduction, (2) a body of paragraphs tied
together with transitions, and (3) a clear conclusion that brings
memorable closure to the paper.
For each perspective that you analyze, you need to (1) consider

such issues as the different arguments the characters
make, (2) their intended audiences, (3) choices of language to
convey their points, (4) the differences among the perspectives
you have chosen to discuss, and (5) the different types of
appeals they make. Be sure to include examples and quotations
from the text to support your claims.
See Example of Formal Assignment #2 number-2) for guidance.
NOTE: Please don’t include headings such as “attention-getting
opening” on your paper. I put those there to help guide you as
you write your paper. Please pursue a topic that is unique to you
and
that doesn’t follow the example too closely in terms of content
and wording.
Do not take a stand on the issue that you address. Simply
discuss the arguments made by the characters and how they
relate to each other.
Article 1: xx
Article 2: xx
Article 3: xx
Article 4: xx
Article 5: xx
Article 6: xx
Works Cited:
•xx
•xx

•xx
•xx
•xx
•xx
For each of the 3 article that you evaluate:
1. Briefly summarize the argument and analyze its rhetorical
features in depth.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the argument? Why? If you
disagree, can you think of a good counterargument? (Be as
specific as possible.)
3. Evaluate the article's rhetorical effectiveness. In your view,
what about it works? What doesn't work? Explain your answers
with references to specific passages in the text. Try to be as
specific as possible in explaining your own reactions to the
ethos, logos, mythos, and pathos of the essay.
4. Which of the author's rhetorical strategies do you think you
would be most likely to employ or avoid in your own advocacy?
Combined, the entries for the three readings should be about 3
pages in length.
REQUIREMENTS | Informal Assignment #8
Informal Assignment #8: Evaluation of Three Articles (10
points)
Part One: Find and read at least 6 credible articles on the topic
you chose for Formal Assignment #2 or on
another controversy that is present in The Laramie Project. The
articles you find must represent a range of
different and competing perspectives on the issue that you are
researching. For example, they must fall along
different points of the continuum between one extreme and the
other. You may use other credible articles,
however, if you wish. Make sure that you focus on a single

controversy. Some possible topics include: what
kind of town Laramie is, hate crimes and/or hate crime
legislation, the media’s role in covering or
sensationalizing crimes, the death penalty, and religious views
toward homosexuality.
Part Two: Evaluate three of the six articles that you found, each
of which offers a different perspective on the
issue.
For each article that you evaluate:
1. Briefly summarize the argument and analyze its rhetorical
features in depth.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the argument? Why? If you
disagree, can you think of a good
counterargument? (Be as specific as possible.)
3. Evaluate the article's rhetorical effectiveness. In your view,
what about it works? What doesn't work?
Explain your answers with references to specific passages in the
text. Try to be as specific as possible in
explaining your own reactions to the ethos, logos, mythos, and
pathos of the essay.
4. Which of the author's rhetorical strategies do you think you
would be most likely to employ or avoid in
your own advocacy?
Combined, the entries for the three readings should be about 3
pages in length.
Complete this assignment (Evaluation of Three Articles) and
SUBMIT it electronically via the ICON
"Assignments" page (“Informal Assignment #8”) or using the
link provided under "Module 4." See Course
SYLLABUS for assignment due dates.
Instructions on how to submit assignments (file upload) can be
found HERE

(https://guides.instructure.com/m/4212/l/41972-how-do-i-
submit-an-online-assignment) !
After submitting this assignment, move to the reading material
posted under "Formal Assignment #4."
Title: xxx
Attention-Getting Opening: xx
Establish Context: xx
Thesis: xx
Preview of Main Points: xx
Transition to Main Point One: xx
Main Point One: xx
Transition to Main Point Two: xx
Main Point Two: xx
Transition to Main Point Three: xx
Main Point Three: xx
Transition to the Conclusion: xx
Conclusion: xx
Works Cited:

•xx
Making a Claim, Evidence, and
Counterargument
The following sections, Making a Claim, Evidence, and
Counterargument*, are to offer guidance as you
construct your own arguments in Formal Assignment #4. In
addition to thinking about your paper in
formal terms—as having an introduction, a body, a conclusion,
and so forth—you need to think of it in
terms of advancing an argument that consists of your claims,
evidence to support your claims, and
consideration of possible counterarguments that pose a
challenge to the position that you are
advocating.]
Making a claim:
In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often
called a "claim" or "thesis statement,"
backed up with evidence that supports the idea. In the majority
of college papers, you will need to
make some sort of claim and use evidence to support it, and
your ability to do this well will separate your
papers from those of students who see assignments as mere
accumulations of fact and detail. It is time to
stake out a position and prove why it is a good position for a
thinking person to hold.
Claims can be as simple as "Protons are positively charged and
electrons are negatively charged," with
evidence such as, "In this experiment, protons and electrons

acted in such and such a way." Claims can
also be as complex as "The end of the South African system of
apartheid was inevitable," using
reasoning and evidence such as, "Every successful revolution in
the modern era has come about after
the government in power has given and then removed small
concessions to the uprising group." In either
case, the rest of your paper will detail the reasoning and
evidence that have led you to believe that your
position is best.
When beginning to write a paper, ask yourself, "What is my
point?" For example, the point of this
section of the course is to help you become a better writer, and
we are arguing that an important step in
the process of writing effective arguments is understanding the
concept of argumentation. If your papers
do not have a main point, they cannot be arguing for anything.
Asking yourself what your point is can help
you avoid a mere "information dump." Consider this: your
instructors probably know a lot more than you
do about your subject matter. Why, then, would you want to
provide them with material they already
know?
Instructors are usually looking for two things:
1. Proof that you understand the material, AND
2. A demonstration of your ability to use or apply the material
in ways that go beyond what you
have read or heard.
This second part can be done in many ways: (1) you can critique
the material, (2) apply it to something
else, or (3) even just explain it in a different way. In order to

succeed at this second step, though, you
must have a particular point to argue.
Arguments in academic writing are usually complex and take
time to develop. Your argument will
need to be more than a simple or obvious statement such as
"Frank Lloyd Wright was a great
architect." Such a statement might capture your initial
impressions of Wright as you have studied him in
class; however, you need to look deeper and express
specifically what caused that "greatness." Your
instructor will probably expect something more complicated,
such as "Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture
combines elements of European modernism, Asian aesthetic
form, and locally found materials to create a
unique new style," or "There are many strong similarities
between Wright's building designs and those of
his mother, which suggests that he may have borrowed some of
her ideas." To develop your argument,
you would then define your terms and prove your claim with
evidence from Wright's drawings and
buildings and those of the other architects you mentioned.
Evidence:
:Do not stop with having a point. You have to back up your
point with evidence. The strength of your
evidence, and your use of it, can make or break your argument.
You already have the natural inclination
for this type of thinking, if not in an academic setting. Think
about how you talked your parents into letting

you borrow the family car. Did you present them with lots of
instances of your past trustworthiness? Did
you make them feel guilty because your friends' parents all let
them drive? Did you whine until they just
wanted you to shut up? Did you look up statistics on teen
driving and use them to show how you didn't fit
the dangerous-driver profile? These are all types of
argumentation, and they exist in academia in similar
forms.
Every field has slightly different requirements for acceptable
evidence, so familiarize yourself with
some arguments from within that field instead of just applying
whatever evidence you like best.
Pay attention to your textbooks and your instructor's lectures.
What types of argument and evidence are
they using? The type of evidence that sways an English
instructor may not work to convince a sociology
instructor. Find out what counts as proof that something is true
in that field. Is it statistics, a logical
development of points, something from the object being
discussed (art work, text, culture, or atom), the
way something works, or some combination of more than one of
these things?
Be consistent with your evidence. Unlike negotiating for the use
of your parents' car, a college paper is
not the place for an all-out blitz of every type of argument. You
can often use more than one type of
evidence within a paper, but make sure that within each section
you are providing the reader with
evidence appropriate to each claim. So, if you start a paragraph
or section with a statement like "Putting
the student section closer to the court in the Dean Dome will
raise player performance," do not follow with
your evidence on how much more money the university could

raise by letting more students go to games
for free. Information about how fan support raises player
morale, which then results in better play, would
be a better follow-up. Your next section could offer clear
reasons why undergraduates have as much or
more right to attend an undergraduate event as wealthy
alumni—but this information would not go in the
same section as the fan support stuff. You cannot convince a
confused person, so keep things tidy and
ordered.
Counterargument:
One way to strengthen your argument and show that you have a
deep understanding of the issue you are
discussing is to anticipate and address counterarguments or
objections. By considering what
someone who disagrees with your position might have to say
about your argument, you show that you
have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the
reasons your audience might have for not
accepting your argument. Recall our discussion of student
seating in the Dean Dome. To make the most
effective argument possible, you should consider not only what
students would say about seating but also
what alumni who have paid a lot to get good seats might say.
You can generate counterarguments by asking yourself how
someone who disagrees with you might
respond to each of the points you've made or your position as a
whole. If you can't immediately

imagine another position, here are some strategies to try:
• Do some research. It may seem to you that no one could
possibly disagree with the position you are
arguing, but someone probably has. For example, some people
argue that the American Civil War
never ended. If you are making an argument concerning, for
example, the outcomes of the Civil War,
you might wish to see what some of these people have to say.
• Talk with a friend or with your teacher. Another person may
be able to imagine counterarguments
that haven't occurred to you.
• Consider your conclusion or claim and the premises of your
argument and imagine someone
who denies each of them. For example, if you argued "Cats
make the best pets. This is because
they are clean and independent," you might imagine someone
saying "Cats do not make the best
pets. They are dirty and needy."
Once you have thought up some counterarguments, consider
how you will respond to them—will you
concede that your opponent has a point but explain why your
audience should nonetheless accept your
argument? Will you reject the counterargument and explain why
it is mistaken? Either way, you will want
to leave your reader with a sense that your argument is stronger
than opposing arguments.
When you are summarizing opposing arguments, be charitable.
Present each argument fairly and
objectively, rather than trying to make it look foolish. You want
to show that you have seriously
considered the many sides of the issue and that you are not
simply attacking or caricaturing your
opponents.

It is usually better to consider one or two serious
counterarguments in some depth, rather than to
give a long but superficial list of many different
counterarguments and replies.
Be sure that your reply is consistent with your original
argument. If considering a counterargument
changes your position, you will need to go back and revise your
original argument accordingly.
*Source: Making a Claim, Evidence, and Counterargument,
University of North Carolina website
(http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/argument/)
Introduction to The Laramie Project
All of the work you have done thus far in terms of rhetorical
analysis, consideration of multiple points of view, identification
of
forms of proofs and types of fallacies, etc. will help guide your
reading of the course’s assigned book, The Laramie Project. I
chose this book for a number of different reasons. For example,
The Laramie Project is an excellent example of a multi-faceted
argument in which numerous characters espouse different and
often conflicting positions on various social and political
controversies. Some characters all across the spectrum of
perspectives offer sound reasons to support their claims, while
others display exceptionally poor communication skills.
The book also requires multiple readings since there are so
many characters and perspectives to keep straight. However, it
lends itself well to analysis and consideration of controversies.
As you read the text, I suggest that you write in the margins,

highlight important passages, and keep track of various themes
that pervade the text. Your notations will help you as you go
back and write your reading response and formal writing
assignments.
As with the other reading material, you should read this text
with a critical eye and reflect on the aforementioned sections of
Module 2 that pertain to reading rhetorical and analytically,
appeals, fallacies, argument, and so forth.
Pay careful attention to the book's strengths and weaknesses,
the way in which it is organized, the choices that went into the
text (e.g., whom to quote and to what extent), any biases you
feel are implicit or explicit in the text, etc. Do not feel
obligated to
like the book or agree with what you perceive to be the authors’
points of view. Just be sure that you are able to articulate your
analysis clearly and support it with evidence from the text,
using the analytical terms you have learned thus far.
Formal Assignment #2 requires you to consider multiple
arguments in The Laramie Project that are advanced by
multiple authors in conversation with one another. Consider
how individuals wishing to make successful persuasive
arguments on an issue such as the Matthew Shepard case must
be sensitive to the elements of their own particular rhetorical
situations. They need to take account of such situational factors
as the audience's beliefs and values and the audience's
knowledge of the subject matter.
This assignment asks you to examine the importance of
considering more than two, conflicting perspectives and claims
and
the reasons used to support them. Speakers and writers who
want to change an audience's allegiance from one position to
another need to fully comprehend what their audience's

positions are and the rationales that justify them before they can
convincingly argue that another position is preferable.
Such concern for the knowledge, beliefs, and values of an
audience would be unnecessary, of course, if everyone were in
perfect agreement about the topic under discussion. But
experience probably tells you that this is rarely, if ever, the
case. The
real world of human interaction is much more complicated.
People come from different ethnic, cultural, social, regional,
educational, religious, and family backgrounds. In addition to
such group-based differences, people embody individual
differences and express idiosyncratic perspectives grounded in
personal identity and personal history.
Although being able to anticipate objections to your position
and refute them enhances your chance of successfully pressing
your own position, "winning an argument" or persuading others
to change their minds is not the only or most important reason
you need to listen to other people's positions and understand
their points of view. If you have ever been in an argument in
which you felt other people were dismissing your position
without really listening to you or without trying to understand
your
thinking, then you understand the importance of sincerely trying
to understand and appreciate perspectives other than your
own.
Often, a willingness to listen and consider other people's points
of view leads to a valuable learning experience. You may find
that learning about other perspectives and rationales causes you
to reflect upon and re-evaluate your own position.

REQUIREMENTS | Formal Assignment #4
your last FORMAL ASSIGNMENT.
IN PREPARATION FOR FORMAL ASSIGNMENT #4:
PLEASE REFLECT ON THE FOLLOWING:
1. What is your perspective on the controversy after reading
these six texts? Has "listening in" on this
"conversation" caused you to question your view of the
controversy in any way? If so, how?
2. How would you advocate your own position on this issue,
employing or refuting competing arguments
where you feel it's necessary and providing supporting evidence
from the readings where appropriate.
3. Which examples in the articles do you support and which you
disagree with? Which specific quotes
could you use to back your claims?
PURPOSE:
This assignment asks you to put into practice all that you've
learned throughout the course about
constructing sound, well-informed, responsible arguments. In
constructing a persuasive argument
for a specified audience, you will need to establish your
credibility as an authority on your chosen topic
(ethos); you will need to understand and appeal to your
audience's sentiments and values (pathos); and
you will need to build a sound argument composed of good
reasons (logos). In making the case for the
position you hold, you will need to be aware of
counterarguments so that you can respond to them, and
you will need to identify unexamined assumptions or fallacies
in opposing arguments so that you

can avoid them in your own.
YOUR TASK:
For this 5-6 page paper, you need to more fully consider the
controversy you chose for Informal
Assignment 8 and for the reflection exercise. Go back to what
you have written in that assignment and
how you responded to the points for reflection and organize the
material into a cohesive, coherent essay
in which you take a stand on the issue of your choice with
relation to the authors of the essays you read
for this set of assignments.
• Which do you support and why?
• Why do you reject the ones you disagree with?
• Did the characters in The Laramie Project play any role in
your deciding which position to support?
• Have you met any people in your life or had any experiences
that have affected the way you currently
feel on the issue?
You have a lot to do in 5-6 pages, so be sure that you are
focused and organized. Your paper should flow cohesively
from section to section and be easy to follow.
Again, consult “A Guide to Successfully Crafting a Formal
Assignment” for ideas on organization of
your ideas, and be sure to review the excellent information on
organizing papers at:
Below is the grading rubric your instructor will use to score
your paper on multiple perspectives on the
same controversy.

READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY, as there are various steps
associated with
submitting/completing this assignment:
SUBMIT A DRAFT of your paper to the Draft assignment area
and wait for your
instructor’s comments before submitting your revised paper to
the Formal Paper
assignment area (ICON). SEE SYLLABUS
(https://uiowa.instructure.com/courses/67416/modules/205644)
FOR DRAFT/ASSIGNMENT
SUBMISSION DEADLINES.
Complete and submit your assignment BY THE DUE DATES
LISTED ON THE SYLLABUS
and BEFORE submitting Informal Assignment #9.
• Review the provided sample and the grading rubric before
submitting your paper.
Complete this assignment and SUBMIT it electronically via the
ICON "Assignments" page
(“Formal Assignment #4: “Advocating a Position on a
Controversy Related to The
Laramie Project") or using the link provided under "Module 4."

Instructions on how to submit assignments (file upload) can be
found HERE
(https://guides.instructure.com/m/4212/l/41972-how-do-i-
submit-an-online-assignment) !
Click on the "NEXT" button (below) to review an EXAMPLE of
this assignment.
REQUIREMENTS | Formal Assignment #2 (Paper)
your second FORMAL ASSIGNMENT. Keep in mind that the
materials provided earlier in this module provide context to the
assignment requirements below. You must carefully read all of
the sections of the course leading up to this assignment in order
to expect to do well on this paper.
PURPOSE:
This assignment is designed to reinforce the importance of
examining multiple perspectives within a single controversy.
For this assignment, you will:
1. Re-examine The Laramie Project through the lens of a single
controversy of your choosing and discuss the interplay of
different positions on a single issue.
2. Practice the organizational and analytical skills you have
learned so far by comparing and contrasting three different
perspectives on a controversy within the text.

The Laramie Project is filled with numerous controversies, and
the characters exhibit many different perspectives that range
from one extreme to the other. For example, the people
interviewed for the text differ radically on such issues as
homosexuality, what constitutes a hate crime and whether hate
crime legislation should exist, where the guilt lies for
Matthew’s
death, what type of a town Laramie is, the type of person
Matthew was or his killers are, the role of the media in the
portrayal
of the Matthew Shepard case, and the death penalty, to name
just a few.
YOUR TASK:
Your task is to craft a polished, organized 4-6 page double-
spaced essay in which you discuss three different and
mutually exclusive perspectives on one issue that interests you
in the text (if you wish, you may also research other, relevant
perspectives outside of the text on the Matthew Shepard case or
The Laramie Project and include them in your paper),
represented by three different characters or groups of
characters, in relation to one another. It is crucial in this paper
that you
find a clear focus and develop the paper as fully as possible in
terms of the relative positions the characters you choose take
and the types of arguments they make. I urge you to use no
more than 2 characters per perspective covered (six total) so
that
you can support your examples fully.
As in your “Absolute Values” Speech, you will need to have (1)
a developed introduction, (2) a body of paragraphs tied
together with transitions, and (3) a clear conclusion that brings
memorable closure to the paper.

For each perspective that you analyze, you need to (1) consider
such issues as the different arguments the characters
make, (2) their intended audiences, (3) choices of language to
convey their points, (4) the differences among the perspectives
you have chosen to discuss, and (5) the different types of
appeals they make. Be sure to include examples and quotations
from the text to support your claims.
See Example of Formal Assignment #2 number-2) for guidance.
NOTE: Please don’t include headings such as “attention-getting
opening” on your paper. I put those there to help guide you as
you write your paper. Please pursue a topic that is unique to you
and
that doesn’t follow the example too closely in terms of content
and wording.
Do not take a stand on the issue that you address. Simply
discuss the arguments made by the characters and how they
relate to each other.

THE DOCUMENTSIntroduction to Documents 1–4The first set of doc.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to THE DOCUMENTSIntroduction to Documents 1–4The first set of doc.docx

Similar to THE DOCUMENTSIntroduction to Documents 1–4The first set of doc.docx (20)

More from christalgrieg

More from christalgrieg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

THE DOCUMENTSIntroduction to Documents 1–4The first set of doc.docx