Dr.+Paul+Finkelman

=**Dr. Paul Finkelman **=

Prior to accepting a position at Albany Law School, Paul Finkelman was Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tulsa College of Law since 1999. He was previously the John F. Seiberling Professor of Law at the University of Akron Law School and has taught at the Cleveland Marshall College of Law, Hamline Law School, the University of Miami, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Brooklyn Law School, SUNY Binghamton, and the University of Texas at Austin. A specialist in American legal history, race and the law, Finkelman is the author and editor of numerous articles and books. He was a Fellow in Law and the Humanities at Harvard Law School and received his Ph.D. and M.A. from the University of Chicago. He has published extensively and was the chief expert witness in the Alabama Ten Commandments monument case. His work on the religion and legal history is cited in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court involving this issue. Readings: . . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . . It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security. The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . ..
 * Day Two ** : [|Dr. Paul Finkelman] of the Albany Law School will cover the Foreign Policy issues from the the War of 1812 through the Gilded Age.
 * The Monroe Doctrine**: [] //The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823://

Lincoln's "Spot Speech" [] **Speech On Declaration Of War On Mexico, 1848**  SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 12, 1848. MR CHAIRMAN:--Some if not all the gentlemen on the other side of the House who have addressed the committee within the last two days have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President. I admit that such a vote should not be given in mere party wantonness, and that the one given is justly censurable if it have no other or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case. How I got this impression, and how it may possibly be remedied, I will now try to show. When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President in the beginning of it should nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading Democrats, including ex-President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so. Besides the continual effort of the President to argue every silent vote given for supplies into an indorsement of the justice and wisdom of his conduct; besides that singularly candid paragraph in his late message in which he tells us that Congress with great unanimity had declared that "by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the United States," when the same journals that informed him of this also informed him that when that declaration stood disconnected from the question of supplies sixty-seven in the House, and not fourteen merely, voted against it; besides this open attempt to prove by telling the truth what he could not prove by telling the whole truth-demanding of all who will not submit to be misrepresented, in justice to themselves, to speak out, besides all this, one of my colleagues [Mr. Richardson] at a very early day in the session brought in a set of resolutions expressly indorsing the original justice of the war on the part of the President. Upon these resolutions when they shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; so that I cannot be silent if I would. Seeing this, I went about preparing myself to give the vote understandingly when it should come. I carefully examined the President's message, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression that, taking for true all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone further with his proof if it had not been for the small matter that the truth would not permit him. Under the impression thus made I gave the vote before mentioned. I propose now to give concisely the process of the examination I made, and how I reached the conclusion I did. The President, in his first war message of May, 1846, declares that the soil was ours on which hostilities were commenced by Mexico, and he repeats that declaration almost in the same language in each successive annual message, thus showing that he deems that point a highly essential one. In the importance of that point I entirely agree with the President. To my judgment it is the very point upon which he should be justified, or condemned. In his message of December, 1846, it seems to have occurred to him, as is certainly true, that title-ownership-to soil or anything else is not a simple fact, but is a conclusion following on one or more simple facts; and that it was incumbent upon him to present the facts from which he concluded the soil was ours on which the first blood of the war was shed. Accordingly, a little below the middle of page twelve in the message last referred to, he enters upon that task; forming an issue and introducing testimony, extending the whole to a little below the middle of page fourteen. Now, I propose to try to show that the whole of this--issue and evidence--is from beginning to end the sheerest deception. The issue, as he presents it, is in these words: "But there are those who, conceding all this to be true, assume the ground that the true western boundary of Texas is the Nueces, instead of the Rio Grande; and that, therefore, in marching our army to the east bank of the latter river, we passed the Texas line and invaded the territory of Mexico." Now this issue is made up of two affirmatives and no negative. The main deception of it is that it assumes as true that one river or the other is necessarily the boundary; and cheats the superficial thinker entirely out of the idea that possibly the boundary is somewhere between the two, and not actually at either. A further deception is that it will let in evidence which a true issue would exclude. A true issue made by the President would be about as follows: "I say the soil was ours, on which the first blood was shed; there are those who say it was not." I now proceed to examine the President's evidence as applicable to such an issue. When that evidence is analyzed, it is all included in the following propositions: (1) That the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana as we purchased it of France in 1803. (2) That the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio Grande as her eastern boundary. (3) That by various acts she had claimed it on paper. (4) That Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas recognized the Rio Grande as her boundary. (5) That Texas before, and the United States after, annexation had exercised jurisdiction beyond the Nueces--between the two rivers. (6) That our Congress understood the boundary of Texas to extend beyond the Nueces. Now for each of these in its turn. His first item is that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana, as we purchased it of France in 1803; and seeming to expect this to be disputed, he argues over the amount of nearly a page to prove it true, at the end of which he lets us know that by the treaty of 1803 we sold to Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande eastward to the Sabine. Now, admitting for the present that the Rio Grande was the boundary of Louisiana, what under heaven had that to do with the present boundary between us and Mexico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line that once divided your land from mine can still be the boundary between us after I have sold my land to you is to me beyond all comprehension. And how any man, with an honest purpose only of proving the truth, could ever have thought of introducing such a fact to prove such an issue is equally incomprehensible. His next piece of evidence is that "the Republic of Texas always claimed this river [Rio Grande] as her western boundary." That is not true, in fact. Texas has claimed it, but she has not always claimed it. There is at least one distinguished exception. Her State constitution the republic's most solemn and well-considered act, that which may, without impropriety, be called her last will and testament, revoking all others-makes no such claim. But suppose she had always claimed it. Has not Mexico always claimed the contrary? So that there is but claim against claim, leaving nothing proved until we get back of the claims and find which has the better foundation. Though not in the order in which the President presents his evidence, I now consider that class of his statements which are in substance nothing more than that Texas has, by various acts of her Convention and Congress, claimed the Rio Grande as her boundary, on paper. I mean here what he says about the fixing of the Rio Grande as her boundary in her old constitution (not her State constitution), about forming Congressional districts, counties, etc. Now all of this is but naked claim; and what I have already said about claims is strictly applicable to this. If I should claim your land by word of mouth, that certainly would not make it mine; and if I were to claim it by a deed which I had made myself, and with which you had had nothing to do, the claim would be quite the same in substance--or rather, in utter nothingness. I next consider the President's statement that Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas recognized the Rio Grande as the western boundary of Texas. Besides the position so often taken, that Santa Anna while a prisoner of war, a captive, could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which I deem conclusive--besides this, I wish to say something in relation to this treaty, so called by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man would like to be amused by a sight of that little thing which the President calls by that big name, he can have it by turning to Niles's Register, vol. 1, p. 336. And if any one should suppose that Niles's Register is a curious repository of so mighty a document as a solemn treaty between nations, I can only say that I learned to a tolerable degree of certainty, by inquiry at the State Department, that the President himself never saw it anywhere else. By the way, I believe I should not err if I were to declare that during the first ten years of the existence of that document it was never by anybody called a treaty--that it was never so called till the President, in his extremity, attempted by so calling it to wring something from it in justification of himself in connection with the Mexican War. It has none of the distinguishing features of a treaty. It does not call itself a treaty. Santa Anna does not therein assume to bind Mexico; he assumes only to act as the President--Commander-in-Chief of the Mexican army and navy; stipulates that the then present hostilities should cease, and that he would not himself take up arms, nor influence the Mexican people to take up arms, against Texas during the existence of the war of independence. He did not recognize the independence of Texas; he did not assume to put an end to the war, but clearly indicated his expectation of its continuance; he did not say one word about boundary, and, most probably, never thought of it. It is stipulated therein that the Mexican forces should evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande; and in another article it is stipulated that, to prevent collisions between the armies, the Texas army should not approach nearer than within five leagues--of what is not said, but clearly, from the object stated, it is of the Rio Grande. Now, if this is a treaty recognizing the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas, it contains the singular feature of stipulating that Texas shall not go within five leagues of her own boundary. Next comes the evidence of Texas before annexation, and the United States afterwards, exercising jurisdiction beyond the Nueces and between the two rivers. This actual exercise of jurisdiction is the very class or quality of evidence we want. It is excellent so far as it goes; but does it go far enough? He tells us it went beyond the Nueces, but he does not tell us it went to the Rio Grande. He tells us jurisdiction was exercised between the two rivers, but he does not tell us it was exercised over all the territory between them. Some simple-minded people think it is possible to cross one river and go beyond it without going all the way to the next, that jurisdiction may be exercised between two rivers without covering all the country between them. I know a man, not very unlike myself, who exercises jurisdiction over a piece of land between the Wabash and the Mississippi; and yet so far is this from being all there is between those rivers that it is just one hundred and fifty-two feet long by fifty feet wide, and no part of it much within a hundred miles of either. He has a neighbor between him and the Mississippi--that is, just across the street, in that direction--whom I am sure he could neither persuade nor force to give up his habitation; but which nevertheless he could certainly annex, if it were to be done by merely standing on his own side of the street and claiming it, or even sitting down and writing a deed for it. But next the President tells us the Congress of the United States understood the State of Texas they admitted into the Union to extend beyond the Nueces. Well, I suppose they did. I certainly so understood it. But how far beyond? That Congress did not understand it to extend clear to the Rio Grande is quite certain, by the fact of their joint resolutions for admission expressly leaving all questions of boundary to future adjustment. And it may be added that Texas herself is proven to have had the same understanding of it that our Congress had, by the fact of the exact conformity of her new constitution to those resolutions. I am now through the whole of the President's evidence; and it is a singular fact that if any one should declare the President sent the army into the midst of a settlement of Mexican people who had never submitted, by consent or by force, to the authority of Texas or of the United States, and that there and thereby the first blood of the war was shed, there is not one word in all the which would either admit or deny the declaration. This strange omission it does seem to me could not have occurred but by design. My way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice; and there I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client's neck in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up with many words some point arising in the case which he dared not admit and yet could not deny. Party bias may help to make it appear so, but with all the allowance I can make for such bias, it still does appear to me that just such, and from just such necessity, is the President's struggle in this case. Sometime after my colleague [Mr. Richardson] introduced the resolutions I have mentioned, I introduced a preamble, resolution, and interrogations, intended to draw the President out, if possible, on this hitherto untrodden ground. To show their relevancy, I propose to state my understanding of the true rule for ascertaining the boundary between Texas and Mexico. It is that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction was hers; and wherever Mexico was exercising jurisdiction was hers; and that whatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one from that of the other was the true boundary between them. If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary: but the uninhabited country between the two was. The extent of our territory in that region depended not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it), but on revolution. Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right--a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose this movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines or old laws, but to break up both, and make new ones. As to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 1803, and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements. After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her resolution by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far the country was hers, and no farther. Now, sir, for the purpose of obtaining the very best evidence as to whether Texas had actually carried her revolution to the place where the hostilities of the present war commenced, let the President answer the interrogatories I proposed, as before mentioned, or some other similar ones. Let him answer fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no evasion--no equivocation. And if, so answering, he can show that the soil was ours where the first blood of the war was shed,--that it was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas or of the United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his justification. In that case I shall be most happy to reverse the vote I gave the other day. I have a selfish motive for desiring that the President may do this--I expect to gain some votes, in connection with the war, which, without his so doing, will be of doubtful propriety in my own judgment, but which will be free from the doubt if he does so. But if he can not or will not do this,--if on any pretence or no pretence he shall refuse or omit it then I shall be fully convinced of what I more than suspect already that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong; that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to heaven against him; that originally having some strong motive--what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory,--that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood, that serpent's eye that charms to destroy,--he plunged into it, and was swept on and on till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself he knows not where. How like the half insane mumbling of a fever dream is the whole war part of his late message! At one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever that we can get--but territory; at another showing us how we can support the war by levying contributions on Mexico. At one time urging the national honor, the security of the future, the prevention of foreign interference, and even the good of Mexico herself as among the objects of the war; at another telling us that "to reject indemnity, by refusing to accept a cession of territory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and to wage the war, bearing all its expenses, without a purpose or definite object." So then this national honor, security of the future, and everything but territorial indemnity may be considered the no-purposes and indefinite objects of the war! But, having it now settled that territorial indemnity is the only object, we are urged to seize, by legislation here, all that he was content to take a few months ago, and the whole province of Lower California to boot, and to still carry on the war to take all we are fighting for, and still fight on. Again, the President is resolved under all circumstances to have full territorial indemnity for the expenses of the war; but he forgets to tell us how we are to get the excess after those expenses shall have surpassed the value of the whole of the Mexican territory. So again, he insists that the separate national existence of Mexico shall be maintained; but he does not tell us how this can be done, after we shall have taken all her territory. Lest the questions I have suggested be considered speculative merely, let me be indulged a moment in trying to show they are not. The war has gone on some twenty months; for the expenses of which, together with an inconsiderable old score, the President now claims about one half of the Mexican territory, and that by far the better half, so far as concerns our ability to make anything out of it. It is comparatively uninhabited; so that we could establish land-offices in it, and raise some money in that way. But the other half is already inhabited, as I understand it, tolerably densely for the nature of the country, and all its lands, or all that are valuable, already appropriated as private property. How then are we to make anything out of these lands with this encumbrance on them? or how remove the encumbrance? I suppose no one would say we should kill the people, or drive them out, or make slaves of them, or confiscate their property. How, then, can we make much out of this part of the territory? If the prosecution of the war has in expenses already equalled the better half of the country, how long its future prosecution will be in equalling the less valuable half is not a speculative, but a practical, question, pressing closely upon us. And yet it is a question which the President seems never to have thought of. As to the mode of terminating the war and securing peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital parts of the enemy's country; and after apparently talking himself tired on this point, the President drops down into a half-despairing tone, and tells us that "with a people distracted and divided by contending factions, and a government subject to constant changes by successive revolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure a satisfactory peace." Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and, trusting in our protestations, to set up a government from which we can secure a satisfactory peace; telling us that "this may become the only mode of obtaining such a peace." But soon he falls into doubt of this too; and then drops back on to the already half-abandoned ground of "more vigorous prosecution." All this shows that the President is in nowise satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it he argues himself out of it, then seizes another and goes through the same process, and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, taxed beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease. Again, it is a singular omission in this message that it nowhere intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At its beginning, General Scott was by this same President driven into disfavor if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes, every department and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do--after all this, this same President gives a long message, without showing us that as to the end he himself has even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than his mental perplexity. The following is a copy of the so-called "treaty" referred to in the speech: "Articles of Agreement entered into between his Excellency David G. Burnet, President of the Republic of Texas, of the one part, and his Excellency General Santa Anna, President-General-in-Chief of the Mexican army, of the other part: "Article I. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna agrees that he will not take up arms, nor will he exercise his influence to cause them to be taken up, against the people of Texas during the present war of independence. "Article II. All hostilities between the Mexican and Texan troops will cease immediately, both by land and water. "Article III. The Mexican troops will evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande Del Norte. "Article IV. The Mexican army, in its retreat, shall not take the property of any person without his consent and just indemnification, using only such articles as may be necessary for its subsistence, in cases when the owner may not be present, and remitting to the commander of the army of Texas, or to the commissioners to be appointed for the adjustment of such matters, an account of the value of the property consumed, the place where taken, and the name of the owner, if it can be ascertained. "Article V. That all private property, including cattle, horses, negro slaves, or indentured persons, of whatever denomination, that may have been captured by any portion of the Mexican army, or may have taken refuge in the said army, since the commencement of the late invasion, shall be restored to the commander of the Texan army, or to such other persons as may be appointed by the Government of Texas to receive them. "Article VI. The troops of both armies will refrain from coming in contact with each other; and to this end the commander of the army of Texas will be careful not to approach within a shorter distance than five leagues. "Article VII. The Mexican army shall not make any other delay on its march than that which is necessary to take up their hospitals, baggage, etc., and to cross the rivers; any delay not necessary to these purposes to be considered an infraction of this agreement. "Article VIII. By an express, to be immediately despatched, this agreement shall be sent to General Vincente Filisola and to General T. J. Rusk, commander of the Texan army, in order that they may be apprised of its stipulations; and to this end they will exchange engagements to comply with the same. "Article IX. That all Texan prisoners now in the possession of the Mexican army, or its authorities, be forthwith released, and furnished with free passports to return to their homes; in consideration of which a corresponding number of Mexican prisoners, rank and file, now in possession of the Government of Texas shall be immediately released; the remainder of the Mexican prisoners that continue in the possession of the Government of Texas to be treated with due humanity,--any extraordinary comforts that may be furnished them to be at the charge of the Government of Mexico. "Article X. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sent to Vera Cruz as soon as it shall be deemed proper. "The contracting parties sign this instrument for the abovementioned purposes, in duplicate, at the port of Velasco, this fourteenth day of May, 1836.

[]

George Washington's Farewell Address: []

1796
Friends and Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Amendments 13, 14, 15 to the Constitution [] Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address: [] Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address: [] Emancipation Proclamation: [] Gettysburg Address: []

=**Vita**=

PAUL FINKELMAN
= ───────────────────────────────────────── = = President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy and Senior Fellow in the Government Law Center = Albany Law School • 80 New Scotland Avenue • Albany, NY 12208 Office: 518-445-3386 • Cell: 518-605-0296 Fax: 518-445-2303 Email: pfink@albanylaw.edu Web: paulfinkelman.com


A specialist in American legal history, race and the law, Paul Finkelman is the author of more than 150 scholarly articles and more than twenty-five books. He is an expert in areas such as the law of slavery, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. His work on legal history and constitutional law has been cited by numerous courts and in many appellate briefs. ** Education: ** Fellow in Law and Humanities, Harvard Law School, 1982-83 Ph. D. University of Chicago, 1976 M.A. University of Chicago, 1972 B.A. Syracuse University, 1971

** Positions: ** § Albany Law School, President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy (Endowed Chair), 2006- § University of Tulsa College of Law, Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law (Endowed Chair), 1999-2006 § University of Akron School of Law, John F. Seiberling Professor (Endowed Chair), 1998-99 § Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Baker & Hostetler Visiting Professor (Endowed Chair), 1997-98 § Hamline Law School, Distinguished Visiting Professor, Spring, 1997 § University of Miami, Charlton W. Tebeau Visiting Research Professor (Endowed Chair), 1996 (History) § Chicago-Kent College of Law, Fall, 1995 § Virginia Tech 1992-95 (History) § Brooklyn Law School, 1990-92 § SUNY Binghamton, 1984-1990 (History) § University of Texas, 1978-84 (History) § Texas Law School, Spring, 1982 § Washington University, Andrew W. Mellon Faculty Fellow, 1977-78 (History) <span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt; msobidifontsize: 12.0pt; msofareastfontfamily: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; msobidifontfamily: Wingdings; msolist: Ignore;">§ University of California, Irvine (History), 1976-77 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> ** Selected Publications: ** Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-First Century. Editor-in-Chief. 5 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. The Political Lincoln: An Encyclopedia. Co-edited with Martin J. Hershock. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008. Congress and the Emergence of Sectionalism: From the Missouri Compromise to the Age of Jackson. Co-edited with Donald R. Kennon. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2008. Milestone Documents of American History: Exploring the Primary Sources that Shaped America. Editor-in-Chief. 4 vols. Dallas, TX: Schlager Group, Inc., 2008. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court. 2nd Edition. With Melvin I. Urofsky. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008. Terrorism, Government, and Law: National Authority and Local Autonomy in the War on Terror. Co-edited with Susan N. Herman. Westport, CN: Praeger Security International, 2008. Documents of american Constitutional and Legal History. Edited with Melvin I. Urofsky. 2 vols. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford, 2008. A History of Michigan Law. Co-edited with Martin J. Hershock. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2006. Recipient of Annual Book Award from the Michigan Historical Society, 2007; Designated a Michigan Notable Book for 2007 by the Library of Michigan. Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1895: From the Colonial Period to the Age of Frederick Douglass. Editor-in-Chief. 3 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. The Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Editor-in-Chief. 3 vols. Detroit: Charles Scribners Sons/Gale, 2006. Constitutional Law In Context. With Michael Kent Curtis, J. Wilson Parker and Davison M. Douglas. 2 vols. 2nd ed., Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. Editor-in-Chief. 3 vols. New York: Routledge, 2006. Terrible Swift Sword: The Legacy of John Brown. Co-edited with Peggy A. Russo. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2005. American Legal History: Cases and Materials. With Kermit L. Hall and James W. Ely, Jr. New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd ed. 2005. Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance. Co-editor with Cary D. Wintz. 2 vols. New York: Routledge, 2004. Defending Slavery: Proslavery Thought in the Old South. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. Co-edited with Margaret Wagner and Gary W. Gallagher. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002. A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. With Melvin I. Urofsky. 2 vols. New York: Oxford, 2002. Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson. 2nd ed., Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001. The Encyclopedia of American Political History. Co-edited with Peter Wallenstein. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2001. Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century. 3 Vols. Editor-in-Chief. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001. Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia. Editor. New York: Garland, 2000. Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the Present. Co-authored with Emily Van Tassel. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1998. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery. 2 Vols. Co-edited with Joseph C. Miller. New York: Macmillan, 1998. Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History With Documents. Bedford Books, 1997. A Brief Narrative of the Tryal of John Peter Zenger. Edited with an introduction. St. James, NY: Bradywine Press, 1997. Slavery and the Law. Editor and author of two chapters. Madison, WI: Madison House, 1997. His Soul Goes Marching On: Responses to John Brown and the Harpers Ferry Raid. Editor and author of two chapters. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1995. Baseball and the American Legal Mind. With Spencer Waller and Neil Cohen. Garland, 1995. Toward a Usable Past: Liberty Under State Constitutions. Co-Edited with Stephen Gottlieb. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1991. The Law of Freedom and Bondage: A Casebook. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Press and NYU School of Law, 1986. Slavery in the Courtroom. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1985. Recipient of the 1986 Joseph L. Andrews Award from the American Association of Law Libraries. Reprint, Lawbook exchange, 1996. An Imperfect Union: Slavery, Federalism, and Comity. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1981. Reprint, Law Book exchange, 2001. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;"> // John McLean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician //, 62 V ANDERBILT L AW R EVIEW (forthcoming 2009). // Regulating the Slave African Slave Trade: Lessons on Social Change, Social Policy, and Legislation //, 42 A KRON L AW R EVIEW (forthcoming 2009). // Was Dred Scott Correctly Decided? An “Expert Report” For the Defendant //, 12 L EWIS & C LARK Law Review  1219-1252 (2008). // It Really Was About a Well Regulated Militia //, 59 Syracuse Law Review 267-82 (2008) // School Vouchers, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Williams, and Protecting the Faithful: Warnings from the Eighteenth Century and the Seventeenth Century on the Danger of Establishments to Religious Communities, // 2 Brigham Young University Law Review 525-555 (2008). // Foreign Law and American Constitutional Interpretation: A Long and Venerable Tradition //, 63 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 29-62 (2007). // Scott v. Sandford: The Court’s Most Dreadful Case and How it Changed History //, 82 Chicago-Kent Law Review 3-48 (2007). // Kermit L. Hall: A Life in Legal History and Scholarship //, 57 Syracuse Law Review 357-59 (2007). // Thomas Jefferson, Original Intent, and the Shaping American Law: Learning Constitutional Law from the Writings of Jefferson //, 62 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 45-84 (2006). // The Dragon St. George Could Not Slay: Tucker’s Plan to End Slavery //, 47 William and Mary Law Review 1213 - 1243 ( 2006 ). // Anthony Burns, Judge Loring, Harvard Law School, and the Fugitive Slave Law in Boston, // 10 Massachusetts Legal History 53-88 (2004) [2006]. // Civil Rights in Historical Context: In Defense of // Brown, 118 Harvard Law Review 973-1027 (2005). // The Ten Commandments on the Courthouse Lawn and Elsewhere //, 73 Fordham Law Review 1477-1520 (2005). [cited by Justice Stevens in //Van Orden v. Perry// (2005).] // The Strange Career of Race Discrimination in Antebellum Ohio //, 55 Case Western Reserve University Law Review 325-60 ( 2004). // The Radicalism of Brown //, 66 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 35-56 (2004). // The Roots of // Printz: //Proslavery Constitutionalism, National Law Enforcement, Federalism, and Local Cooperation//, 69 Brooklyn Law Review 1399 ( 2004). // The Historical Context of the Fourteenth Amendment, // 13 Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 389-409 (2004). // The Root of the Problem: How The Proslavery Constitution Shaped American Race Relations, // 4 Barry Law Review 1-19 (2004). // Limiting Rights in Times of Crisis: Our Civil War Experience, A History Lesson a Post-9-11 America //, 2 Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal 25-48 (2003). // John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment, // 36 Akron Law Review 671-692 (2003). // Race and Domestic International Law in the United States, // 17 National Black Law Journal 25-51 (2003). // Picture Perfect: The First Amendment Trumps Congress in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, // 38 Tulsa Law Review 243-261 (2002). // Baseball and the Rule of Law Revisited, // 25 Thomas Jefferson Law Review 17-52 (2002). // Fugitive Baseballs and Abandoned Property: Who Owns the Home Run Ball? // 23 Cardozo Law Review 1609-1633 (2002). // Speech, Press and Democracy, // 10 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 813-826 (2002). // Joseph Story and the Problem of Slavery: A New Englander’s Nationalist Dilemma, // 8 M assachusetts Legal History 65-84 (2002). // The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College, // 23 Cardozo Law Review 1145-1157 (2002). // Taking Aim at an American Myth, // 99 Michigan Law Review 1500-1519 (2001). // The Founders and Slavery: Little Ventured, Little Gained, // 13 Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 413-449 (2001). // Turning Losers into Winners: What Can We Learn, If Anything, From the Antifederalists? // 79 Texas Law Review 849-894 (2001). // A Well Regulated Militia: The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective, // 76 Chicago-Kent Law Review 195-236 (2000). // You Can’t Always Get What You Want. . .: Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments, // 35 Tulsa Law Journal 473-483 (2000). // Teaching Slavery in American Constitutional Law, // 34 Akron Law Review 261-282 (2000). // Thomas R.R. Cobb and the Law of Negro Slavery, // 5 Roger Williams Law Review 75-115 (1999). // Cultural Speech and Political Speech in Historical Perspective //, 79 Boston University Law Review 717-743 (1999). // Affirmative Action for the Master Class: The Creation of the Proslavery Constitution, // 32 Akron Law Review 423-470 (1999). // Baseball and the Rule of Law //, 46 Cleveland State Law Review 239-59 (1998). // Prigg v. Pennsylvania: Understanding Justice Story's Pro-Slavery Nationalism //, 2 J ournal of Supreme Court History 51-64 (1997). // The Rise of the New Racism //, 15 Yale Law and Policy Review 245-82 (1996). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> // Intentionalism, The Founders and Constitutional Interpretation //, 75 Texas Law Review 435-81 (1996). // The Dred Scott Case, Slavery, and the Politics of Law //, 20 Hamline Law Review 1-42 (1996). // Legal Ethics and Fugitive Slaves: The Anthony Burns Case, Judge Loring, and Abolitionist Attorneys //, 17 Cardozo Law Review 1793-1858 (1996). // Story Telling on the Supreme Court: Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Justice Joseph Story's Judicial Nationalism //, 1994 Supreme Court Review 247-94 (1995). // Book Review of William G. Ross, Forging New Freedoms: Nativism, Education, and the Constitution, 1917-1927 //, 45 Journal of Legal Education 291-96 (1995) // A Bad Marriage: Jewish Divorce and the First Amendment //, 2 Cardozo Women's Law Journal 131-72 (1995). // "Hooted Down the Page of History": Reconsidering The Greatness of Chief Justice Taney //, 1994 Journal of Supreme Court History 83-102 (1995). // "Free At Last"? // 70 Chicago-Kent Law Review 865-869 (1995). // Not Only the Judges' Robes Were Black: African-American Lawyers as Social Engineers //, 47 Stanford Law Review 161-209 (1994). // Reprinted in // The History of Legal Education in the United States: Commentaries and Primary Sources, vol. 1 (1999): 913-952. // "Let Justice Be Done, Though the Heavens May Fall": The Law of Freedom //, 70 Chicago-Kent Law Review 325-68 (1994) // Civil Liberties and the Civil War: The Great Emancipator as Civil Libertarian, 91 Michigan Law Review  // 1353-81 (1993). // The Color of Law //, 87 Northwestern University Law Review 937-91 (1993). // The Second Casualty of War: Civil Liberties and the War on Drugs //, 66 Southern California Law Review 1389-1452 (1993). // The Crime of Color //, 67 Tulane Law Review 2063-2112 (1993). // The Centrality of the Peculiar Institution in American Legal Development //, 68 Chicago-Kent Law Review (1993) 1009-33. // Sorting Out Prigg v. Pennsylvania //, 24 Rutgers Law Journal 605-65 (1993). // Fugitive Slaves, Midwestern Racial Tolerance, and the Value of Justice Delayed //, 78 Iowa Law Review 89-141 (1992). // State Constitutional Protections of Liberty and the Antebellum New Jersey Supreme Court: Chief Justice Hornblower and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 //, 23 Rutgers Law Journal 753-87 (1992). // International Extradition and Fugitive Slaves: The John Anderson Case //, 18 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 765-810 (1992). // The Ten Amendments as a Declaration of Rights //, 16 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 351-96 (1992). // Criminal Law, Family, and Compelling Government Interests //, 55 Albany Law Review 689-711 (1992). // Religious Liberty and the Quincentennary: Old World Intolerance, New World Realities, and Modern Implications // ," 7 St. Johns Journal of Legal Commentary 523 (1992). // James Madison and the Adoption of the Bill of Rights: A Reluctant Paternity //, 1990 Supreme Court Review 301-47 (1991). // Reprinted in // I NTERNATIONAL L IBRARY OF E SSAYS IN THE H ISTORY OF S OCIAL AND P OLITICAL T HOUGHT S ERIES : J AMES M ADISON (2008): 363-409. // The Latest Front on the War on Drugs: The First Amendment // , 2 Drug Law Report 229-36 (1991). // The Constitution and the Intentions of the Framers: The Limits of Historical Analysis // , 50 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 349-98 (1989). // Northern Labor Law and Southern Slave Law: The Application of the Fellow Servant Rule to Slaves // ," 11 National Black Law Journal 212-232 (1989). // Slaves as Fellow Servants: Ideology, Law, and Industrialization // ," 31 American Journal of Legal History 269-305 (1987). // Book Review of John David Smith, An Old Creed For the New South: Proslavery Ideology and Historiography, 1865-1918, // 5 Law & History Review 571-73 (1987). // Prelude to the Fourteenth Amendment: Black Legal Rights in the Antebellum North //, 17 Rutgers Law Journal 415-82 (1986). // Exploring Southern Legal History // , 64 North Carolina Law Review 77-116 (1985). // Book Review of Bradley Chapin, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660 // , 3 Law & History Review 203-07 (1985) // Antifederalists: The Loyal Opposition and the American Constitution // , 70 Cornell Law Review 182-207 (1984). // Alexander Hamilton, Esq.: Founding Father as Lawyer // , 1984 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 229-52 (1984). // The First American Constitutions: State and Federal // , 59 Texas Law Review 1139-73 (1981). // Review Essay of Michael S. Hindus, Prison and Plantation: Crime Justice and Authority in Massachusetts and South Carolina, 1767-1878 //, 129 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1485-1515 (1981). // The Law of Slavery and Freedom in California // ," 17 California Western Law Review 437-64 (1981).  ** Expert Witness Work ** // Glassroth v. Moore // (USDC-MD Ala). 2002. Expert for plaintiff in lawsuit over the constitutionality of 5,500 pound Ten Commandments monument place in rotunda of Alabama Supreme Court building by Chief Justice Roy Moore. // Popov v. Hayashi // (Sup. Ct., San Francisco, Cal.) 2002. Expert for plaintiff in lawsuit over the ownership of the 73rd home run ball hit by Barry Bonds.   Affidavits presented as an expert in Ten Commandments Monument cases in Pennsylvania and Washington State.
 * __ Books __**
 * __ Law Review Publications __**

** EDITORIAL AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ** Albany Government Law Review, Faculty Co-Advisor, 2008- Gilder Lehman Center for the Study of Slavery, Abolition, and Resistance, Yale University, Board Member, 2003-. Law, Politics, & Society in the Midwest __. __ Book series at Ohio University Press. Series Editor. Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 1 (2007). Guest faculty co-editor for symposium on the 150th Anniversary of the //Dred Scott// Decision.

=
<span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Carolina Academic Press, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Law Publication Editorial Board, 2001- ======

=
<span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Organization of American Historians <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, Distinguished Lectureship Program, 2000- ====== 1921 Tulsa Race Riot Memorial Foundation, President, 2003-2006. Miller Museum of Jewish Art, Tulsa Oklahoma, Executive Board Member, 2002-2005. Studies in the Legal History of the South. Book series at University of Georgia Press. Series co-editor with Timothy Huebner. Tulsa Law Review, Faculty Advisor, 2000-2006. New York State Education Department, Advisory Board to Commission on New York's Freedom Trails and the Underground Railroad, 1998-2000. Controversies in Constitutional Law. Book series at Routledge. Series editor. 1994-2002. American National Biography, Associate Editor for figures in legal and constitutional History, 1990-1998. Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 2 & No. 3 (1994). Guest faculty editor for symposium on the Law of Freedom. Controversies in Constitutional Law. Book series at Routledge. Series editor, 1990-2002. American History Through Literature. Book series at M.E. Sharpe, Publishers. Series editor, 1995-2002. American National Biography. Associate Editor for figures in legal and constitutional History, 1990-1998. Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (1993). Guest faculty editor for symposium on the Law of Slavery. Journal of Southern Legal History, Associate Editor, 1990-95. Law and History Review, editorial board, 1985-1992. Journal of the Early Republic, editorial board, 1985-88. American Society for Legal History. Elected member of nominating committee, 1989-92; Chair, membership committee, 1978-81. Organization of American Historians. Committee on Access to Documents and Open Information, 1988-91, Committee Chair, 1989-91; Ad Hoc Committee on Access to Legal Documents and Files, 1991-. New York State Local Government Records Advisory Board, 1989-90. New York State Unified Court System. Judicial Records Disposition Advisory Committee, 1985-88.