fieldston american reader volume i – fall 2007 - Ethical Culture ...

y the gentlemen of the bar or which we have been able todiscern, that prescribes this rule. We do not, therefore, thinkourselves justified in adopting it. What do the gentlemenmean by a strict construction? It they contend only againstthat enlarged construction which would extend words beyondtheir natural and obvious import, we might question theapplication of the term, but should not controvert the principle.If they contend for that narrow construction which, in supportof some theory not to be found in the Constitution, woulddeny to the government those powers which the words of thegrant, as usually understood, import, and which are consistentwith the general views and objects of the instrument; for thatnarrow construction, which would cripple the government, andrender it unequal to the objects for which it is declared to beinstituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly understood,render it competent; then we cannot perceive the propriety ofthis strict construction, nor adopt it as the rule by which theConstitution is to be expounded. As men whose intentionsrequire no concealment generally employ the words whichmost directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey,the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and thepeople who adopted it, must be understood to have employedwords in their natural sense, and to have intended what theyhave said....The Report and Resolutions of theHartford Convention January 4, 1815The dissatisfaction of the New England Federalists with Republicanpolicies and the War of 1812 culminated in the Hartford Conventionon December 1814. The Convention was attended by delegatesfrom Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island andNew Hampshire. The resolutions of the convention arrived inWashington, D.C. just after the news of General Andrew Jackson’svictory at N~ Orleans and the Treaty of Ghent. As you read, considerthe complaints and proposals of the New England Federalists whomet at Hartford. Why do they support such proposals? And, thinkabout how these proposals might have been viewed by an Americanpeople proud of their victory in the War of 1812.First - ... [certain states have collectively acted] by excitinglocal jealousies and ambition so as to secure popular leaders inone section of the Union, the control of public affairs. . .Fourthly - The abolition of existing taxes, requisite to preparethe country for those changes to which nations are alwaysexposed.Fifthly - the influence of patronage in the distribution of offices,which in these states has been almost invariably made amongmen the least entitled to such distinction. . . .Sixthly - The admission of new states into the Union formedat pleasure in the western region, has destroyed the balance ofpower which existed among the original States....Seventhly - The easy admission of naturalized foreigners, toplaces of trust, honor or profit, operating as an inducement tothe malcontent subjects on the Old World to come to theseStates....Eighthly -Hostility to Great Britain, and partiality to the lategovernment of France....Lastly and principally - A visionary and superficial theoryin regard to commerce, accompanied by a real hatred but afeigned regard to its interests, and a ruinous perseverance inefforts to render it an instrument of coercion and war....Therefore resolved...That it be and is hereby recommended... to authorize animmediate and earnest application to be made to thegovernment of the United States, requesting their consent tosome arrangement, whereby the said states may separately or inconcert, be empowered to assume upon themselves the defenseof their territory against the enemy.210 fieldston american reader volume i – fall 2007