9-1 DBQ Document 1
Written Primary Source 1
BACKGROUND: In an 1821 speech, before the US House of Representatives John Quincy Adams, James Monroe’s
secretary of state, spoke out against colonialism. He declared that American foreign policy would not include
colonization.
John Quincy Adams's
Warning Against the Search for "Monsters to Destroy," 1821
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration,
the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their
hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice
which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful
foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often
fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among
them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has,
in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and
maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to
which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that
Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and
Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in
search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only
of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She
well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which
assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to
force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her
shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the
rest of mankind would permit, her practice
Highlight added by Tigulis & Zee to help you focus on some KEY parts!! 
Source: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jqadams.htm
Questions:
1.
2.
3.
Write down a quotation that supports the Monroe Doctrine? Explain how that quote supports the Monroe Doctrine.
Write down a quotation that opposes the Monroe Doctrine? Explain how that quote opposes the Monroe Doctrine.
Choose a quotation and explain how that quotation connects to or exemplifies an event we studied in either Chapter 7 or
Chapter 8.
9-1 DBQ Document 2
Written Primary Source 2
BACKGROUND: In December 1823, President Monroe issued a statement that became known as the
Monroe Doctrine. These 4 quotations are pulled from that speech.
Questions:
1. Teacher’s signature for correct matching of quotations.
2. Of the 4 quotations, which one do you believe is the most important? Why?
3. Using the background you learned in Chapter 9 Section 1 about the United States’ relationship with Spain (think
Adams-Onis Treaty, think South American Independence) why did Monroe believe he must make this doctrine?
9-1 DBQ Document 2 (cont.)
Written Primary Source 2
Directions:
1. Read each of the quotation cards.
2. Read each of the translation cards.
3. Match the quotation card with the correct translation card.
4. When you think you are correct, have your teacher check
your answers. Her signature is questions #1.
Monroe Quotation 1: “The American Continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers”
Monroe Quotation 2: “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations
existing between the United States and those [European] 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.
Monroe Quotation 3: “In the wars of the European powers in matters relations to
themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do
so.”
Monroe Quotation 4: “It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their
political system [monarchy] 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.”
Translation 1: The United States is part of its own unique political system and will
not interfere with European affairs.
Translation 2: The United States regards any European effort to interfere in
governments of the Western Hemisphere nations as a threat to its own peace and
safety. The United Sates will protect the independent nations in the Americas.
Translation 3: North and South America are free and independent and European
powers cannot consider them areas for new colonization.
Translation 4: The Western Hemispheres nations are republics rather than
monarchies.
9-1 DBQ Document 3
Visual Primary Source 1
Questions:
1. What are the facts you see in
the cartoon? (What objects
do you see?)
2. What do those objects
represent/symbolize?
3. How does the cartoon relate
to one or more of the 4 main
points (page 301) of the
Monroe Doctrine?
Special Notice:
All guests are welcome but they
should not bring their guns.
9-1 DBQ Document 4
Visual Primary Source 2
DIRECTIONS:
1. Choose ONE of the political cartoons provided and answer the questions below.
Questions:
1. What are the facts you see in the cartoon? (What objects do you see?)
2. What do those objects represent/symbolize?
3. How does the cartoon relate to one or more of the 4 main points (page 301) of the
Monroe Doctrine?
9-2 DBQ Document 1
Poem
Doc 1 Questions:
1. Write 4 new facts you learn
about Maine from reading this
poem.
2. How does Maine feel about
“the South” and “the West”?
3. What is the view of the poet?
Does he want Maine to part of
this deal? Why or Why not?
9-2 DBQ Document 2
Missouri Compromise Interactive Map
(go to link below)
Questions:
1.
Which region, North or South, had the most land
area in 1820? (This can be calculated by adding
together all the square miles of the northern
states, then doing the same for the southern
states. Compare the two numbers.)
2.
3.
Which region was more densely populated?
4.
Compare the land area in the territories where
slavery was prohibited with that of the territories
where slavery was permitted, by adding the land
area totals of Michigan to Missouri, and then of
Arkansas to Florida. Which had the most land
area?
5.
What changes did the Missouri Compromise bring
to the U. S. map?
6.
How did the Missouri Compromise solve the
problem of keeping the balance of power in the
Senate between free and slave states?
7.
What did the South stand to gain as a result of the
Compromise? What did the South stand to lose?
Which region had the higher population of black
people? In what two southern states did the black
population outnumber the white population?
Go to: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/neh/interactives/sectionalism/lesson1/
Once there, you can click on the states to get the information.
9-2 DBQ Document 3
A Firebell in the Night
The Missouri Compromise, by the terms of which slavery was henceforth excluded from the territories north of latitude 36°30' (the
southern boundary of Missouri), alarmed Thomas Jefferson, as he told John Holmes in this famous letter, “like a firebell in the
night.” The vividness of the image was in keeping with the passions of the time. Despite being a slaveholder himself, Jefferson
publicly disapproved of slavery. He even more strongly disapproved of any action on the part of Congress that, in his view,
exceeded its constitutional authority. Slavery, Jefferson believed, would die a natural death if left alone; but the very life of the
Union depended on maintaining a due measure in legislative acts. In addition, the Missouri Compromise had drawn a line across the
country on the basis of a principle, not of geography; such a line, “held up,” as Jefferson put it, “to the angry passions of men,”
could have no other ultimate effect than the disastrous rending of the body politic. Holmes, a Massachusetts man, was one of the
few Northern congressmen to vote against the Tallmadge Amendment that would have excluded slavery from Missouri itself;
Jefferson's prophetic letter to him was written April 22, 1820, just a month after the passage of the Missouri Compromise.
I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on
the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers,
or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in
our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a firebell in the night,
awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed,
for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a
marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never
be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that
there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in
any practicable way.
The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second
thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and
with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold
him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am
certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human
being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually
happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on
a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy
excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men
composing a state. This certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the Constitution has
taken from them and given to the general government. Could Congress, for example, say that the nonfreemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state?
I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776,
to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and
unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. If they
would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely
to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide
on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the
Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.
Source: Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 4, Thomas Jefferson Randolph,
ed., 1829, pp. 323-333.
Questions:
1. What are Jefferson’s thoughts on the Missouri Compromise?
2. Why does he feel this way?
3. What does he mean “like a firebell in the night”?
4. How does he feel about the sacrifices made by the Patriots in 1776?
9-2 DBQ Document 4
Newspaper articles
The following two newspaper articles reflect the controversial times and opinions that gave birth to the
Missouri Compromise. The first article is from a Northern newspaper ridiculing pro-slavery arguments
based on the Bible and the Constitution. The second, from a paper in a slave state, insists that states’
rights are paramount in this matter, and Congress has no authority expressed in the Constitution to
restrict slavery in a state.
Article 1: The Constitution in Danger!
The Virginians have such a regard for this instrument, and the Carolinians for the Bible,
that they cannot conscientiously restrict slavery in Missouri, now a Territory. The
Constitution forbids it—and the Bible forbids it. Now mark their consistency. On the
question of compromise, by restricting slavery north of a certain degree of latitude, these
gentlemen with Mr. Parrott, of N.H., at once make a compromise with the Constitution, and
their conscientious scruples vanish.
Mr. Smith of S.C. attempted by quotations from the “Holy Bible” to prove that slavery was
at least permitted amongst the chosen people of God—that it was a part of the law of
God—and asks the question “if we are left to select such laws for our obedience, as we find
suited to our inclinations, and our policy, and abrogate the others?” But Mr. Smith is as
happy in “quoting scripture to his purpose” as he is consistent in other respects. In the 3d
column of a speech filling 11 [columns] of the National Intelligencer, he ridicules the idea
of danger from the black population. “This people are so domesticated, or so kindly treated
by their masters, and their situations so improved, that Marcus (an anonymous writer in
favor of restriction referred to) and all his host, cannot excite one among twenty to
insurrection.” Yet towards the close of his speech he deprecates even the mention of
ameliorating the condition of slaves, or restricting their emigration, from its probable
effects upon the slave population, to excite them to rebellion. “Let us look,” says he, “the
danger that threatens us in the face. Let us contemplate a revolt in its progress and
consequences,” and then refers to Edwards’ history of the revolt in St. Domingo, and
paints the most frightful picture, calling upon the Senate “to preserve our citizens from
massacre, our wives and daughters from violations, and our children from being impaled
by the most inhuman of savages”—by extending the evil and danger over the vast country
in the west.
This article was printed by the Baltimore Patriot & Mercantile Advertiser (Baltimore,
Maryland) on March 4, 1820
Questions:
1. What is Article 1’s belief about the Missouri Compromise? Why?
2. How does he break down the Southern ideas of why slavery is acceptable?
Article 2: Decision of the Missouri Question
Deprecating as we most sincerely have, and most sincerely do deprecate, that unhallowed spirit of decision and discord
and every evil work, which had begun to be manifest in the late discussions, relative to the admission of Missouri; we
should be inconsistent with our own principles, did we, by any tone of insult or exultation, aid in protracting the
unhappy division which this question has caused. The competent tribunals have decided—they have decided, at any
rate, in a manner consonant with the Constitution. It is not pretended that they were bound, by that instrument, to
impose conditions on the sovereign power of a state, to be admitted by their act, pursuant to the Constitution. But it is
alleged, and to our minds most conclusively proved, that they have no right by that instrument, to decide anything more
than the question of admission or non-admission—nay more, that they have no moral right to decide in favor of nonadmission.
It would have appeared like presumption, while the controversy was pending, to have obtruded our remarks on a
subject, under the closest and most ambitious scrutiny of the combined political wisdom of statesmen, selected from
different parts of our country. As it has now been decided, we may be permitted to express our pleasure at a decision,
which we believe to be right and correct. Nay, it may not appear impertinent, to suggest a single point of view, in which
the idea of restriction appears to us very absurd—because the more firmly we are convinced the decision is correct, the
more probability will follow, of a cheerful, and in the end, a general acquiescence in it. The suggestion, we would renew,
has, we know, already been made and enlarged upon. It appears to us, however, to have force, though it has not
novelty.
We ask, then, whether there is another single condition or restriction, which ingenuity can conjure up, which it will be
pretended Congress have a right to impose on a state asking admission, other than what the Constitution itself imposes?
Have Congress a right to require that a state shall impose a property qualification on voters, or the contrary? Have they
a right to require the establishment of a state religion, or to require in so many words, (however reason may require it)
that religion should be left free, and no legal provision made for its support? Have they a right to insist on a freehold
qualification, as in Virginia; a general suffrage as in Maryland; or a possession of personal or real property, as in
Massachusetts? In a word, is there another single requisition, except this Slave Restriction one, which it will even be
pretended Congress may lawfully impose, in the internal regulations of a state? If there be no other instance in which
this power by inference can even be imagined to be vested, by what train of reasoning is it proved to exist in this solitary
case? And as a consequence from these suggestions we may ask the very important question, stated by Judge Cooper: If
Missouri, today, is admitted into the Union, under a restriction; and as a sovereign state, tomorrow, chooses to abrogate
it [the restriction], is Congress competent to try her for her conduct; annul her constitution; turn her senators out of the
hall; and shut the doors in the face of her representatives?
But we forbear to pursue the subject. Our object is rather to advocate acquiescence in the result, than to renew the
controversy. Thank God, it is, at last, decided; and, as we believe, decided right. We trust, a spirit of harmony will
succeed the spirit of division which has been but too apparent. We do hope, also, that the rage for “much speaking” will
subside; and that the period of application to real, effective, important business has arrived. There are certainly (and our
legislators ought to know it a great deal better than we do) several important measures, which should at least be
maturely considered and decided upon.
This article was printed by the New-York Commercial Advertiser (New York, New York) on March 6, 1820:
Questions:
1. What is Article 2’s belief about the Missouri Compromise? Why?
2. What does he believe the government does not have the power to do?
Why?