“The American Republicans of the city and county of Philadelphia, who are determined to support the NATIVE [White, Protestant] AMERICANS in their Constitutional Rights of peaceably assembling to express their opinions on any question of Public Policy, and to SUSTAIN THEM AGAINST THE ASSAULTS OF ALIENS AND FOREIGNERS are requested to assemble on MONDAY AFTERNOON, May 6th, 1844 at 4 o'clock, at the corner of Master and Second street, Kensington [a section of Philadelphia], to express their indignation [anger] at the outrage on Friday evening last, which was perpetrated by the Irish Catholics.”

Which of the following historical situations can best be used to explain how the excerpt would have been interpreted at the time?

“The American Republicans of the city and county of Philadelphia, who are determined to support the NATIVE [White, Protestant] AMERICANS in their Constitutional Rights of peaceably assembling to express their opinions on any question of Public Policy, and to SUSTAIN THEM AGAINST THE ASSAULTS OF ALIENS AND FOREIGNERS are requested to assemble on MONDAY AFTERNOON, May 6th, 1844 at 4 o'clock, at the corner of Master and Second street, Kensington [a section of Philadelphia], to express their indignation [anger] at the outrage on Friday evening last, which was perpetrated by the Irish Catholics.”

The language in the excerpt was most likely interpreted as promoting which of the following?

“With regard to the northwestern States, to which the ordinance of 1787 was applied—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan—no one now believes that any one of those States, if they thought proper to do it, has not just as much a right to introduce slavery within her borders as Virginia has a right to maintain the existence of slavery within hers.

“Then, if in this struggle of power and empire between the two classes of states a decision of California has taken place adverse to the wishes of the southern States, it is a decision not made by the General [federal] Government; it is a decision respecting which they cannot complain to the General Government. It is a decision made by California herself, and which California had incontestably a right to make under the Constitution of the United States. . . . The question of slavery, either of its introduction or interdiction, is silent as respects the action of this [federal] Government; and if it has been decided, it has been by a different body—by a different power—by California herself, who had a right to make that decision.”

Senator Henry Clay, speech in the United States Senate, 1850

Senator Henry Clay, speech in the United States Senate, 1850

The excerpt best reflects which of the following historical situations?

“With regard to the northwestern States, to which the ordinance of 1787 was applied—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan—no one now believes that any one of those States, if they thought proper to do it, has not just as much a right to introduce slavery within her borders as Virginia has a right to maintain the existence of slavery within hers.

“Then, if in this struggle of power and empire between the two classes of states a decision of California has taken place adverse to the wishes of the southern States, it is a decision not made by the General [federal] Government; it is a decision respecting which they cannot complain to the General Government. It is a decision made by California herself, and which California had incontestably a right to make under the Constitution of the United States. . . . The question of slavery, either of its introduction or interdiction, is silent as respects the action of this [federal] Government; and if it has been decided, it has been by a different body—by a different power—by California herself, who had a right to make that decision.”

Senator Henry Clay, speech in the United States Senate, 1850

The position expressed by Clay in the excerpt best serves as evidence of which of the following?

“With regard to the northwestern States, to which the ordinance of 1787 was applied—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan—no one now believes that any one of those States, if they thought proper to do it, has not just as much a right to introduce slavery within her borders as Virginia has a right to maintain the existence of slavery within hers.

“Then, if in this struggle of power and empire between the two classes of states a decision of California has taken place adverse to the wishes of the southern States, it is a decision not made by the General [federal] Government; it is a decision respecting which they cannot complain to the General Government. It is a decision made by California herself, and which California had incontestably a right to make under the Constitution of the United States. . . . The question of slavery, either of its introduction or interdiction, is silent as respects the action of this [federal] Government; and if it has been decided, it has been by a different body—by a different power—by California herself, who had a right to make that decision.”

Senator Henry Clay, speech in the United States Senate, 1850

Evidence in the excerpt best corroborates which of the following broader historical contexts?

“Yes: Mexico must be thoroughly chastised! . . . The news of yesterday [at the southern border] has added the last argument wanted to prove the necessity of an immediate Declaration of War by our government toward its southern neighbor.

“We are justified in the face of the world, in having treated Mexico with more forbearance [tolerance] than we have ever yet treated an enemy. . . . We have . . . submitted thus far to a most offensive rejection of an Ambassador personifying the American nation, and waited for years without payment of the claims of our injured merchants. We have sought peace through every avenue, and shut our eyes to many things, which, had they come from England or France, the President would not have dared to pass over without stern and speedy resentment. We have dammed up our memory, of what had passed in the South [Texas] years ago—of devilish massacres of some of our bravest and noblest sons . . . in violation of all the rules of war. . . .

“We think there can be no doubt of the truth of yesterday’s news; and we are sure the people here, ten to one, are for prompt and hostilities. . . . Let our arms now be carried with a spirit which shall teach the world that, while we are not forward for a quarrel, America knows how to crush, as well as how to expand!”

Walt Whitman, journalist and poet, editorial in the Brooklyn Eagle, 1846

“President [James K. Polk] in his message, as a pretext for sending our army to invade and conquer the country upon the Rio Grande, says: “Texas by its [legislative] act of December 19, 1836, had declared the [Rio Grande] to be the boundary of that [formerly independent] republic.’ . . . The truth is that Texas had agreed upon the Nueces [River] as her boundary. . . .

“If [Mexico] be ours, why does he seek to justify the taking possession of it by references to the fact that Mexico is indebted to some of our people? If it be not ours, and he has taken possession of it in order to compel Mexico to pay those debts, why not say so? The fact that Mexico has not paid the debts due to our citizens can have no legitimate connection with taking possession of [it as] our own soil. But [the president] was obviously conscious that this invasion of the Mexican territory could not be justified. . . .

“When the Executive and Congress openly and avowedly took upon themselves the responsibility of extending and perpetuating slavery by the annexation of Texas, and by the total overthrow and subversion of the Constitution, . . . my confidence in the stability of our institutions was shaken, destroyed. . . . Our Union continues, but our Constitution is gone. . . .

“. . . No man regards this war as just. We know, the country knows, and the civilized world are conscious, that it has resulted from a desire to extend and sustain an institution on which the curse of the Almighty most visibly rests.”

Joshua Giddings, congressman from Ohio, speech in the United States House of Representatives, 1846

Which of the following comparisons best describes Whitman’s and Giddings’ arguments about the Mexican-American War?

“Yes: Mexico must be thoroughly chastised! . . . The news of yesterday [at the southern border] has added the last argument wanted to prove the necessity of an immediate Declaration of War by our government toward its southern neighbor.

“We are justified in the face of the world, in having treated Mexico with more forbearance [tolerance] than we have ever yet treated an enemy. . . . We have . . . submitted thus far to a most offensive rejection of an Ambassador personifying the American nation, and waited for years without payment of the claims of our injured merchants. We have sought peace through every avenue, and shut our eyes to many things, which, had they come from England or France, the President would not have dared to pass over without stern and speedy resentment. We have dammed up our memory, of what had passed in the South [Texas] years ago—of devilish massacres of some of our bravest and noblest sons . . . in violation of all the rules of war. . . .

“We think there can be no doubt of the truth of yesterday’s news; and we are sure the people here, ten to one, are for prompt and hostilities. . . . Let our arms now be carried with a spirit which shall teach the world that, while we are not forward for a quarrel, America knows how to crush, as well as how to expand!”

Walt Whitman, journalist and poet, editorial in the Brooklyn Eagle, 1846

“President [James K. Polk] in his message, as a pretext for sending our army to invade and conquer the country upon the Rio Grande, says: “Texas by its [legislative] act of December 19, 1836, had declared the [Rio Grande] to be the boundary of that [formerly independent] republic.’ . . . The truth is that Texas had agreed upon the Nueces [River] as her boundary. . . .

“If [Mexico] be ours, why does he seek to justify the taking possession of it by references to the fact that Mexico is indebted to some of our people? If it be not ours, and he has taken possession of it in order to compel Mexico to pay those debts, why not say so? The fact that Mexico has not paid the debts due to our citizens can have no legitimate connection with taking possession of [it as] our own soil. But [the president] was obviously conscious that this invasion of the Mexican territory could not be justified. . . .

“When the Executive and Congress openly and avowedly took upon themselves the responsibility of extending and perpetuating slavery by the annexation of Texas, and by the total overthrow and subversion of the Constitution, . . . my confidence in the stability of our institutions was shaken, destroyed. . . . Our Union continues, but our Constitution is gone. . . .

“. . . No man regards this war as just. We know, the country knows, and the civilized world are conscious, that it has resulted from a desire to extend and sustain an institution on which the curse of the Almighty most visibly rests.”

Joshua Giddings, congressman from Ohio, speech in the United States House of Representatives, 1846

Based on their arguments in the excerpts, Giddings would likely agree with and Whitman would likely disagree with which of the following claims about the causes of the Mexican-American War?

“Yes: Mexico must be thoroughly chastised! . . . The news of yesterday [at the southern border] has added the last argument wanted to prove the necessity of an immediate Declaration of War by our government toward its southern neighbor.

“We are justified in the face of the world, in having treated Mexico with more forbearance [tolerance] than we have ever yet treated an enemy. . . . We have . . . submitted thus far to a most offensive rejection of an Ambassador personifying the American nation, and waited for years without payment of the claims of our injured merchants. We have sought peace through every avenue, and shut our eyes to many things, which, had they come from England or France, the President would not have dared to pass over without stern and speedy resentment. We have dammed up our memory, of what had passed in the South [Texas] years ago—of devilish massacres of some of our bravest and noblest sons . . . in violation of all the rules of war. . . .

“We think there can be no doubt of the truth of yesterday’s news; and we are sure the people here, ten to one, are for prompt and hostilities. . . . Let our arms now be carried with a spirit which shall teach the world that, while we are not forward for a quarrel, America knows how to crush, as well as how to expand!”

Walt Whitman, journalist and poet, editorial in the Brooklyn Eagle, 1846

“President [James K. Polk] in his message, as a pretext for sending our army to invade and conquer the country upon the Rio Grande, says: “Texas by its [legislative] act of December 19, 1836, had declared the [Rio Grande] to be the boundary of that [formerly independent] republic.’ . . . The truth is that Texas had agreed upon the Nueces [River] as her boundary. . . .

“If [Mexico] be ours, why does he seek to justify the taking possession of it by references to the fact that Mexico is indebted to some of our people? If it be not ours, and he has taken possession of it in order to compel Mexico to pay those debts, why not say so? The fact that Mexico has not paid the debts due to our citizens can have no legitimate connection with taking possession of [it as] our own soil. But [the president] was obviously conscious that this invasion of the Mexican territory could not be justified. . . .

“When the Executive and Congress openly and avowedly took upon themselves the responsibility of extending and perpetuating slavery by the annexation of Texas, and by the total overthrow and subversion of the Constitution, . . . my confidence in the stability of our institutions was shaken, destroyed. . . . Our Union continues, but our Constitution is gone. . . .

“. . . No man regards this war as just. We know, the country knows, and the civilized world are conscious, that it has resulted from a desire to extend and sustain an institution on which the curse of the Almighty most visibly rests.”

Joshua Giddings, congressman from Ohio, speech in the United States House of Representatives, 1846

Which of the following is a similarity between how Whitman and Giddings made their arguments?

“Your Memorialist . . . represents to your honorable body, that he has devoted much time and attention to the subject of a railroad from Lake Michigan through the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and that he finds such a route practicable, the results from which would be incalculable—far beyond the imagination of man to estimate. . . .

“It would enable us, in the short space of eight days (and perhaps less) to concentrate all the forces of our vast country at any point from Maine to Oregon. . . . Such easy and rapid communication with such facilities for exchanging the different products of the different parts would bring all our immensely wide spread population together. . . .

“[W]ith a railroad to the Pacific, and thence to China by steamers, can be performed in thirty days, being now a distance of nearly seventeen thousand miles. . . Then the drills and sheetings of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and other manufactures of the United States, may be transported to China in thirty days; and the teas and rich silks of China, in exchange, come back to New Orleans, to Charleston, to Washington, to Baltimore, to Philadelphia, New York, and to Boston, in thirty days more.”

Asa Whitney, merchant, “National Railroad, Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean,” memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, 1845

Sentiments of business leaders and politicians like that expressed in the excerpt most likely contributed to which of the following?

“Your Memorialist . . . represents to your honorable body, that he has devoted much time and attention to the subject of a railroad from Lake Michigan through the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and that he finds such a route practicable, the results from which would be incalculable—far beyond the imagination of man to estimate. . . .

“It would enable us, in the short space of eight days (and perhaps less) to concentrate all the forces of our vast country at any point from Maine to Oregon. . . . Such easy and rapid communication with such facilities for exchanging the different products of the different parts would bring all our immensely wide spread population together. . . .

“[W]ith a railroad to the Pacific, and thence to China by steamers, can be performed in thirty days, being now a distance of nearly seventeen thousand miles. . . Then the drills and sheetings of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and other manufactures of the United States, may be transported to China in thirty days; and the teas and rich silks of China, in exchange, come back to New Orleans, to Charleston, to Washington, to Baltimore, to Philadelphia, New York, and to Boston, in thirty days more.”

Asa Whitney, merchant, “National Railroad, Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean,” memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, 1845

The excerpt best reflects which of the following developments?

“Your Memorialist . . . represents to your honorable body, that he has devoted much time and attention to the subject of a railroad from Lake Michigan through the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and that he finds such a route practicable, the results from which would be incalculable—far beyond the imagination of man to estimate. . . .

“It would enable us, in the short space of eight days (and perhaps less) to concentrate all the forces of our vast country at any point from Maine to Oregon. . . . Such easy and rapid communication with such facilities for exchanging the different products of the different parts would bring all our immensely wide spread population together. . . .

“[W]ith a railroad to the Pacific, and thence to China by steamers, can be performed in thirty days, being now a distance of nearly seventeen thousand miles. . . Then the drills and sheetings of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, and other manufactures of the United States, may be transported to China in thirty days; and the teas and rich silks of China, in exchange, come back to New Orleans, to Charleston, to Washington, to Baltimore, to Philadelphia, New York, and to Boston, in thirty days more.”

Asa Whitney, merchant, “National Railroad, Connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean,” memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, 1845

Which of the following most directly contributed to the request expressed in the excerpt?