Interpretating

Thomas J efferson, First I naugural Address

Although Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist,
he put stress on the balance and the cooperation
between Federal and Republican principles
throughout the document. At first, I thought this
may be one of the examples of Populism.
However, considering the political and societal
situations at that time, I concluded that this
speech reflected his potential to become an all-
embracing president, although some people
might say he did not represent all the people.
The two parties had been vying with another
for power. The Federalists claimed that federal
authority needs to be stronger in order to keep
under control the excesses of majorities, while
the Republicans argued that the power of the
federal government should be reduced to give
more responsibilities and powers to the state
governments. Nevertheless, the voting in the
election seemed to be used in order to eliminate
worst choices instead of representing the
majorities political inclination. After I read
about Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, I
realized that the outcome of the election reflects
the fact that there were internal conflicts among
Federalists rather than the number of
Republican advocates had been increased.
However, as Jefferson was elected as a
president, he had to represent all the people,
regardless what political interest that he had
before or how many people actually supported
him. Therefore, it is understandable the reason
why he emphasized the united Federal and
Republican governments, the equal rights of all
the people, including the slaves, or the freedom
of religion, although, in fact, none of them were
completely agreed with his personal opinion.
His private life makes it controversial, but
when all is said and done, I think it is hard to
deny the fact that he was one of the greatest
presidents in the U.S. that tried to walk the talk.

Interpreting
South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification
Through this document, South Carolina tried
to nullify the new tariff law and insisted the
possibility of secession from the federation if
the Congress of the United States abuses power.
Therefore, the significance of this nullification
is that this asserted the State Sovereignty.
However, one interesting thought came into my
mind. I think South Carolina made this
ordinance that emphasizes the State
Sovereignty not only to discuss the tax problem.
I think there was another intention underneath:
opposing the anti-slavery movement.
Slavery was one of the big issues that the
northern and the southern part of the United
States could not be compromised around this
time period. While Southern states, including
South Carolina, justified slavery, the movement
that oppose slavery system was growing among
the Northern states. Therefore, I think South
Carolina wanted to confirm the federal
authority cannot exceed state competence just
in case the slavery is abolished. Citing the tariff
law that violates the Constitution, they might
want to find an excuse to get out of the federal
system so that they can continue slavery no
matter what the central government say.


Interpreting
The Blessings of Slavery
The author defends the Negro slavery of the
South by criticizing so-called free laborer
society in the northern states. According to this
document, the North was more oppressive to
their free laborer than the South did to their
Negro slaves. The author claims that while free
laborers are suffering from demanding
workload and starvation, Negro slavery is
experiencing a protective institution that
provides quality and enjoyable lives that the
inferior race would not experience by their own.
According to our textbook, the southern slavery
was not as harsh as we think. Perhaps, as the
author of this document insists, we may have a
prejudice against slavery resulted from the
Middle Passage or West India slavery.
However, whether it was harsh or not, or
whether the North was mistreating their
workers or not, this document or the authors
defense against slavery cannot be justified.
First of all, the author does not represent Negro
slaves, yet seems like he is representing the
Southern slaveholders. Therefore, the
description of the life of the southern slaves is
unreliable. The satisfaction with life is
subjective. Although the author claims that the
slaves have happy lives, it does not fully reflect
the reality.
Next, the sweated labor in the North is nothing
to do with the slavery in the South. The reason
why the author relates those two issues is
understandable, because in this way, the author
might persuade people who support antislavery
movement of the North. However, this
argument is illogical because sweatshop of the
capitalism is a separate issue. Both practices
had to be ended in order to bring true human
rights.
Providing happy life does not mean that
nothing is violating human rights. Different
from the authors intention, this document
indicates that there were racial discriminations
and ethnocentrism underneath the idea of
southern slavery. The idea that the masters
extricate the Negros from their unhappy lives
by making them slaves means that the masters
were interpreting the Black peoples cultures
and lives from the White point of view. The
quality life given by the masters might not what
the slaves want to protect their human rights.