(eBook PDF) The American Democracy

Texas Edition 11th Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-american-democracy-texas-edition-1
1th-edition-2/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) The American Democracy Texas Edition 11th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-american-democracy-
texas-edition-11th-edition/

(eBook PDF) The American Democracy 11th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-american-
democracy-11th-edition/

American Democracy Now - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/american-democracy-now-ebook-
pdf/

(eBook PDF) American Democracy Now 5th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-american-democracy-
now-5th-edition/
(eBook PDF) The Challenge of Democracy: American
Government in Global Politics 14th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-challenge-of-
democracy-american-government-in-global-politics-14th-edition/

(eBook PDF) The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon

Introduction to American Politics 17th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-irony-of-democracy-
an-uncommon-introduction-to-american-politics-17th-edition/

(eBook PDF) American Democracy Now 4th Edition by

Brigid Harrison

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-american-democracy-
now-4th-edition-by-brigid-harrison/

The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in

Global Politics 15th Edition Kenneth Janda - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/the-challenge-of-democracy-
american-government-in-global-politics-ebook-pdf/

Gateways to Democracy: An Introduction to American

Government - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/gateways-to-democracy-an-
introduction-to-american-government-ebook-pdf/
Contents in Brief
Preface xviii | Acknowledgments xxiii

PART 1 Foundations
1 Political Thinking and Political Culture: Becoming a Responsible Citizen 3
2 Constitutional Democracy: Promoting Liberty and Self-Government 24
3 Federalism: Forging a Nation 54
4 Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights 82
5 Equal Rights: Struggling toward Fairness 114

PART 2 Mass Politics

6 Public Opinion and Political Socialization: Shaping the People’s Voice 142
7 Political Participation: Activating the Popular Will 166
8 Political Parties, Candidates, and Campaigns: Defining the Voter’s Choice 188
9 Interest Groups: Organizing for Influence 218
10 The News Media: Communicating Political Images 244

PART 3 Governing Institutions

11 Congress: Balancing National Goals and Local Interests 266
12 The Presidency: Leading the Nation 300
13 The Federal Bureaucracy: Administering the Government 330
14 The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law 356

vii
viii CONTENTS IN BRIEF

PART 4 Public Policy

15 Economic and Environmental Policy: Contributing to Prosperity 382
16 Welfare and Education Policy: Providing for Personal Security and Need 408
17 Foreign Policy: Protecting the American Way 434
18 State and Local Politics: Maintaining Our Differences 460

Appendixes 490
Glossary 512
Notes 521
Credits 535
Index 537
 CHAPTER 1 Foreign and Defense Policy Providing for Personal Security and Need ix

Contents
Preface xviii | Acknowledgments xxiii

PART 1 Foundations
1 Political Thinking and Political Culture: Becoming
a Responsible Citizen 2
Learning to Think Politically 4
Obstacles to Political Thinking 5
What Political Science Can Contribute to Political Thinking 7
Political Culture: Americans’ Enduring Beliefs 7
Core Values: Liberty, Individualism, Equality, and Self-Government 8
The Limits and Power of America’s Ideals 11
Politics and Power in America 14
A Democratic System 16
A Constitutional System 17
A Free-Market System 19
Who Governs? 21
The Text’s Organization 21
Summary 22
Study Corner 22

2 Constitutional Democracy: Promoting Liberty and

Self-Government 24
Before the Constitution: The Colonial and Revolutionary Experiences 27
The Declaration of Independence 28
The Articles of Confederation 28
A Nation Dissolving 29
Negotiating toward a Constitution 31
The Great Compromise: A Two-Chamber Congress 31
The Three-Fifths Compromise: Issues of Slavery and Trade 32
A Strategy for Ratification 33
The Ratification Debate 34
The Framers’ Goals 36
Protecting Liberty: Limited Government 37
Grants and Denials of Power 37

ix
x CONTENTS

Using Power to Offset Power 38

Separated Institutions Sharing Power: Checks and Balances 39
The Bill of Rights 41
Judicial Review 42
Providing for Representative Government 44
Democracy versus Republic 45
Limited Popular Rule 45
Altering the Constitution: More Power to the People 46
Constitutional Democracy Today 50
Summary 51
Study Corner 51

3 Federalism: Forging a Nation 54

Federalism: National and State Sovereignty 58
The Argument for Federalism 60
The Powers of the Nation and the States 61
Federalism in Historical Perspective 62
An Indestructible Union (1789–1865) 63
Dual Federalism and Laissez-Faire Capitalism (1865–1937) 65
Contemporary Federalism (since 1937) 69
Interdependency and Intergovernmental Relations 70
Government Revenues and Intergovernmental Relations 70
Devolution 73
The Public’s Influence: Setting the Boundaries of Federal–State Power 78
Summary 79
Study Corner 79

4 Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights 82

The Constitution: The Bill of Rights and the
Fourteenth Amendment 84
Selective Incorporation of Free Expression Rights 86
Selective Incorporation of Fair Trial Rights 86
Freedom of Expression 87
The Early Period: The Uncertain Status of the Right of Free
Expression 88
The Modern Period: Protecting Free Expression 88
Freedom of Religion 94
The Establishment Clause 94
The Free-Exercise Clause 95
The Right to Bear Arms 96
The Right of Privacy 97
Abortion 98
Consensual Sexual Relations among Same-Sex Adults 99
 CONTENTS xi

Rights of Persons Accused of Crimes 100

Suspicion Phase: Unreasonable Search and Seizure 100
Arrest Phase: Protection against Self-Incrimination 102
Trial Phase: The Right to a Fair Trial 103
Sentencing Phase: Cruel and Unusual Punishment 105
Appeal: One Chance, Usually 106
Crime, Punishment, and Police Practices 107
Rights and the War on Terrorism 108
Detention of Enemy Combatants 109
Surveillance of Suspected Terrorists 109
The Courts and a Free Society 110
Summary 111
Study Corner 111

5 Equal Rights: Struggling toward Fairness 114

Equality through Law 116
The Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection 117
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 121
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 125
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 126
Affirmative Action 126
The Continuing Struggle for Equality 129
African Americans 129
Women 130
Native Americans 132
Hispanic Americans 133
Asian Americans 135
Gays and Lesbians 136
Other Disadvantaged Groups 138
Discrimination: Superficial Differences, Deep Divisions 139
Summary 139
Study Corner 140

PART 2 Mass Politics

6 Public Opinion and Political Socialization:
Shaping the People’s Voice 142
Political Socialization: The Origins of Americans’ Opinions 144
Primary Socializing Agents: Family, School, and Church 145
Secondary Socializing Agents: Peers, Media, Leaders, and Events 146
Frames of Reference: How Americans Think Politically 148
Party Identification 148
Political Ideology 149
Group Orientations 152
xii CONTENTS

The Measurement of Public Opinion 155

Public Opinion Polls 156
Problems with Polls 158
The Influence of Public Opinion on Policy 159
Limits on the Public’s Influence 159
Public Opinion and the Boundaries of Action 161
Leaders and Public Opinion 163
Summary 163
Study Corner 164

7 Political Participation: Activating the Popular Will 166

Voter Participation 168
Factors in Voter Turnout: The United States in Comparative
Perspective 169
Why Some Americans Vote and Others Do Not 174
Conventional Forms of Participation Other Than Voting 178
Campaign and Lobbying Activities 178
Virtual Participation 179
Community Activities 180
Unconventional Activism: Social Movements and Protest Politics 181
The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Movements 182
The Public’s Response to Protest Activity 184
Participation and the Potential for Influence 184
Summary 185
Study Corner 186

8 Political Parties, Candidates, and Campaigns:

Defining the Voter’s Choice 188
Party Competition and Majority Rule: The History of U.S. Parties 190
The First Parties 191
Andrew Jackson and Grassroots Parties 192
Republicans versus Democrats: Realignments and the Enduring
Party System 192
The Nature and Origins of Today’s Party Alignment 194
Parties and the Vote 195
Electoral and Party Systems 196
The Plurality (Single-Member-District ) System of Election 197
Politics and Coalitions in the Two-Party System 198
Minor (Third) Parties 202
Party Organizations 204
The Weakening of Party Organizations 204
The Structure and Role of Party Organizations 206
 CONTENTS xiii

The Candidate-Centered Campaign 208

Campaign Funds: The Money Chase 209
Organization and Strategy: Political Consultants 210
Voter Contacts: Pitched Battle 210
Parties, Candidates, and the Public’s Influence 213
Summary 215
Study Corner 216

9 Interest Groups: Organizing for Influence 218

The Interest-Group System 221
Economic Groups 222
Citizens’ Groups 225
The Organizational Edge: Economic Groups versus
Citizens’ Groups 227
Inside Lobbying: Seeking Influence through Official Contacts 230
Acquiring Access to Officials 231
Webs of Influence: Groups in the Policy Process 233
Outside Lobbying: Seeking Influence through Public Pressure 235
Constituency Advocacy: Grassroots Lobbying 235
Electoral Action: Votes and Money 236
The Group System: Indispensable but Biased 239
The Contribution of Groups to Self-Government: Pluralism 239
Flaws in Pluralism: Interest-Group Liberalism and Economic Bias 239
A Madisonian Dilemma 241
Summary 242
Study Corner 242

10 The News Media: Communicating Political Images 244

Historical Development: From the Nation’s Founding
to Today 247
The Objective-Journalism Era 248
The Rise of the “New” News 248
Journalism and Politics 249
The Signaling Function 250
The Common-Carrier Function 252
The Watchdog Function 254
The Partisan Function 255
The News Audience 259
The Partisan Divide 260
The Information Divide 260
Summary 263
Study Corner 263
xiv CONTENTS

PART 3 Governing Institutions

11 Congress: Balancing National Goals and Local Interests 266
Congress as a Career: Election to Congress 269
Using Incumbency to Stay in Congress 269
Pitfalls of Incumbency 272
Who Are the Winners in Congressional Elections? 276
Parties and Party Leadership 276
Party Unity in Congress 277
Party Leadership in Congress 278
Committees and Committee Leadership 282
Committee Jurisdiction 283
Committee Membership 284
Committee Chairs 285
Committees and Parties: Which Is in Control? 285
How a Bill Becomes Law 286
Committee Hearings and Decisions 286
From Committee to the Floor 287
Leadership and Floor Action 288
Conference Committees and the President 289
Congress’s Policymaking Role 289
The Lawmaking Function of Congress 290
The Representation Function of Congress 292
The Oversight Function of Congress 295
Congress: An Institution Divided 296
Summary 297
Study Corner 298

12 The Presidency: Leading the Nation 300

Foundations of the Modern Presidency 303
The Changing Conception of the Presidency 304
The Need for a Strong Presidency 306
Choosing the President 307
The Nominating Campaign: Primaries and Caucuses 308
The National Party Conventions 310
The General Election Campaign 311
Staffing the Presidency 315
The Vice President 315
The Executive Office of the President (EOP) 315
The Cabinet and Agency Appointees 316
The Problem of Control 317
Factors in Presidential Leadership 318
The Force of Circumstance 318
 CONTENTS xv

The Stage of the President’s Term 319

The Nature of the Issue: Foreign or Domestic 320
Relations with Congress 321
Public Support 325
The Illusion of Presidential Government 327
Summary 327
Study Corner 328

13 The Federal Bureaucracy: Administering the Government 330

Origin and Structure of the Federal Bureaucracy 333
Types of Federal Agencies 334
Federal Employment 336
The Budgetary Process 338
The President and Agency Budgets 338
Congress and the Agency Budgets 339
Policy and Power in the Bureaucracy 340
The Agency Point of View 342
Sources of Bureaucratic Power 342
Democracy and Bureaucratic Accountability 346
Accountability through the Presidency 346
Accountability through Congress 349
Accountability through the Courts 350
Accountability within the Bureaucracy Itself 350
Summary 353
Study Corner 354

14 The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law 356

The Federal Judicial System 359
The Supreme Court of the United States 359
Other Federal Courts 362
The State Courts 364
Federal Court Appointees 366
Supreme Court Nominees 366
Lower-Court Nominees 368
Personal Backgrounds of Judicial Appointees 368
The Nature of Judicial Decision Making 369
Legal Influences on Judicial Decisions 369
Political Influences on Judicial Decisions 371
Judicial Power and Democratic Government 375
Originalism Theory versus Living Constitution Theory 375
Judicial Restraint versus Judicial Activism 377
What Is the Judiciary’s Proper Role 379
Summary 379
Study Corner 380
xvi CONTENTS

PART 4 Public Policy

15 Economic and Environmental Policy:
Contributing to Prosperity 382
Government as Regulator of the Economy 384
Efficiency through Government Intervention 385
Equity through Government Intervention 388
The Politics of Regulatory Policy 388
Government as Protector of the Environment 389
Conservationism: The Older Wave 390
Environmentalism: The Newer Wave 391
Government as Promoter of Economic Interests 394
Promoting Business 394
Promoting Labor 394
Promoting Agriculture 395
Fiscal Policy as an Economic Tool 395
Demand-Side Policy 396
Supply-Side Policy 398
Fiscal Policy: Practical and Political Limits 400
Monetary Policy as an Economic Tool 400
The Fed 400
The Fed and Control of Inflation 402
The Politics of the Fed 404
Summary 405
Study Corner 406

16 Welfare and Education Policy: Providing for

Personal Security and Need 408
Poverty in America: The Nature of the Problem 410
The Poor: Who and How Many? 411
Living in Poverty: By Choice or Chance? 413
The Politics and Policies of Social Welfare 413
Social Insurance Programs 415
Public Assistance Programs 417
Culture and Social Welfare 422
Education as Equality of Opportunity 424
Public Education: Leveling through the Schools 425
Improving America’s Schools 426
The American Way of Promoting the General Welfare 429
Summary 430
Study Corner 431
 CONTENTS xvii

17 Foreign Policy: Protecting the American Way 434

The Roots of U.S. Foreign and Defense Policy 436
The Cold War Era and Its Lessons 437
The Post-Cold War Era and Its Lessons 438
The Military Dimension of National Security Policy 444
Military Power, Uses, and Capabilities 444
The Politics of National Defense 449
The Economic Dimension of National Security Policy 450
Promoting Global Trade 451
Maintaining Access to Oil and Other Natural Resources 454
Assisting Developing Nations 454
Stabilizing the Global Economy 456
Summary 456
Study Corner 456

18 State and Local Politics: Maintaining

Our Differences 460
The Structure of State Government 463
The State Constitutions 463
Branches of Government 465
Citizen Politics: Elections, Parties, and Interest Groups 471
The Structure of Local Government 474
Types of Local Government 475
Local Elections and Participation 479
State and Local Finance 480
Sources of State Revenue 481
Sources of Local Revenue 481
State and Local Policy 482
Policy Priorities 482
Public Policy Patterns 483
The Great Balancing Act: Localism in a Large Nation 487
Summary 488
Study Corner 488

Appendixes 490
Glossary 512
Notes 521
Credits 535
Index 537
xviii PART ONE Governing Institutions in Two Lines
Preface
A Letter from the Author
Anyone who writes an introductory American
government text faces the challenge of explaining a
wide range of subjects. One way is to pile fact upon
fact and list upon list. It’s a common approach to
textbook writing but it turns politics into a pretty dry
subject. Politics doesn’t have to be dry, and it certainly
doesn’t have to be dull. Politics has all the elements
of drama, and the added feature of affecting the
everyday lives of real people.
My goal has been to make this text the most read-
able one available. Rather than piling fact upon fact, the
text relies on narrative. A narrative text weaves together
theory, information, and examples in order to bring out
key facts and ideas. The response to this approach has
been gratifying. Earlier this year, I received the follow-
ing note from a long-time instructor:
I read this book in about three days, cover to
cover. . . . I have never seen a better basic
government/politics textbook. I think reading
standard textbooks is “boring” (to use a favorite
student word), but this one overcomes that.
Dr. Patterson has managed to do something that
I heretofore thought could not be done.
When writing the text, I regularly reminded myself
that the readers were citizens as well as students. For
this reason, the text highlights “political thinking,” by
which I mean critical thinking in the context of both
the study of politics and the exercise of citizenship.
Each chapter has a set of boxes that ask you to “think
politically.” It is a skill that can be developed and that
can help you to become a more responsible citizen,
whether in casting a vote, forming an opinion about a
public policy, or contributing to a political cause.
Finally, I have attempted to present American
government through the analytical lens of political
science but in a way that captures the vivid world of
real-life politics. Only a tiny fraction of students in
the introductory course are taking it because they
intend to pursue an academic career in political
science. Most students take it because they are
required to do so or because they have in interest in
politics. I have sought to write a book that will
xviii
deepen political interest in the second type of student
and kindle it in the first type.
The American Democracy has been in use in college
classrooms for two decades. During that time, the
text (including its concise edition, We the People) has
been adopted at more than a thousand colleges and
universities. I am extremely grateful to all who have
used it. I am particularly indebted to the many
instructors and students who have sent me sugges-
tions for making it better. The University of Northern
Colorado’s Steve Mazurana and Crowder College’s
Ron Cole were among the instructors who sent me
comments that helped inform this edition’s revisions.
If you have ideas you would like to share, please
contact me at the John F. Kennedy School, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA 02138, or by e-mail:
thomas_patterson@harvard.edu.
Thomas E. Patterson
Learning to Think Politically
Political thinking enables us, as citizens, to gather and
weigh evidence, to apply foundational principles to
current events, and to consider historical context when
evaluating contemporary issues. In short, it allows us
to have informed judgment. This text aims to help you
learn how to think about politics by introducing you
to the perspectives and tools of political science.
Tools for Political Thinking: What
Political Science Can Contribute
This text will not tell you what to think politically.
Instead, it will help you learn how to think politically
by providing you with analytical tools that can sharpen
and deepen your understanding of American politics:
g Reliable information about how the U.S. political
system operates;
g Systematic generalizations about major tendencies
in American politics;
g Terms and concepts that precisely describe key
aspects of politics.
 pat26401_ch03_054-081.indd Page 57 31/08/12 4:55 PM user-f502 /203/MH01850/pat26401_disk1of1/0073526401/pat26401_pagefiles

PREFACE xix

Pedagogical Elements for Political Thinking

Each chapter in The American Democracy includes a set of boxed inserts that are
designed to sharpen your ability to think politically.

PARTY NEW! PARTY

POLARIZATION Political Thinking in Conflict
The Federal Government’s Role in Health Care
POLARIZATION POLITICAL
The United States is nearly alone among Western democracies in not having THINKING IN CONFLICT
government-provided health care for all citizens. The U.S. system is instead a combina-
tion of federal programs and private insurance, most of it provided through employers.
For decades, Democrats have sought to expand the government’s role while Repub- These boxes show the widening
licans have contested the expansion. In 2010, the Democrat-controlled Congress
passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the
gap in the views and actions of
health care reform act, which is the most significant expansion of government-
directed health insurance since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in the 1960s.
Republicans and Democrats
The 2010 legislation was tied up for months in Congress, with Republican and Dem- and ask you to think about the
ocratic lawmakers on opposite sides of the issue. They argued over everything from
the cost of the program to its effect on the quality of coverage, as well as whether it political implications. The box in
violated states’ rights. The partisan division spilled over to the public. Self-identified
Republicans and Democrats were far apart in their opinions on the issue. Chapter 3, for example, consid-
Vote in Congress (percentage in favor of bill) ers the federal government’s
Senate Democrats 100% role in health care.
Senate Republicans 0%

House Democrats 87%

House Republicans 0%

Public Opinion (percentage saying bill is a “good thing”)

Democrats 79%

Independents 46%

Republicans 14%

Source (public opinion data): USA Today/Gallup poll, March 22, 2010.

Q. Partisan debate over the health care bill focused on both its substance (greater government involve-
ment in order to expand the number of insured Americans) and its constitutionality (whether the federal
government was acting within its lawful authority). Which of these issues—the substantive one or the
constitutional one—do you think was more important in the response of Democratic and Republican
lawmakers to the issue? Which do you personally regard as the more significant aspect of the issue?

Political Thinking
These boxes ask you to think critically about enduring and topical political
pat26401_ch04_082-113.indd Page 105 31/08/12 5:06 PM user-f502 /203/MH01850/pat26401_disk1of1/0073526401/pat26401_pagefiles

issues. For instance, Chapter 13 has a Political Thinking box about whether a
balanced federal budget is a good or bad idea.

HOW THE 50 STATES

HOW THE 50 STATES DIFFER POLITICAL THINKING THROUGH COMPARISONS

INCARCERATION RATES
DIFFER POLITICAL
The U.S. Constitution imposes some uniform requirements on
state justice systems. All states are required, for example, to
basis, Louisiana imprisons more than five times as many of its
residents as does Maine. The four other states in the lowest THINKING THROUGH
provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford to hire five in terms of prison population are Minnesota, North
an attorney. Otherwise, the states are free to go their own
way, with the result that the state justice systems differ mark-
Dakota, Rhode Island, and Utah.
COMPARISONS
edly in some areas. Some states, for example, prohibit the Q: What do many of the states with low incarceration rates have
in common?
death penalty, while other states apply it liberally. Roughly a
third of all executions in the past quarter-century have taken A: Most of these states are relatively affluent and rank high on in-
These boxes use color-coded
place in Texas alone. States also differ substantially in the size
of their prison populations. Louisiana has the highest incar-
dicators of educational attainment, which are correlated with
lower crime rates. Most of these states also have relatively small maps to reveal differences in
ceration rate, with 865 inmates for every 100,000 residents. minority-group populations. Studies have found that the poor
Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama are the other and minority-group defendants are more likely than affluent and the politics of our 50 states and
states in the top five. Maine has the lowest incarceration white defendants to be convicted and, when convicted, to receive
rate—159 inmates per 100,000 residents. On a per-capita a lengthier sentence. ask you to assess the differ-
NH
ences. The box in Chapter 4, for
WA
MT ND
MN
VT ME example, compares incarcera-
OR MA
ID
WY
SD WI
MI
NY
CT
RI
tion rates across the 50 states.
IA PA NJ
NV NE
OH DE
UT IL IN
CA CO WV VA MD
KS MO KY D.C.
NC
TN
AZ OK
NM AR SC
MS AL GA

TX LA

FL

Incarceration rate
(per 100,000 residents)
HI

500 or more
AK 400–499

300–399

299 or fewer

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 2010

 pat26401_ch05_114-141.indd Page 130 7/20/12 11:40 PM user-f502 /203/MH01850/pat26401_disk1of1/0073526401/pat26401_pagefiles

xx PREFACE

HOW THE U.S.

DIFFERS POLITICAL HOW THE U.S. DIFFERS POLITICAL THINKING THROUGH COMPARISON

THINKING THROUGH Women’s Representation in National Legislatures

COMPARISONS
These boxes ask you to reflect
on how aspects of our political
system compare with those of
other democracies. Chapter 5,
for instance, has a box compar-
ing women’s representation in
the U.S. Congress with their
representation in the national
legislatures of other democracies.
For a long period in world history, women were largely barred possible. In the United States, candidates compete directly for
from holding positions of political power. The situation has the vote, and the candidate who gets the most votes in a district
changed dramatically in recent decades, and women now hold wins the seat. There is no systematic method for assuring the elec-
more seats in national legislatures than at any time in history. tion of a designated proportion of candidates from a particular
Yet in only a few countries have they even approached parity demographic group. (Chapter 8 provides a fuller explanation of
with men. The Scandinavian countries (of which Sweden is an the difference between proportional representation and single-
example) rank highest in terms of the percentage of female member districts as methods of election.)
lawmakers. Other northern European countries have lower
levels, but their levels are higher than that of the
United States, as the figure below indicates.
Percentage of legislative seats held by women
Q: Why does the United States have fewer women in its
national legislature than do European democracies?
45%
39%
A: Public opinion in the United States does not differ
33%
greatly from that in Europe on the issue of women
in public office. An explanation for why Europe has 26% 25%
22%
more women legislators is its reliance on propor- 19%
17%
tional representation. In this system, the parties get
seats in proportion to the votes they receive in the 11%
election, and the parties decide which party mem-
bers will occupy the seats. The parties tend to bal-
ance their selections, including a balance of men Sweden Nether- Germany Mexico Canada United France United Japan
and women, in order to attract as many votes as lands Kingdom States

Source: Inter-Parliamentary Union, Women in National Parliaments (2012). Based on number of women in the single or lower legislative chamber. In the case of the United
States, that chamber is the U.S. House of Representatives. Reprinted with permission, www.ipu.org.

Government in Action
Students can apply what they’re learning in American Government by compet-
ing against a computer or each other in a first-of-its-kind virtual world in which
students learn by doing. In Government in Action, students run for re-election and
pass legislation, touching on every aspect of the course in their attempt to gain
pat26401_ch01_002-023.indd Page 18 6/22/12 1:40 PM user-f502 /203/MH01850/pat26401_disk1of1/0073526401/pat26401_pagefiles

Political Capital. Be sure to ask your sales representative for details.

DEBATING THE
DEBATING THE ISSUES POLITICAL THINKING IN ACTION
ISSUES POLITICAL
Should Corporations Be Allowed to Spend
THINKING IN ACTION Unlimited Amounts on Federal Election Campaigns?
Just as voting majorities and groups exercise power in the
These boxes present opposing American political system, so do business firms. Corporate
power is likely to increase as a result of a recent Supreme Court
positions on some of great decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
Before the Court’s ruling, corporations and unions had been
issues of our time and ask you banned from spending money to influence the outcome of
U.S. federal elections. Individuals within corporations or unions,
to adopt and defend one of the just as any other American, could contribute money to politi-
cal candidates, but corporations and unions were barred by
positions. The box in Chapter 1 law from spending organizational funds on elections. In Citizens
United, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions
debates whether corporations
should be allowed to spend Contrary to what the President, and some of his
YES surrogates in Congress say, foreign persons, cor-
unlimited amounts on federal porations, partnerships, associations, organizations or other
combination of persons are strictly prohibited from any
election campaigns. participation in U.S. elections, just as they were prohibited
before the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. I’ve
explained what the ruling didn’t do. Now let me explain what
the ruling did do. The Court ruled unconstitutional sections of
federal law that barred corporations and unions from spend-
ing their own money to express their views about issues and
candidates. This was the right decision because democracy
depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all. As
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, concluded: “Under
our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our
Government to make political speech a crime.” In Citizens
United, the Court ended the suppression of corporate and
union speech. Many have predicted this would have dire con-
sequences. What they fail to mention is that 26 states already
allow corporate and union speech, something that has had
no discernable adverse impact. Any proponent of free speech
should applaud this decision. Citizens United is and will be a
First Amendment triumph of enduring significance.
—Mitch McConnell, U.S. senator (R-Ky.)
Q: Do you think corporations should be allowed to use their profits to influence the outcome of election campaigns? A larger question
is whether corporations should have the same legal status as individuals when it comes to constitutional protections. Do you think
corporations are entitled to the same free speech rights that citizens possess?
have the same First Amendment free speech rights as individ-
uals when it comes to spending money on campaigns. The
ruling was widely regarded as having special significance for
corporations. Unlike unions, which depend on membership
dues and have somewhat limited funds, U.S. corporations
reap billions in profits each year. The Supreme Court’s decision
has been praised by many—most of whom are Republicans—
and criticized by many—most of whom are Democrats. Here
are two responses to the Supreme Court’s decision, one by
Senator Mitch McConnell, a Republican, and the other by
President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
The United States Supreme Court handed a huge
NO victory to the special interests and their lobbyists—
and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence.
This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the
Court overturned more than a century of law—including a
bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John
McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from
using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections
by running advertisements for or against candidates in the
crucial closing weeks. This ruling opens the floodgates for an
unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy.
It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend
millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote
their way—or to punish those who don’t. That means that any
public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special
interests and stand up for the American people can find himself
or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign
corporations may now get into the act. I can’t think of any-
thing more devastating to the public interest. The last thing
we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in
Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the
outcome of elections.
—Barack Obama, president of the United States

New to this Edition
This revision of The American Democracy includes the
many remarkable political developments of the past
two years, ranging from the 2012 presidential
election to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq
to the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Nearly every chapter also has significant updates
based on the most recent scholarly research on
American politics.
Each chapter has a new feature: a box on party
polarization. The widening gap between Republicans
and Democrats has become a defining feature of the
nation’s politics, encompassing an ever larger swath
of political thought and action. The Party Polariza-
tion boxes describe aspects of this development,
explain the implications, and ask for the reader’s
assessment.
I have listed below the chapters that have been
most substantially revised. The list understates the
extent of the changes. Nearly every chapter has
important modifications from the previous edition
Chapter 1: Political Thinking and Political Culture:
Becoming a Responsible Citizen Additions include
a full section on the American political culture.
The section examines the origins and power of the
nation’s traditional ideals: liberty, individualism,
equality, and self-government. The chapter now
also includes a discussion of the major stages of
the policy process.
Chapter 3: Federalism: Forging a Nation Additions
include the Supreme Court’s important 2012 rulings
on the constitutionality of the health care reform bill
(the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
and the state of Arizona’s immigration control law.
Chapter 7: Political Participation: Activating the Popular
Will This chapter has a new section on the Tea Party
and Occupy Wall Street movements and a new sec-
tion on the relationship between participation and
political interest.
Chapter 8: Political Parties, Candidates, and
Campaigns: Defining the Voter’s Choice The new
version more fully examines the scope and implica-
tions of party polarization. The section on minor
parties has been reorganized. The sudden emergence
of Super PACs as a force in U.S. elections is discussed
and explained. (Super PACs are also a newly featured
PREFACE xxi
subject in Chapter 9: Interest Groups and Chapter 11:
Congress.)
Chapter 10: The News Media: Communicating Political
Images The chapter includes additional material
on Internet-based communication and has a new
section entitled “The News Audience” that examines
two emergent “divides” that have resulted from
Americans’ media choices: the partisan divide that
is contributing to partisan polarization and the
generational divide that is creating a widening
information gap between younger and older citizens.
Chapter 11: Congress: Balancing National Goals
and Local Interests This chapter has a number of
major revisions including how party polarization
has both empowered and challenged congressional
party leaders and how the 2010 midterm election,
the Tea Party, and the federal government’s fiscal
problems have altered the legislative process. The
outcome of the 2012 congressional elections is
included in the revised version.
Chapter 12: The Presidency: Leading the Nation The
2012 Republican presidential nominating race and the
2012 presidential general election are prominently
featured in the new version.
Chapter 15: Economic and Environmental Policy:
Contributing to Prosperity The section on monetary
policy has been reorganized and lengthened to reflect
the increasingly central role of the Federal Reserve
System (the Fed) in managing the U.S. economy.
Changes include a fuller description of the Fed’s
organization and policy tools, the role of the Open
Markets Committee, and the controversies surround-
ing Fed policies, including the use of Quantitative
Easing (QE).
Chapter 17: Foreign Policy: Protecting the American
Way This chapter’s revisions include the many
important foreign policy developments of the past
two years, including the Iraq withdrawal, the continu-
ing struggle in Afghanistan, the growing importance
of Pakistan, the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran, the
recent free trade agreements, the instability of global
markets, the increasingly assertive foreign policies of
China, and the Defense Department’s plan for restruc-
turing America’s armed forces.
xxii PREFACE
Teaching and Learning with The American Democracy
Online Learning Center:
www.mhhe.com/pattersontad11e
The book’s website includes separate instructor and
student areas. The instructor area contains the instruc-
tor’s manual, test bank, and PowerPoints, while the
student area hosts a wealth of study materials such as
chapter outlines, chapter objectives, multiple-choice
and essay quizzes, and Web links. All chapter-by-
chapter material has been updated for the new edition.
Study Materials
Through the book’s Online Learning Center, students
have free access to the following materials: chapter
outlines, chapter objectives, multiple-choice and essay
quizzes, and Web links. In addition, the site offers a
presidential timeline, a Spanish-English glossary, and
guidelines for avoiding plagiarism.
Instructor’s Manual/Test Bank
Available online, the instructor’s manual includes the
following for each chapter: learning objectives, focus
points and main points, a chapter summary, a list of
major concepts, and suggestions for complementary
lecture topics. The test bank consists of approximately
fifty multiple-choice questions and five suggested
essay topics per chapter, with page references given
alongside the answers. PowerPoints and CPS questions
are also available to instructors.
Create
Craft your teaching resources to match the way you
teach! With McGraw-Hill Create™, you can personal-
ize your book’s appearance by selecting the cover and
adding your name, school, and course information.
Order a Create book and you’ll receive a complimen-
tary print review copy in three to five business days
or a complimentary electronic review copy (eComp)
via e-mail in about one hour. To get started, go to
www.mcgrawhillcreate.com and register today.
Introducing McGraw-Hill Create™
ExpressBooks!
ExpressBooks contain a combination of preselected
chapters, articles, cases, or readings that serve as a
starting point to help you quickly and easily build
your own text through McGraw-Hill’s self-service
custom publishing website, Create. These helpful
templates are built using content available on Create
and organized in ways that match various course out-
lines across all disciplines. We understand that you
have a unique perspective. Use McGraw-Hill Create
ExpressBooks to build the book you’ve only imagined!
www.mcgrawhillcreate.com
CourseSmart eTextbooks
This text is available as an eTextbook at www.Cours-
eSmart.com. At CourseSmart, your students can take
advantage of significant savings off the cost of a print
textbook, reduce their impact on the environment,
and gain access to powerful Web tools for learning.
CourseSmart eTextbooks can be viewed online or
downloaded to a computer. The eTextbooks allow
students to do full text searches, add highlighting and
notes, and share notes with classmates. CourseSmart
has the largest selection of eTextbooks available
anywhere. Visit www.CourseSmart.com to learn more
and to examine a sample chapter.
Acknowledgments
Nearly two decades ago, when planning the first edition of The American Democracy, my editor and I concluded
that it would be enormously helpful if a way could be found to bring into each chapter the judgment of those
political scientists who teach the introductory course year in and year out. Thus, in addition to soliciting general
reviews from a select number of expert scholars, we sent each chapter to a dozen or so faculty members at U.S.
colleges and universities of all types—public and private, large and small, two-year and four-year. These political
scientists, 213 in all, had well over a thousand years of combined experience in teaching the introductory course,
and they provided countless good ideas.
Since then, several hundred other political scientists have reviewed subsequent editions. These many reviewers
will go unnamed here, but my debt to all of them remains undiminished by time. For the eleventh edition, I
have benefited yet again from the thoughtful advice of conscientious reviewers. Their sound advice has helped
shape nearly every page of the book. These scholars are:

Jodi Balma, Fullerton College

Amy Brandon, El Paso Community College, Valle Verde Ray Sandoval, Richland College
Daniel Bunye, South Plains College—Reese Center Costas Spirou, National Louis University—Chicago
Jenna Duke, Lehigh Carbon Community College Cheryl Walniuk, University of Maryland
Ethan Fishman, University of South Alabama University College
Jeremiah Hindman, Northeast Texas Community College
I also want to thank other contributors to the eleventh edition. At McGraw-Hill, I’d like to thank Elisa Adams,
Dawn Groundwater, Barbara Heinssen, Meredith Grant, Kelly Heinrichs, Matt Busbridge, Nikki Weissman, Ryan
Viviani, Patrick Brown, and Josh Zlatkus. At Harvard, I had the painstaking and cheerful support of Kristina
Mastropasqua. I owe her a deep thanks.

Thomas Patterson
CHAPTER
1
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 them to a foreign Power, that in three weeks all will be settled. The
gods invite us to glory and fortune; it remains to be seen whether we
deserve the boon. The bearer of this goes express to you. He is a
man of inviolable honor and perfect discretion, formed to execute
rather than project, capable of relating facts with fidelity, and incapable
of relating them otherwise; he is thoroughly informed of the plans and
intentions of Burr, and will disclose to you as far as you require, and
no further. He has imbibed a reverence for your character, and may be
embarrassed in your presence; put him at ease, and he will satisfy
you.”
Had Burr and Dayton not felt strong reason to doubt Wilkinson’s
course, they would not have invented a tissue of falsehoods such as
these letters contained. So far as concerned Wilkinson’s future
conduct, no one could deny that this gross deception set him free
from any ties that might have previously bound him to Dayton or
Burr.
Furnished with these and other letters almost equally
compromising, Ogden and Swartwout, at the end of July, started on
their way. Swartwout was directed to see Adair in Kentucky, and to
deliver to him despatches, the contents of which have never been
made known, but were doubtless identical with the letters to
Wilkinson. At the same time Erick Bollman started by sea with similar
despatches for New Orleans.
Early in August Burr followed, taking with him his daughter Mrs.
Allston, and his chief of staff Colonel De Pestre. After crossing the
mountains he threw aside ordinary caution. At Canonsburg, about
fifteen miles beyond Pittsburg, he stopped at the house of an old
friend, Colonel Morgan, and there so freely asserted the imbecility of
the Federal government and the certainty of a speedy separation of
the Western States from the Eastern, that Morgan thought himself
bound to give President Jefferson a warning.
The conversation at Canonsburg took place in the afternoon and
evening of August 22. A few days afterward Burr arrived at
Blennerhassett’s island, where he found the owner waiting with
enthusiasm to receive him. Of all the eager dupes with whom Burr
had to deal, this intelligent and accomplished Irish gentleman was
the most simple. After wasting half his property on his island, he
discovered that he had left himself not more than thirty or forty
thousand dollars to live upon; and this small property was invested in
funds which produced so little as to leave him always embarrassed.
He wished ardently to make his fortune by some bold speculation;
and Burr had no more pressing necessity than to obtain the funds
which Blennerhassett burned to invest. Burr said to Blennerhassett
in effect what he said to Wilkinson; but Blennerhassett was less able
than Wilkinson to detect falsehood. The actual speculation which
was to make Blennerhassett’s fortune seemed certain of success.
Burr had invented more than one way of getting money; and among
his various expedients none was more ingenious than that of buying
a certain Spanish claim, known as the Bastrop grant, covering an
immense district on the Red River, and supposed to be owned in
part by one Lynch in Kentucky. Burr had undertaken to buy Lynch’s
interest for forty thousand dollars, of which only four thousand or five
thousand dollars need be paid in money; and he persuaded
Blennerhassett that on the most moderate estimate, they could reap
from it the profit of a million. Blennerhassett was assured that before
the end of the year Louisiana would be independent, with Burr for its
ruler, under the protection of England. Wilkinson and the United
States army were pledged to accept the revolution and to support
Burr. Tennessee was secured; and though Kentucky and Ohio were
doubtful, they would end by following Tennessee. The government at
Washington would fall to pieces, and the new empire under a
stronger government, would rise at once to power. Then Bastrop’s
grant would take character; its actual cheapness was due to doubts
as to its validity: but the moment its validity was decided by the new
government, all whose members would be interested in it, the value
of the grant would become enormous; emigration would be directed
to the spot, and Blennerhassett’s fortune would be vast. He would,
meanwhile, go at once as minister to England, with Erick Bollman for
secretary of legation.[176]
In an incredibly short time Blennerhasset’s head was turned.
Unluckily for him, his wife’s head was turned even more easily than
his own; and the charms of Theodosia Allston, who became a guest
at the island, dazzled the eyes of both. Before Burr had been two
days in the house, Blennerhassett was so enthusiastic a supporter of
the scheme that he set himself to work, under Burr’s eye, to publish
a series of essays in order to show the State of Ohio that disunion
was an infallible cure for all its natural or acquired ills. The first of
these essays was quickly finished, taken to Marietta, and printed in
the “Ohio Gazette” of September 4 under the signature “Querist.”
September 2, before the “Querist” appeared, Burr continued his
journey down the river to Cincinnati, where he arrived September 4,
and remained a few days with Senator Smith, talking freely about the
impotence of the government, the rights and wrongs of the Western
people, and their inducements to set up a separate empire.
September 10 he crossed the river to Lexington in Kentucky, and
shortly afterward went to Nashville in Tennessee.
Owing chiefly to the friendship of Andrew Jackson, the town of
Nashville was strongly attached to Burr, and was supposed to favor
the disunion scheme. Tennessee was the only State which Burr
always claimed positively as his own. Whether he had better
grounds for his confidence in Jackson than for his faith in Wilkinson
and Daniel Clark might be doubted; but Tennessee was at least
vehement in hatred of the Spaniards. The Spaniards were pressing
close against Wilkinson’s little force at Natchitoches, and Burr made
use of the threatened war in order to cover his own scheme.
September 27 a public dinner was given to him at Nashville, and
Jackson offered as a toast the old sentiment of 1798: “Millions for
defence; not a cent for tribute.” A few days later Burr returned to
Kentucky; and within a week suddenly appeared in the newspaper at
Nashville a strange proclamation signed “Andrew Jackson, Major-
General Second Division,” and dated Oct. 4, 1806, in which the
brigade commanders were ordered to place their brigades at once
on such a footing as would enable them on the shortest notice to
supply their quotas “when the government and constituted
authorities of our country” should require them to march. This
unauthorized step was commonly supposed to be taken in the
interest of Burr’s conspiracy, and compromised Jackson gravely in
the eyes of the Government at Washington.
 Meanwhile Theodosia Allston and her husband had been left in
charge of the Blennerhassetts, while Blennerhassett himself
behaved as though he were a village school-boy playing the part of
chieftain in an imaginary feudal castle. He went about the country
raising recruits and buying supplies, chattering to every young and
active man he met about the expedition which was to make their
fortunes. He confided in his gardener, a simple, straightforward
fellow named Peter Taylor, “that Colonel Burr would be king of
Mexico, and that Mrs. Allston would be queen of Mexico whenever
Colonel Burr died.” He added that Burr “had a great many friends in
the Spanish territory; two thousand Roman Catholic priests were
enlisted in his corps; that those priests and the societies which
belonged to them were a strong party; that the Spaniards, like the
French, had got tired of their government and wanted to swap it; that
the British were also friends to this expedition; and that he was the
very man who was to go to England on this piece of business for
Colonel Burr.” When at the subsequent trial Taylor told this tale, the
world was incredulous, and insisted upon disbelieving his story; but
Blennerhassett’s papers proved the extent of his delusion. By
common consent the Blennerhassetts and Allstons agreed that
Theodosia was to inherit the empire from her father; but doubts
existed whether Allston could take the crown as Theodosia’s
husband. “I will win it by a better title,” he cried,—“by my deeds in
council and in field!”[177] Mrs. Blennerhassett was impatient to
exchange her solitary island for the court of her young empress; and
Blennerhassett longed to set sail as minister for England with Erick
Bollman for secretary of legation. Under the influence of this
intoxication, Blennerhassett offered to advance money to the extent
of all his property for Burr’s use if Allston would give him a written
and sealed guaranty to a certain amount; which Allston did.[178]
Leaving his wife at the island, while fifteen boats were building at
Marietta and kilns for baking bread were constructed on the island
itself, Blennerhassett went with the Allstons down the river to
Lexington, and there rejoined Burr on his return from Nashville,
about October 1. No time had been lost. The boats building at
Marietta would carry about five hundred men; others to be built
elsewhere would carry five hundred more. Recruiting went rapidly
forward. Finally, the purchase-money for Lynch’s interest in Bastrop’s
grant, about four or five thousand dollars, was paid; and
Blennerhassett congratulated himself on owning a share in four
hundred thousand acres of land in the heart of Louisiana.
To communicate with his friends in New York and Philadelphia,
Burr sent De Pestre October 25, with directions to report the
movements of the Western conspirators to the Marquis of Casa
Yrujo, as well as to Swartwout and Dayton. Burr gave De Pestre to
understand that one object of his mission was to blind the Spanish
minister in regard to the schemes against Mexico and Florida; in
reality De Pestre’s mission was probably for the purpose of raising
money. Yrujo was already well informed from other sources.
November 10, before De Pestre’s arrival, the Marquis wrote to his
Government that some five hundred men were collecting on the
upper Ohio to move down the river in squads:[179]—
“Colonel Burr will go down with them under pretext of establishing
them on a great land-purchase he is supposed to have made. In
passing Cincinnati they expect to get possession of five thousand
stand of arms which the government deposited there at the time of its
differences with us about the navigation of the Mississippi. After thus
dropping the mask, this armed troop will follow down the course of the
Mississippi. Colonel Burr will stop at Natchez, where he will wait until
the Assembly of New Orleans has met, which will happen at once;
and in this meeting (junta) they will declare the independence of the
Western States, and will invite Burr meanwhile to place himself at the
head of their government. He will accept the offer, will descend to New
Orleans, and will set to work, clothed in a character which the people
will have given him. I understand that Colonel Burr has already written
the declaration of independence, and that it is couched in the same
terms that the States adopted in theirs against Great Britain. This
circumstance is the more notable inasmuch as the actual President
was the person who drew it up in 1776. When Burr made the project
of acting in agreement with England and seizing the Floridas, he
expected to master them with troops that should accompany him from
Baton Rouge. Although I am assured that this project is abandoned,
and that on the contrary he wishes to live on good terms with Spain, I
have written to Governor Folch of West Florida to be on his guard;
and although I am persuaded that by means of Governor Folch’s
 connection with General Wilkinson, he must be perfectly informed of
the state of things and of Burr’s intentions, I shall write to-day or to-
morrow another letter to the Governor of Baton Rouge to be on the
alert.”
Yrujo believed that Wilkinson, the General in command of the
American army, then supposed to be on the point of attacking the
Spanish force in his front, was secretly and regularly communicating
with the Spanish Governor of West Florida.
Burr was engaged in deceiving every one; but his attempt to
deceive Yrujo, if seriously meant, was the least comprehensible of all
his manœuvres. December 4 the Spanish minister wrote to his
Government another despatch which betrayed his perplexity at
Burr’s conduct:—
“I am positively assured,” he said, “that from one day to another
will embark from New York for New Orleans, to join Colonel Burr in
Louisiana, three of his intimate friends, depositaries of his whole
confidence; namely, Mr. Swartwout, lately marshal of the district of
New York, a certain Dr. Erwin, and the famous Colonel Smith, the
same who was implicated in the business of Miranda, and whose son
went out as an aide-de-camp of that adventurer. Accordingly I wrote to
the governors of both Floridas and to the Viceroy of Mexico, giving
them a general idea of this affair, and recommending them to watch
the movements of Colonel Burr and of his adventurers. This is an
excess of precaution, since by this time they must not only know
through the New Orleans and Natchez newspapers of the projects
attributed to Colonel Burr, but also through the confidential channel of
the No. 13 of the Marquis of Casa Calvo’s cipher with the Prince of
Peace, who is one of the conspirators, and who is to contribute very
efficaciously to the execution of the scheme in case it shall be carried
into effect.”
The person designated as No. 13 in the cipher used between
Casa Calvo and Godoy was the general-in-chief of the American
forces, Wilkinson. The Marquis’s despatch next mentioned the arrival
of De Pestre, who appeared about November 27 at Yrujo’s house:—
“About a week ago a former French officer came to see me, one of
Burr’s partisans, who came from Kentucky in search of various articles
for the execution of his undertaking.... This officer handed me a letter
from Colonel Burr, in which, after recommending him to me, the writer
 said simply that as this person had lately visited those States, he
could give me information about them worthy of my curiosity. The date
of this letter was Lexington, October 25.”
De Pestre gave to Yrujo the assurance that all was going well
with the undertaking; but the special message he was charged to
deliver seemed to be the following:—
“He also told me, on the part of the Colonel, that I should soon
hear that he meant to attack Mexico, but that I was not to believe such
rumors; that on the contrary his plans were limited to the emancipation
of the Western States, and that it was necessary to circulate this
rumor in order to hide the true design of his armaments and of the
assemblages of men which could no longer be kept secret; that Upper
and Lower Louisiana, the States of Tennessee and Ohio, stood ready
and ripe for his plans, but that the State of Kentucky was much
divided; and as this is the most important in numbers and population,
an armed force must be procured strong enough to control the party
there which should be disposed to offer resistance. He added, on
Burr’s part, that as soon as the revolution should be complete, he
should treat with Spain in regard to boundaries, and would conclude
this affair to the entire satisfaction of Spain; meanwhile he wished me
to write to the Governor of West Florida to diminish the burdens on
Americans who navigate the Mobile River, and ask him, when the
explosion should take place, to stop the courier or couriers who might
be despatched by the friends of Government from New Orleans.”
Burr’s message caused Yrujo to warn all the Spanish officials in
Florida, Texas, and Mexico that “although No. 13 seems to have
acted in good faith hitherto, his fidelity could not be depended upon if
he had a greater interest in violating it, and that therefore they must
be cautious in listening to him and be very vigilant in regard to
events that would probably happen in their neighborhood.” De
Pestre’s mission made Yrujo more suspicious than ever, and he
spared no precaution to render impossible the success of any attack
on Florida or Mexico.
After De Pestre had visited New York, he returned to
Philadelphia, and December 13 again called upon Yrujo.
“He told me,” reported Yrujo,[180] “that he had seen Mr. Swartwout
in New York, whom he had informed of Burr’s wish that he, as well as
Dr. Erwin, Colonel Smith, and Captain Lewis, who was captain of the
 merchant ship ‘Emperor’ and brother of the captain of Miranda’s
vessel the ‘Leander,’ should set out as soon as possible for New
Orleans. Likewise he instructed him, on the part of the colonel, that
the youths enlisted to serve as officers should set out as soon as
possible for their posts. These, my informant told me, are different.
Some two or three of them, the quickest and keenest, go to
Washington to observe the movements of Government, to keep their
friends in good disposition, and to despatch expresses with news of
any important disposition or occurrence. Three go to Norfolk to make
some despatch of provisions. A good number of them will go direct to
Charleston to take command as officers, and see to the embarkation
of the numerous recruits whom Colonel Burr’s son-in-law has raised in
South Carolina. He himself will then have returned there from
Kentucky, and will embark with them for New Orleans. The rest will
embark directly for that city from New York.”
Yrujo could not see the feebleness of the conspiracy. So far as
he knew, the story might be true; and although he had been both
forewarned and forearmed, he could not but feel uneasy lest Burr
should make a sudden attack on West Florida or Texas. The Spanish
minister was able to protect Spanish interests if they were attacked;
but he would have preferred to prevent an attack, and this could be
done by the United States government alone. The indifference of
President Jefferson to Burr’s movements astounded many persons
besides Yrujo. “It is astonishing,” wrote Merry in November,[181] “that
the Government here should have remained so long in ignorance of
the intended design as even not to know with certainty at this
moment the object of the preparations which they have learned are
now making.” Merry would have been still more astonished had he
been told that the President was by no means ignorant of Burr’s
object; and Yrujo might well be perplexed to see that ignorant or not,
the President had taken no measure for the defence of New Orleans,
and that the time had passed when any measure could be taken.
The city was in Wilkinson’s hands. Even of the five small gunboats
which were meant to be stationed at the mouth of the Mississippi,
only one was actually there. That Burr and Wilkinson should meet
resistance at New Orleans was not to be imagined. Yrujo saw no
chance of checking them except in Ohio and Kentucky.
 CHAPTER XII.
Had Burr succeeded in carrying out his original plan of passing
the Falls of the Ohio as early as November 15, he might have
reached New Orleans with all his force; but he made too many
delays, and tried too far the patience of Ohio. October 1 he returned
from Nashville to Lexington, where he was joined by Blennerhassett
and Allston. From that moment he was beset by difficulties and
growing opposition.
As yet the Government at Washington had not moved, and Burr
freely said that his military preparations were made with its
knowledge and for the probable event of war with Spain; but he had
not foreseen that these tactics might rouse against him the class of
men from whom he had least reason to expect opposition. In
Kentucky a respectable body of old Federalists still existed, with
Humphrey Marshall at their head. The United States District
Attorney, Joseph H. Daveiss, was also a Federalist, left in office by
Jefferson. Burr’s admirers were Republicans, so numerous that the
President shrank from alienating them by denouncing Burr, while
they in their turn would not desert Burr until the President denounced
him. The Federalists saw here a chance to injure their opponents,
and used it.
As early as the year 1787 Governor Mirò, the Spanish ruler of
Louisiana, tried to organize a party in Kentucky for establishing an
independent empire west of the Alleghanies under the protection of
Spain. His chief agent for that purpose was James Wilkinson.[182]
The movement received no popular support, and failed; but during
the next ten years the Spanish governors who succeeded Mirò
maintained relations with Wilkinson and his friends, always hoping
that some change in American politics would bring their project into
favor. Godoy’s policy of conciliation with America crossed these
intrigues. His treaty of 1795 did much to neutralize them, but his
delivery of Natchez in 1798 did more. The settlement of boundary
came at a moment when Kentucky, under the lead of Jefferson and
Breckenridge, seemed about to defy the United States government,
and when the celebrated Kentucky Resolutions promised to draw the
Western people into the arms of Spain. Talleyrand’s indignation at
Godoy’s conduct[183] was not more acute than the disgust felt by the
Spanish officials at New Orleans.
The Spanish intrigues among the Republicans of Kentucky were
not wholly unknown to the Federalists in that State; and as time went
on, Humphrey Marshall and Daveiss obtained evidence warranting
an assault on the Republicans most deeply implicated.[184] The
attempt was a matter of life and death to the Spanish pensioners;
and in a society so clannish as that of Kentucky, violence was not
only to be feared, but to be counted upon. Daveiss took the risks of
personal revenge, and laid his plans accordingly.
Burr’s appearance on the Ohio and at St. Louis in Wilkinson’s
company during the summer of 1805 called attention to the old
Spanish conspiracy, and gave Daveiss the opportunity he wanted.
As early as Jan. 10, 1806, while Burr was still struggling at
Washington to save his plot from collapse for want of foreign aid, and
while John Randolph was beginning his invectives in Congress, the
district-attorney wrote to the President a private letter denouncing
the old Spanish plot, and declaring that it was still alive.[185] “A
separation of the Union in favor of Spain is the object finally. I know
not what are the means.” Assuming that Jefferson was ignorant of
the facts, because he had “appointed General Wilkinson as
Governor of St. Louis, who, I am convinced, has been for years, and
now is, a pensioner of Spain,” Daveiss asserted his own knowledge,
and contented himself with a general warning;—
“This plot is laid wider than you imagine. Mention the subject to no
man from the Western country, however high in office he may be.
Some of them are deeply tainted with this treason. I hate duplicity of
expression; but on this subject I am not authorized to be explicit, nor is
it necessary. You will despatch some fit person into the Orleans
country to inquire.”
February 10 Daveiss wrote again calling attention to Burr’s
movements during the previous summer, and charging both him and
Wilkinson with conspiracy.[186] At about the time when these letters
arrived, the President received another warning from Eaton. The air
was full of denunciations, waiting only for the President’s leave to
annihilate the conspirators under popular contempt. A word quietly
written by Jefferson to one or two persons in the Western country
would have stopped Burr short in his path, and would have brought
Wilkinson abjectly on his knees. A slight change in the military and
naval arrangements at New Orleans would have terrified the creoles
into good behavior, and would have made Daniel Clark denounce
the conspiracy.
The President showed Daveiss’s letter to Gallatin, Madison, and
Dearborn; but he did not take its advice, and did not, in his Cabinet
memoranda of October 22,[187] mention it among his many sources
of information. February 15 he wrote to Daveiss[188] a request to
communicate all he knew on the subject. No other acts followed, nor
was either Wilkinson or Burr put under surveillance.
Perhaps this was what Daveiss wished; for if Jefferson pursued
his course much further, he was certain to compromise himself in
appearing to protect Burr and Wilkinson. Daveiss not only continued
to write letter after letter denouncing Wilkinson to the President,
without receiving answer or acknowledgment; he not only made a
journey to St. Louis in order to collect evidence, and on his return to
Kentucky wrote in July to the President that Burr’s object was “to
cause a revolt of the Spanish provinces, and a severance of all the
Western States and Territories from the Union, to coalesce and form
one government,”—but he also took a new step, of which he did not
think himself obliged to inform the President in advance. He
established at Frankfort a weekly newspaper, edited by a man so
poor in character and means that for some slight gain in notoriety he
could afford to risk a worthless life. John Wood was a newspaper
hack, not quite so successful as Cheetham and Duane, or so vile as
Callender. Having in 1801 written a “History of the last
Administration,” after getting from Colonel Burr, by working upon his
vanity, an offer to buy and suppress the book, it was probably Wood
who furnished Cheetham with the details of the transaction, and
connived at Cheetham’s “Narrative of the Suppression,” in order to
give notoriety to himself. Cheetham’s “Narrative” called for a reply,
and Wood in 1802 printed a “Correct Statement.” Both pamphlets
were contemptible; but Cheetham was supported by the Clintons,
while Wood could find no one to pay for his literary wares. He drifted
to Richmond, and thence across the mountains; until, in the winter of
1805–1806, he dropped quietly, unnoticed, into the village of
Frankfort, in Kentucky. Humphrey Marshall and District Attorney
Daveiss needed such a man.
July 4, 1806, appeared at Frankfort the first number of the
“Western World,”—a weekly newspaper edited by John Wood. The
society of Kentucky was alarmed and irritated to find that the
“Western World” seemed to have no other object for its existence
than to drag the old Spanish conspiracy to light. Passions were soon
deeply stirred by the persistency and vehemence with which this
pretended Republican newspaper clung to the subject and cried for
an investigation. Wood had no fancy for being made the object of
assassination, but he was given a fighting colleague named Street;
and while Wood hid himself, Street defended the office. In spite of
several attempts to drive Street away or to kill him, the “Western
World” persevered in its work, until October 15 it published an
appeal to the people, founded on Blennerhassett’s “Querist” and on
the existence of a Spanish Association. Meanwhile two men in high
position dreaded exposure,—Judge Sebastian, of the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky, and Judge Innis, of the United States District
Court.
Daveiss was right in thinking the Spanish conspiracy of 1787–
1798 closely allied with Burr’s conspiracy of 1805. In striking at
Sebastian and Innis, he threw consternation into the ranks of Burr’s
friends, all of whom were more or less familiar with the Spanish
intrigue. Senator Adair, bolder than the rest, stood by Wilkinson and
defied exposure; but the greater number of Wilkinson’s accomplices
were paralyzed. Daveiss gave them no respite. In October Burr’s
appearance in Kentucky offered a chance to press his advantage.
Jefferson’s persistent silence and inaction left the energetic district-
attorney free to do what he liked; and nothing short of compromising
the Administration satisfied his ambition.
 Burr passed the month of October in Kentucky; but his
preparations were far from complete. The delay was probably due to
the time consumed in getting Blennerhassett’s money. At last Burr
paid to Lynch the purchase-money of four or five thousand dollars for
Bastrop’s grant. He had already ordered the construction of boats
and enlistment of men at various points on the Ohio, and especially
at Marietta, near Blennerhassett’s island; but he waited too long
before beginning operations on the Cumberland, for not till
November 3 did Andrew Jackson at Nashville receive a letter from
Burr, inclosing three thousand dollars in Kentucky bank-notes, with
orders for the building of five large boats, the purchase of supplies,
and the enlistment of recruits,—all of which was promptly undertaken
by Jackson, but required more time than could be spared by Burr.
Meanwhile Burr’s affairs were going ill in the State of Ohio.
Blennerhassett’s foolish “Querist,” and the more foolish conversation
of both Blennerhassett and Burr, combined with the assaults of the
“Western World,” drew so much attention to the armaments at the
island that Mrs. Blennerhassett, left alone while her husband was
with Allston and Burr in Kentucky, became alarmed, and thought it
necessary to send them a warning. October 20 she wrote to Burr
that he could not return with safety. Thinking the note too important
to be trusted to the post, and ignorant of Burr’s address, she sent
her gardener, Peter Taylor, on horseback, through Chillicothe, to
Cincinnati, with orders to ask Senator Smith for the address. Taylor
reached Cincinnati October 23, after three days of travel, and went,
according to his mistress’s orders, directly to Senator Smith’s house,
which was in the same building with his store,—for Smith was a
storekeeper and army contractor. The senator was already too
deeply compromised with Burr, and his courage had begun to fail. At
first he denied knowledge of Burr or Blennerhassett. In Taylor’s
words, “He allowed he knew nothing of either of them; that I must be
mistaken; this was not the place. I said, ‘No; this was the right place,
—Mr. John Smith, storekeeper, Cincinnati.’” In the end, Smith took
him upstairs, and gave him, with every injunction of secrecy, a letter
to be delivered to Burr at Lexington. Taylor reached Lexington
October 25, found Burr, delivered his letters, and candidly added: “If
you come up our way the people will shoot you.” The following
Monday, October 27, the gardener started on his return, taking
Blennerhassett with him, and leaving Burr at Lexington to face the
storms that threatened from many quarters at once.
The impossibility of returning to the island was but one warning;
another came from Senator Smith, who dreaded exposure. The letter
he sent by Peter Taylor, dated October 23, affected ignorance of
Burr’s schemes, and demanded an explanation of them. October 26
Burr sent the required disavowal:—
“I was greatly surprised and really hurt,” said Burr,[189] “by the
unusual tenor of your letter of the 23d, and I hasten to reply to it, as
well for your satisfaction as my own. If there exists any design to
separate the Western from the Eastern States, I am totally ignorant of
it. I never harbored or expressed any such intention to any one, nor
did any person ever intimate such design to me.”
From that moment to the last day of his life Burr persisted in this
assertion, coupling it always in his own mind with a peculiar
reservation. What he so solemnly denied was the intention to
separate the Western States “by force” from the Eastern; what he
never denied was the plan of establishing a Western empire by
consent.
Of disunion Burr never again dared to speak. On that subject he
was conscious of having already said so much as to make his stay in
Kentucky a matter of some risk. The leading Republicans would
have rejoiced at his departure; but to desert him was more than their
tempers would allow. Daveiss saw another opportunity to
compromise his enemies, and used it. A week after Blennerhassett
and Peter Taylor left Lexington, carrying with them Burr’s letter in
reply to Senator Smith, on the same day when Andrew Jackson at
Nashville received Burr’s order, with Kentucky bank-notes for the
sum of three thousand dollars, the United States District Court
opened its session at Frankfort. Within eight and forty hours,
November 5, District-Attorney Daveiss rose in court and made
complaint against Burr for violating the laws of the United States by
setting on foot a military expedition against Mexico. Besides an
affidavit to this effect, the district-attorney asserted in court that
Burr’s scheme extended to a revolution of all the Western States and
Territories.
In the nervous condition of Kentucky society, this attack on Burr
roused great attention and hot criticism. The judge who presided
over the court was the same Harry Innis who had been privy to the
Spanish conspiracy, and was harassed by the charges of the
“Western World.” Daveiss could count with certainty upon the course
which a man so placed would follow. The judge took three days to
reflect, and then denied the motion; but Burr could not afford to rest
silent. November 8, when Judge Innis overruled the motion and
denied the process, Burr appeared in court and challenged inquiry.
The following Wednesday, November 12, was fixed for the
investigation. A grand-jury was summoned. Burr appeared,
surrounded by friends, with Henry Clay for counsel, and with strong
popular sympathy in his favor. Daveiss too appeared, with a list of
witnesses summoned; but the chief witness was absent in Indiana,
and Daveiss asked a postponement. The jury was discharged; and
after a dignified and grave harangue from the accused, Burr left the
court in triumph.[190] On the strength of this acquittal he ventured
again to appear in Cincinnati, November 23, in confidential relations
with Senator Smith; but the term of his long impunity was soon to
end.
October 22, while Burr was at Lexington, President Jefferson
held a Cabinet council at Washington. The Spaniards were then
threatening an attack upon Louisiana, while Wilkinson’s force in the
Mississippi and Orleans Territories amounted only to ten hundred
and eighty-one men, with two gunboats. Memoranda, written at the
time by Jefferson, detailed the situation as it was understood by the
Government:[191]—
“During the last session of Congress, Colonel Burr who was here,
finding no hope of being employed in any department of the
government, opened himself confidentially to some persons on whom
he thought he could rely, on a scheme of separating the Western from
the Atlantic States, and erecting the former into an independent
confederacy. He had before made a tour of those States, which had
excited suspicions, as every motion does of such a Catilinarian
character. Of his having made this proposition here we have
information from General Eaton through Mr. Ely and Mr. Granger. He
went off this spring to the Western country. Of his movements on his
way, information has come to the Secretary of State and myself from
John Nicholson and Mr. Williams of the State of New York, respecting
a Mr. Tyler; Colonel Morgan, Nevill, and Roberts, near Pittsburg; and
to other citizens through other channels and the newspapers. We are
of opinion unanimously that confidential letters be written to the
Governors of Ohio, Indiana, Mississippi, and New Orleans; to the
district-attorney of Kentucky, of Tennessee, of Louisiana, to have him
strictly watched, and on his committing any overt act, to have him
arrested and tried for treason, misdemeanor, or whatever other
offence the act may amount to; and in like manner to arrest and try
any of his followers committing acts against the laws. We think it
proper also to order some of the gunboats up to Fort Adams to stop
by force any passage of suspicious persons going down in force.
General Wilkinson being expressly declared by Burr to Eaton to be
engaged with him in this design as his lieutenant, or first in command,
and suspicions of infidelity in Wilkinson being now become very
general, a question is proposed what is proper to be done as to him
on this account, as well as for his disobedience of orders received by
him June 11 at St. Louis to descend with all practical despatch to New
Orleans to mark out the site of certain defensive works there, and then
repair to take command at Natchitoches, on which business he did not
leave St. Louis till September. Consideration adjourned.
“October 24. It is agreed unanimously to call for Captain Preble
and Decatur to repair to New Orleans, by land or by sea as they
please, there to take command of the force on the water, and that the
‘Argus’ and two gunboats from New York, three from Norfolk, and two
from Charleston shall be ordered there, if on a consultation between
Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Smith the appropriations shall be found to enable
us; that Preble shall, on consultation with Governor Claiborne, have
great discretionary powers; that Graham shall be sent through
Kentucky on Burr’s trail, with discretionary powers to consult
confidentially with the Governors to arrest Burr if he has made himself
liable. He is to have a commission of Governor of [Upper] Louisiana,
and Dr. Browne is to be removed. Letters are to be written by post to
Governor Claiborne, the Governor of Mississippi, and Colonel
Freeman to be on their guard against any surprise of our posts or
vessels by him. The question as to General Wilkinson postponed till
Preble’s departure, for future information.”
 Although these measures provided no protection against the
chance of Wilkinson’s misconduct, they could not fail to put an
instant stop to Burr’s activity. All that remained was to carry them
out. Unfortunately Gallatin found that his hands and those of Robert
Smith were tied by Acts of Congress. The next day the Cabinet met
again.
“October 25. A mail arrived yesterday from the westward, and not
one word is heard from that quarter of any movements by Colonel
Burr. This total silence of the officers of the government, of the
members of Congress, of the newspapers, proves he is committing no
overt act against law. We therefore rescind the determination to send
Preble, Decatur, the ‘Argus,’ or the gunboats, and instead of them to
send off the marines which are here to reinforce, or take place of, the
garrison at New Orleans, with a view to Spanish operations; and
instead of writing to the Governors, etc., we send Graham on that
route, with confidential authority to inquire into Burr’s movements, put
the Governors, etc., on their guard, to provide for his arrest if
necessary, and to take on himself the government of [Upper]
Louisiana. Letters are still to be written to Claiborne, Freeman, and
the Governor of Mississippi to be on their guard.”
The result of this Cabinet discussion, extending from October 22
to October 25, was merely an order to John Graham, Secretary of
the Orleans Territory, to stop in Ohio and Kentucky on his way
westward and inquire into Burr’s movements.
Graham, following orders received from Madison, reached
Marietta about the middle of November, when Burr should have
already begun his movement, according to the original plan.
Blennerhassett, who had been told by Burr that Graham was
concerned in the plot, welcomed him with great cordiality, and talked
much more freely than wisely. The information which crowded on
Graham at Marietta led him to go at the end of November to
Chillicothe, where the Legislature was in session, and where he
caused a law to be passed, December 2, empowering the governor
to use the militia against the conspirators. Had this measure, or one
equally energetic, been taken by the President three months earlier,
it would have put an end to Burr’s projects before they were under
way, would have saved many deluded men from ruin, and would
have prevented much trouble at New Orleans; but Graham’s
progress was not quite so rapid, even though late, as it should have
been.
Burr had ample warning. November 25 District-Attorney Daveiss
renewed his motion in court at Frankfort, and the court appointed
December 2 as the day for hearing evidence. Henry Clay became
uneasy, and exacted from Burr a written denial of the projects
imputed to him. Fortified with this evidence to his own credulity, Clay
again went into court with Burr, “for whose honor and innocence,” he
said, “he could pledge his own,” and assailed the district-attorney. A
second time the scene of outraged virtue was acted. Once more the
witnesses vanished. Senator Smith saddled his horse and fled; Adair
would not appear; and the judge lent his weight to the criminal. To
crown all, December 5 the grand-jury of twenty-two persons signed a
paper declaring that they could discover nothing improper or
injurious to the interests of the United States government in the
conduct of Burr and Adair. Burr was discharged, with enthusiastic
applause, without a stain on his character; and to prove its devotion,
the society of Frankfort gave a ball in his honor.[192]
Nov. 25, 1806, was a date to be remembered in the story of
Burr’s adventures. On that day Daveiss made his second motion in
court at Frankfort, while at Washington the Government at length
woke to action. An officer, bringing despatches from General
Wilkinson at Natchitoches, presented himself at the White House
with news so startling that Jefferson immediately called his Cabinet
together. Another memorandum in the President’s handwriting
recorded the action taken:—
“November 25. Present at first the four heads of department; but
after a while General Dearborn withdrew, unwell. Despatches from
General Wilkinson to myself of October 21, by a confidential officer
(Lieutenant Smith), show that overtures have been made to him which
decide that the present object of the combination is an expedition by
sea against Vera Cruz; and by comparing the contents of a letter from
Cowles Meade to the Secretary of State, with the information from
Lieutenant Smith that a Mr. Swartwout from New York, brother of the
late marshal, had been at General Wilkinson’s camp, we are satisfied
that Swartwout has been the agent through whom overtures have
been made to Wilkinson. We came to the following determinations,—
 that a proclamation be issued (see it), and that orders go as follows:
To Pittsburg, if we have a military officer there; ... Marietta, Mr. Gallatin
is to write to the collector; ... General Dearborn to write to Governor
Tiffin, ... and to write to General Jackson, supposed to be the general
of the brigade on the Virginia side of the river; ... Louisville, General
Dearborn to write to the Governor of Kentucky; ... Massac, General
Dearborn to give orders to Captain Bissell of the same tenor, and
particularly to stop armed vessels suspected on good grounds to be
proceeding on this enterprise, and for this purpose to have in
readiness any boats he can procure fitted for enabling him to arrest
their passage; Chickasaw Bluffs, give same orders as to Bissell; New
Orleans, General Wilkinson to direct the station of the armed vessels;
and if the arrangements with the Spaniards will permit him to
withdraw, let him dispose of his force as he thinks best to prevent any
such expedition or any attempt on New Orleans, or any of the posts or
military stores of the United States. (He is also to arrest persons
coming to his camp and proposing a concurrence in any such
enterprise, and suspected of being in camp with a view to propagate
such propositions. This addition is made by General Dearborn with my
approbation.)”
The orders to Wilkinson were instantly sent. “You will use every
exertion in your power,” Dearborn said,[193] “to frustrate and
effectually prevent any enterprise which has for its object, directly or
indirectly, any hostile act on any part of the territories of the United
States, or on any of the territories of the King of Spain.” Persons
found in or about the military camps or posts, with evident intention
of sounding officers or soldiers, were to be arrested, and if not
amenable to martial law, were to be delivered over to the civil
authorities.
The orders were remarkable chiefly for the power they trusted in
the hands of Wilkinson, and the confidence they showed in his good
faith. Yet nothing could on its face be more suspicious than his
report. The idea that Burr’s expedition could be directed against Vera
Cruz was unreasonable, and contrary to the tenor of the President’s
information from all other sources.[194] A moment’s thought should
have satisfied the President that Wilkinson was deceiving him, and
that the city of New Orleans must be the real point of danger. In
truth, Wilkinson’s letters suppressed more than they told, and were