Download Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Holt Solutions Manual all chapters

Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd
Edition Holt Solutions Manual

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/linear-algebra-with-applications-2nd-edition-holt-soluti
ons-manual/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Holt Test

Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/linear-algebra-with-
applications-2nd-edition-holt-test-bank/
Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Bretscher

Solutions Manual
applications-2nd-edition-bretscher-solutions-manual/
Linear Algebra with Applications 5th Edition Bretscher

Solutions Manual
applications-5th-edition-bretscher-solutions-manual/
Linear Algebra With Applications 8th Edition Leon

Solutions Manual
applications-8th-edition-leon-solutions-manual/
Linear Algebra with Applications 9th Edition Leon
Solutions Manual
applications-9th-edition-leon-solutions-manual/
Elementary Linear Algebra with Applications 9th Edition

Kolman Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/elementary-linear-algebra-with-
applications-9th-edition-kolman-solutions-manual/
Financial Algebra Advanced Algebra with Financial

Applications 2nd Edition Gerver Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/financial-algebra-advanced-
algebra-with-financial-applications-2nd-edition-gerver-solutions-
manual/
Linear Algebra and Its Applications 5th Edition Lay

Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/linear-algebra-and-its-
applications-5th-edition-lay-solutions-manual/
Linear Algebra And Its Applications 4th Edition Lay

Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/linear-algebra-and-its-
applications-4th-edition-lay-solutions-manual/
Chapter 6
Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
6.1 Practice Problems

[ ][ ] [ ]
−2 −4 2 −2 6
1. Ax1 = −2 1 2 0 = 6 = ̸ λx1 for any λ, so x1 is not an eigenvector.
4 2 5 1 −3
[ ][ ] [ ]
−2 −4 2 −2 −6
Ax2 = −2 1 2 3 = 9 = 3x2 , so x2 is an eigenvector.
4 2 5 1 3
[ ][ ] [ ]
−2 −4 2 1 −8
Ax3 = −2 1 2 2 = 2 ̸= λx3 , for any λ, so x3 is not an eigenvector.
4 2 5 1 13
[ ] [ ]
−1 −4 1 4
2. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − 3I2 = ∼ . Solving, we obtain
−1 −4 0 0
[ ] {[ ]}
−4 −4
x=s . A basis for the λ = 3 eigenspace is .
1 1
([ ] [ ])
3 1 1 0
3. Characteristic polynomial: det (A − λI2 ) = det −λ
2 2 0 1
([ ])
3−λ 1
= det = λ2 − 5λ + 4.
2 2−λ
Eigenvalues: λ2 − 5λ + 4 = (λ − 1) (λ − 4) = 0 ⇒ λ = 1 and λ = 4.
Eigenspace of λ = 1: [ ] [ ]
2 1 2 1
A − (1) I2 = ∼ ,
2 1 0 0
{[ ]}
1
so a basis for this eigenspace is .
−2
−1 1 1 −1
A − 4I2 = ∼ ,
2 −2 0 0
{[ ]}
1
1
([ ] [ ])
1 0 0 1 0 0
4. Characteristic polynomial: det (A − λI3 ) = det 2 0 0 −λ 0 1 0
−2 1 1 0 0 1
([ ])
1−λ 0 0
= det 2 −λ 0 = −λ3 + 2λ2 − λ.
−2 1 1−λ
521
522 Chapter 6: Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
2
Eigenvalues: −λ3 + 2λ2 − λ = −λ (λ − 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = 0 and λ = 1.
Eigenspace of λ = 0:
[ ] [ ]
1 0 0 1 0 0
A − (0) I3 = 2 0 0 ∼ 0 1 1 ,
−2 1 1 0 0 0
{[ ]}
0
so a basis for this eigenspace is 1 .
−1
[ ]  1 −1 0 
0 0 0 2
A − (1) I3 = 2 −1 0 ∼  0 0 0 ,
−2 1 0 0 0 0
{[ ] [ ]}
1 0
so a basis for this eigenspace is 2 , 0 .
0 1
[ ]
−2 0
5. For example, A = .
0 5
6. (a) False. The zero vector is not an eigenvector.

(b) True, because A (u1 + u2 ) = Au1 + Au2 = λu1 + λu2 = λ (u1 + u2 ) .
[ ]
1 0
(c) False. For example, A = has 0 as an eigenvalue, but the column space of A is
0 0
{[ ]}
1
span ̸= R 2 .
0
[ ] [ ]
2 0 1 0
(d) False. ∼ but these matrices have diﬀerent eigenvalues.
0 2 0 1
6.1 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors

[ ][ ] [
]
1 3 −3 3
1. Ax1 = = = (−1) x1 , so x1 is an eigenvector with associated eigenvalue
2 2 2 −2
λ = −1.[ ][ ] [ ]
1 3 1 −2
Ax2 = = ̸= λx2 for any λ, so x2 is not an eigenvector.
2 2 −1 0
[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]
1 3 −2 −8 −2
Ax3 = = = 4 = 4x3 , so x3 is an eigenvector with associated
2 2 −2 −8 −2
eigenvalue λ = 4.
[ ][ ] [ ]
−1 2 0 4
2. Ax1 = = ̸= λx1 for any λ, so x1 is not an eigenvector.
0 3 2 6
[ ][ ] [ ]
−1 2 1 5
Ax2 = = ̸= λx2 for any λ, so x2 is not an eigenvector.
0 3 3 9
[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]
−1 2 1 3 1
Ax3 = = =3 = 3x3 , so x3 is an eigenvector with associated eigenvalue
0 3 2 6 2
λ = 3.
[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]
2 7 2 −3 3 −3
3. Ax1 = 0 −1 0 1 = −1 = (−1) 1 = (−1) x1 ,
0 −2 1 1 −1 1
so x1 is an eigenvector with associated eigenvalue λ = −1.
Section 6.1: Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors 523
[ ][ ] [ ]
2 7 2 −2 −2
Ax2 = 0 −1 0 0 = 0 = 1x2 ,
0 −2 1 1 1
so x2 is[an eigenvector
] [with] associated
[ ] eigenvalue
[ ] λ = 1.
2 7 2 1 2 1
Ax3 = 0 −1 0 0 = 0 = 2 0 = 2x3 ,
0 −2 1 0 0 0
so x3 is an eigenvector with associated eigenvalue λ = 2.
[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]
3 −1 0 1 2 1
4. Ax1 = −1 3 0 1 = 2 = 2 1 = 2x1 ,
−1 1 2 1 2 1
so x1 is[an eigenvector]with
[ associated
] [ ] eigenvalue
[ ] λ = 2.
3 −1 0 1 2 1
Ax2 = −1 3 0 1 = 2 = 2 1 = 2x2 ,
−1 1 2 0 0 0
so x2 is[an eigenvector]with
[ associated
] [ eigenvalue
] λ = 2.
3 −1 0 1 1
Ax3 = −1 3 0 2 = 5 ̸= λx3 for any λ,
−1 1 2 −1 −1
so x3 is not an eigenvector.
      
6 −3 1 0 1 3 1
 0 3 1 0  1   3   1 
Ax1 = 
0 0  0   0 
5. = = 3   = 3x1 ,
−6 6 0
−3 3 −2 3 0 0 0
so x1 isan eigenvector withassociated
   eigenvalue  λ = 3.
6 −3 1 0 1 −1
 0 3 1 0  2   5 
Ax2 =  ̸= λx2 for any λ,
0 0   −1   6 
=
−6 6
−3 3 −2 3 0 5
so x2 isnot an eigenvector.       
6 −3 1 0 1 0 1
 0 3 1 0  1   0   1 
Ax3 = 
0 0   −3   0 
= 0
−3 
= = 0x3 ,
−6 6
−3 3 −2 3 −2 0 −2
so x3 is an eigenvector with associated eigenvalue λ = 0.
      
5 5 1 8 1 −6 1
 8 2 1 8   1   −6   1 
Ax1 = 
0  0   0 
= (−6) 
0 
6. = = (−6) x1 ,
−6 6 −9
−7 −1 −2 −10 −2 12 −2
so x1 isan eigenvector with associated
  eigenvalue  λ = − 6.
5 5 1 8 1 10
 8 2 1 8   1   10 
0  0   0 
=
−6 6 −9
−7 −1 −2 −10 0 −8
so x2 isnot an eigenvector.     
5 5 1 8 1 5
 8 2 1 8  2   2 
0   −2   24 
=
−6 6 −9
−7 −1 −2 −10 −1 5
so x3 is not an eigenvector.
([ ] [ ]) ([ ])
2 7 1 0 −1 7
7. det (A − 3I2 ) = det −3 = det = 4 ̸= 0,
−1 6 0 1 −1 3
so λ = 3 is not an eigenvalue of A.
([ ] [ ]) ([ ])
1 5 1 0 −5 5
8. det (A − 6I2 ) = det −6 = det = 0,
4 2 0 1 4 −4
so λ = 6 is an eigenvalue of A.
([ ] [ ]) ([ ])
0 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 0
9. det (A − (−2) I3 ) = det 2 0 0 − (−2) 0 1 0 = det 2 2 0 = 0, so λ = −2
2 2 −2 0 0 1 2 2 0
is an eigenvalue of A.
([ ] [ ]) ([ ])
6 3 −1 1 0 0 5 3 −1
10. det (A − 1I3 ) = det −4 −1 1 −1 0 1 0 = det −4 −2 1 = 2 ̸= 0, so
18 6 −4 0 0 1 18 6 −5
λ = 1 is not an eigenvalue of A.
[ ] [ ]
−3 −3 −3 −3
11. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − 4I2 = ˜ . Solving, we obtain
1 1 0 0
[ ] {[ ]}
−1 −1
x=s . A basis for the λ = 4 eigenspace is .
1 1
[ ] [ ]
3 4 3 4
12. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − (−5) I2 = ˜ . Solving, we obtain
3 4 0 0
[ 4 ] {[ 4 ]}
−3 −3
x=s . A basis for the λ = −5 eigenspace is .
1 1
[ ] [ ]
4 −10 4 −10
13. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − 2I2 = ˜ . Solving, we obtain
2 −5 0 0
[ 5 ] {[ 5 ]}
x = s 2 . A basis for the λ = 2 eigenspace is 2 .
1 1
[ ] [ ]
−8 12 −8 12
14. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A −(−3) I2 = ˜ . Solving, we obtain
−8 12 0 0
[ 3 ] {[ 3 ]}
x = s 2 . A basis for the λ = −3 eigenspace is 2 .
1 1
[ ] [ ]
2 −3 7 2 −3 7
15. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − 4I3 = 4 −3 5 ˜ 0 3 −9 . Solving, we
4 −3 5 0 0 0
[ ] {[ ]}
1 1
obtain x = s 3 . A basis for the λ = 4 eigenspace is 3 .
1 1
[ ] [ ]
2 5 −7 2 5 −7
16. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A−(−4) I3 = −2 15 −13 ˜ 0 20 −20 . Solving,
−2 5 −3 0 0 0
[ ] {[ ]}
1 1
we obtain x = s 1 . A basis for the λ = −4 eigenspace is 1 .
1 1
[ ] [ ]
−1 −1 2 −1 −1 2
17. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − 6I3 = 2 −4 2 ˜ 0 −6 6 . Solving,
2 −1 −1 0 0 0
[ ] {[ ]}
1 1
we obtain x = s 1 . A basis for the λ = 6 eigenspace is 1 .
1 1
[ ] [ ]
−10 2 −7 −10 2 −7
18. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A−9I3 = −10 −7 2 ˜ 0 −9 9 . Solving,
 1  −10 2 −7
 1  0 0 0
−2  − 2 
we obtain x = s  1 . A basis for the λ = 9 eigenspace is  1  .
 
1 1
19. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − (−4) I4 =
     
15 −3 −3 8 2 −2 2 0 −1
 13 −1 −5 8   0 12 −18 8   −3 
5
 2 −2 . Solving, we obtain x = s  
2 0   0 6 4 
˜  − 2 .
0 3
−3 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 1
 
 −1 

 − 5  
A basis for the eigenspace of A associated with λ = −4 is  
3
  − 2 .

 3 

1
20. We row-reduce to obtain the null space of A − (−8) I4 =
     
23 −3 −15 8 2 −2 2 0 −1
 21 −1 −17 8   0 20 −38 8   −3 
5
 2 −2  ˜  . Solving, we obtain x = s  
 − 2 .
2 0 0 0 18 12 3
−3 3 15 12 0 0 0 0 1
 
 −1 

 − 5  
A basis for the λ = −8 eigenspace is 
3 
 − .
2

 3 

1
([ ] [ ])
2 0 1 0
4 −3 0 1
([ ])
2−λ 0
= det = λ2 + λ − 6.
4 −λ − 3
Eigenvalues: λ2 + λ − 6 = (λ + 3) (λ − 2) = 0 ⇒ λ = −3 and λ = 2.
Eigenspace of λ = −3: [ ] [ ]
5 0 5 0
A − (−3) I2 = ˜ ,
4 0 0 0
{[ ]}
0
1
0 0 4 −5
A − 2I2 = ˜ ,
4 −5 0 0
{[ 5 ]}
1
([ ] [ ])
2 6 1 0
1 1 0 1
([ ])
2−λ 6
= det = λ2 − 3λ − 4.
1 1−λ
Eigenvalues: λ2 − 3λ − 4 = (λ + 1) (λ − 4) = 0 ⇒ λ = −1 and λ = 4.
3 6 3 6
A − (−1) I2 = ˜ ,
1 2 0 0
{[ ]}
−2
1
−2 6 −2 6
A − 4I2 = ˜ ,
1 −3 0 0
{[ ]}
3
1
([ ] [ ])
1 −2 1 0
2 −3 0 1
([ ])
1−λ −2
= det = λ2 + 2λ + 1.
2 −λ − 3
2
Eigenvalues: λ2 + 2λ + 1 = (λ + 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = −1.
2 −2 2 −2
A − (−1) I2 = ˜ ,
2 −2 0 0
{[ ]}
1
1
([ ] [ ])
−2 8 1 0
1 −4 0 1
([ ])
−λ − 2 8
= det = λ2 + 6λ.
1 −λ − 4
Eigenvalues: λ2 + 6λ = λ (λ + 6) = 0 ⇒ λ = 0 and λ = −6.
−2 8 −2 8
A − 0I2 = ˜ ,
1 −4 0 0
{[ ]}
4
1
4 8 4 8
A − (−6) I2 = ˜ ,
1 2 0 0
{[ ]}
−2
1
([ ] [ ])
3 0 0 1 0 0
−4 5 −1 0 0 1
([ ])
3−λ 0 0
= det 1 2−λ 0 = − (λ − 2) (λ − 3) (λ + 1).
−4 5 −1 − λ
Eigenvalues: − (λ − 2) (λ − 3) (λ + 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = 2, λ = 3, and λ = −1.
[ ] [ ]
1 0 0 1 0 0
A − 2I3 = 1 0 0 ˜ 0 5 −3 ,
−4 5 −3 0 0 0
 
 0 
so a basis for this eigenspace is  5  .
3
 
1
[ ] [ ]
0 0 0 1 −1 0
A − 3I3 = 1 −1 0 ˜ 0 1 −4 ,
−4 5 −4 0 0 0
{[ ]}
4
1
Eigenspace of λ = −1:
[ ] [ ]
4 0 0 4 0 0
A − (−1) I3 = 1 3 0 ˜ 0 3 0 ,
−4 5 0 0 0 0
{[ ]}
0
1
([ ] [ ])
1 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
([ ])
1−λ 0 1
= det 1 −λ 0 = λ2 − λ3 .
0 0 −λ
Eigenvalues: λ2 − λ3 = −λ2 (λ − 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = 0 and λ = 1.
[ ] [ ]
1 0 1 1 0 0
A − (0) I3 = 1 0 0 ˜ 0 0 1 ,
0 0 0 0 0 0
{[ ]}
0
0
[ ] [ ]
0 0 1 1 −1 0
A − (1) I3 = 1 −1 0 ˜ 0 0 1 ,
0 0 −1 0 0 0
{[ ]}
1
0
([ ] [ ])
2 5 1 1 0 0
27. Characteristic polynomial: det (A − λI3 ) = det 0 −3 −1 −λ 0 1 0
2 14 4 0 0 1
([ ])
2−λ 5 1
= det 0 −λ − 3 −1 = −λ3 + 3λ2 − 2λ.
2 14 4−λ
Eigenvalues: −λ3 + 3λ2 − 2λ = −λ (λ − 1) (λ − 2) = 0 ⇒ λ = 0, λ = 1, and λ = 2.
[ ] [ ]
2 5 1 2 5 1
A − 0I3 = 0 −3 −1 ˜ 0 −3 −1 ,
2 14 4 0 0 0
  


1
3


 1 
so a basis for this eigenspace is  − 3  .

 

1
1 5 1 1 5 1
A − (1) I3 = 0 −4 −1 ˜ 0 −4 −1 ,
2 14 3 0 0 0
 1 
 4 
 4 
1
0 5 1 2 14 2
A − 2I3 = 0 −5 −1 ˜ 0 −5 −1 ,
2 14 2 0 0 0
 


2
5


 

 

1
([ ] [ ])
0 −3 −1 1 0 0
28. Characteristic polynomial: det (A − λI3 ) = det −1 2 1 −λ 0 1 0
3 −9 −4 0 0 1
([ ])
−λ −3 −1
= det −1 2 − λ 1 = −λ3 − 2λ2 − λ.
3 −9 −λ − 4
2
Eigenvalues: −λ3 − 2λ2 − λ = −λ (λ + 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = 0, and λ = −1.
[ ] [ ]
0 −3 −1 −1 2 1
A − 0I3 = −1 2 1 ˜ 0 −3 −1 ,
3 −9 −4 0 0 0
  


1
3


 1 

 

1
[ ] [ ]
1 −3 −1 1 −3 −1
A − (−1) I3 = −1 3 1 ˜ 0 0 0 ,
3 −9 −3 0 0 0
{[ ] [ ]}
3 1
so a basis for this eigenspace is 1 , 0 .
0 1
   
−1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
 5 −2 0 0   0 1 0 0 
29. Characteristic polynomial: det (A − λI4 ) = det  − λ
0 3 1 0  0 0 1 0 
2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
 
−1 − λ 0 0 0
 5 −2 − λ 0 0  2
= det  = (λ + 2) (λ + 1) (λ − 1) .
0 3 1−λ 0 
2 0 1 1−λ
2
Eigenvalues: (λ + 2) (λ + 1) (λ − 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = −2, λ = −1, and λ = 1.
   
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
 5 0 0 0   0 3 3 0 
A − (−2) I4 = 
0 3 3 0   0 0 1 3 
˜
2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0
 


0 

 3 
so a basis for this eigenspace is   .
 −3 
 
1
   
0 0 0 0 5 −1 0 0
 5 −1 0 0   0 3 2 0 
A − (−1) I4 = 
2 0   0 2 
˜ 11
0 3 0 15
2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
 4 


 


 20 
11

 11 
so a basis for this eigenspace is  30  .

  − 11  

 

1
   
−2 0 0 0 −2 0 0 0
 5 −3 0 0   0 −3 0 0 
A − (1) I4 = 
0 0   0 0 1 0 
˜ ,
0 3
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
 


0 

 0 

 0  
1
   
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0   0 1 0 0 
30. Characteristic polynomial: det (A − λI4 ) = det  − λ
1 0 0 0  0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
 
−λ 0 1 0
 0 1 − λ 0 0 
= det  = λ4 − 2λ3 + 2λ − 1.
1 0 −λ 0 
0 0 0 1−λ
3
Eigenvalues: λ − 2λ + 2λ − 1 = (λ + 1) (λ − 1) = 0 ⇒
4 3
λ = −1 and λ = 1.
   
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
 0 2 0 0   0 2 0 0 
A − (−1) I4 = 
1 0 1 0   2 
˜ ,
0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
 
 −1 
 
 0 

 1  
0
   
−1 0 1 0 −1 0 1 0
 0 0 0 0   0 0 0 0 
A − (1) I4 = 
1 0 −1 0   0 0 0 0 
˜ ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
     


0 1 0 

 1   0   0 
so a basis for this eigenspace is   ,   ,  .

 0 1 0 
0 0 1
[ ]
1 0
0 2
[ ]
−3 0
0 0
[ ]
1 0 0
33. For example, A = 0 −2 0 .
0 0 3
[ ]
−1 0 0
34. For example, A = 0 −1 0 .
0 0 4
[ ]
0 1
35. For example, A = , has characteristic polynomial λ2 + 1, so it has no real eigenvalues.
−1 0
 
0 1 0 0
 −1 0 0 0  ( )2
36. For example, A =   , has characteristic polynomial λ2 + 1 , so it has no real
0 0 0 1
0 0 −1 0
eigenvalues.
] [
1 0
37. (a) False. An eigenvalue may be 0, as with the matrix A = , which eigenvalues λ = 0 and
0 0
λ = 1. Moreover, by Definition 6.1, an eigenvector must be a nonzero vector.
(b) True, by Theorem 6.6.
38. (a) False. For example, if the corresponding eigenvalue is λ = 0, so that Au = 0u = 0, then because
u ̸= 0, u is not a multiple of Au.
[ ]
1 0
(b) False. For example, A = has eigenvalues λ1 = 1 and λ2 = 2, but λ1 + λ2 = 3 is not an
0 2
eigenvalue.
39. (a) True, since A − λI will be a diagonal matrix with aii − λ along the diagonal, so det (A − λI) have
have aii − λ as a factor.
(b) False. Since 0 is an eigenvalue, by the Unifying Theorem
[ ] A is not invertible, and therefore the
1 0
n
columns of A do not span R . For instance, A = has eigenvalue λ = 0 and col(A) ≠ R2 .
0 0
40. (a) True. Since 0 is an eigenvalue, by the Unifying Theorem there exists a nonzero vector x such that
Ax = 0, and thus nullity (A) > 0.
[ ]
1 0
(b) False. The eigenvalues of are 0 and 1. But upon interchanging rows, we have only λ = 0
0 0
[ ]
0 0
as an eigenvalue of .
1 0
[ ]
0 0
41. (a) False, has only the eigenvalue 0.
1 0
(b) True. The characteristic polynomial p (λ) = det (A − λI) satisfies p (0) = 0, because 0 is an
eigenvalue. So the constant term in characteristic polynomial must be 0.
42. (a) True. If D is diagonal and dj is the j th diagonal entry, then Dej = dj ej , where ej is the j th column
of the identity matrix.
[ ] [ ]
1 0 0 1 1 0
(b) False. For example, let A = 0 1 0 and B = 0 1 1 , then A and B have the same
0 0 1 0 0 1
eigenvalues, but A ̸= B.
([ ] [ ])
1 −4 1 0
43. The characteristic polynomial is det (A − λI) = det −λ = λ2 + 2λ + 17. We
5 −3 0 1
evaluate
[ [ ] ]2 [ ]
1 −41 −4 1 0
A2 + 2A + 17I = +2 + 17
5 −35 −3 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ]
−19 8 2 −8 17 0
= + +
−10 −11 10 −6 0 17
[ ]
0 0
=
0 0
.
([ ] [ ])
5 2 1 0
44. The characteristic polynomial is det (A − λI) = det −λ = λ2 − 9λ + 18. We
1 4 0 1
evaluate
[ ]2 [ ] ][
5 2 5 2 1 0
A − 9A + 18I
2
= −9 + 18
1 4 1 4 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ]
27 18 −45 −18 18 0
= + +
9 18 −9 −36 0 18
[ ]
0 0
= .
0 0
45. The characteristic polynomial is det (A − λI) =

([ ] [ ])
3 −2 2 1 0 0
det 1 −3 4 − λ 0 1 0 = −λ3 + λ2 + 19λ − 49.
−4 5 1 0 0 1
We evaluate
[ ]3 [ ]2
3 −2 2 3 −2 2
−A + A + 19A − 49I
3 2
= − 1 −3 4 + 1 −3 4
−4 5 1 −4 5 1
[ ] [ ]
3 −2 2 1 0 0
+19 1 −3 4 − 49 0 1 0
−4 5 1 0 0 1
[ ] [ ]
−7 28 −38 −1 10 0
= −3 79 −70 + −16 27 −6
87 −93 17 −11 −2 13
[ ] [ ]
57 −38 38 −49 0 0
+ 19 −57 76 + 0 −49 0
−76 95 19 0 0 −49
[ ]
0 0 0
= 0 0 0
0 0 0
46. The characteristic polynomial is det (A − λI) =

([ ] [ ])
3 3 −2 1 0 0
det 1 −3 4 −λ 0 1 0 = −λ3 + λ2 + 40λ − 106. We evaluate
−4 5 1 0 0 1
[ ]3 [ ]2
3 3 −2 3 3 −2
−A + A + 40A − 106I
3 2
= − 1 −3 4
+ 1 −3 4
−4 5 1 −4 5 1
[ ] [ ]
3 3 −2 1 0 0
+40 1 −3 4 − 106 0 1 0
−4 5 1 0 0 1
[ ] [ ]
−34 −110 76 20 −10 4
= −24 194 −150 + −16 32 −10
171 −178 37 −11 −22 29
[ ] [ ]
120 120 −80 −106 0 0
+ 40 −120 160 + 0 −106 0
−160 200 40 0 0 −106
[ ]
0 0 0
= 0 0 0
0 0 0
47. (a) A is 6 × 6.
(b) λ = 3, λ = 2, and λ = −1.
(c) A is invertible, since 0 is not an eigenvalue.
(d) The largest possible dimension of an eigenspace is 3, corresponding to λ = 3.
48. (a) A is 7 × 7.
(b) λ = 0, λ = 1, and λ = −2.
(c) A is not invertible, since 0 is an eigenvalue.
(d) The largest possible dimension of an eigenspace is 3, corresponding to either (or both) λ = 1 or
λ = −2.
49. If 0 is not an eigenvalue, then T is onto, by The Unifying Theorem - Version 8, (m)→(d).
50. Since λ is an eigenvalue of A, there exists a nonzero vector u such that Au = λu. Multiply by 4 to
obtain (4A) u = (4λ) u, which shows that 4λ is an eigenvalue of 4A.
51. Since λ = 1 is an eigenvalue of A, det (A − λI) = det (A − I) = 0. Thus A − I is singular.
52. Let λ be the eigenvalue associated with u, Au = λu. Multiply by A to obtain A2 u = λ (Au) =
λ (λu) = λ2 u. Thus u is an eigenvector of A2 associated with eigenvalue λ2 .
53. If Au = λ1 u = λ2 u, then (λ1 − λ2 ) u = 0. Since u is an eigenvector, u ̸= 0, and hence λ1 − λ2 = 0.

So λ1 = λ2 , and u cannot be associated with distinct eigenvalues.
54. Since 5 is an eigenvalue of A, there exists a nonzero vector u such that Au = 5u. Multiply by A to
obtain A2 u = 5 (Au) = 5 (5u) = 25u, which shows that 25 is an eigenvalue of A2 .
55. Since Au = A0 = 0 = λ0 for every λ, we would have that every value λ would be an associated
eigenvalue of u.
56. Consider the case where A is upper triangular,

   
a11 a12 · · · a1n λ 0 ··· 0
 0 a22 · · · a2n   0 λ · · · 0 
A − λIn =  ... .. ..  −  . . .. .. 
.   .. .. . 
..
. . .
0 0 · · · ann 0 0 ··· λ
 
a11 − λ a12 ··· a1n
 0 a22 − λ · · · a2n 
= .. .. .. .. .

. . . .
0 0 · · · ann − λ
This is an upper triangular matrix, hence the determinant is the product along the diagonal, det (A − λIn ) =
(a11 − λ) (a22 − λ) · · · (ann − λ). Set this equal to zero to obtain that the eigenvalues of A are a11 , a22 ,
. . . ,ann - the diagonal terms of A. The
( case
) where A is lower triangular is established in the same way,
or by appealing to Exercise 63, det AT = det (A), and the result for upper triangular matrices.
) λ ̸= 0. (Let u be)an eigenvector of A associated with λ, so Au = λu. Multiply by

57. Since A is( invertible,
λ−1 A−1 , λ−1 A−1 (Au) = λ−1 A−1 (λu) ⇒ λ−1 u = A−1 u, from which we conclude that λ−1 is
an eigenvalue of A−1 with associated eigenvector u.
58. The characteristic polynomial is
([ ] [ ])
a b 1 0
det (A − λI2 ) = det −λ
c d 0 1
([ ])
a−λ b
= det = λ2 − (a + d)λ + ad − bc
c d−λ
By the quadratic formula, we have
√
2
a+d± (a + d) − 4 (ad − bc)
λ=
2
59. There exist λ1 and λ2 such that Au = λ1 u and Bu = λ2 u. Thus (AB) u = A (Bu) = A (λ2 u) =
λ2 (Au) = λ2 (λ1 u) = (λ1 λ2 ) u, and so u is an eigenvector of AB with associated eigenvalue λ1 λ2 .
60. We’ll show this by induction on k. We are given that Au = λu, and we assume Ak−1 u = λk−1 u. Now
multiply by A to obtain Ak u = λk−1 (Au) = λk−1 (λu) = λk u. Thus we conclude that Ak u = λk u for
all k, and hence Ak has eigenvalue λk and associated eigenvector u.
   
1 1
 1   1 
61. Since each row of A adds to zero, we have A    
 ...  = 0 = 0  ... . This implies that A is not invertible
1 1
since null (A) is not trivial. Also, we see directly that λ = 0 is an eigenvalue of A.
62. The condition a + b = c + d ⇒ d = a + b − c. Substitute into the characteristic polynomial from
Exercise 58,
det (A − λI2 ) = λ2 − (a + d)λ + ad − bc
= λ2 − (a + a + b − c)λ + a (a + b − c) − bc
= λ2 − ((a + b) + (a − c)) λ + a (a − c) + b(a − c)
= λ2 − ((a + b) + (a − c)) λ + (a + b) (a − c)
= (λ − (a + b)) (λ − (a − c))
Thus the eigenvalues are λ1 = a + b and λ2 = a − c.
( )
T
63. Since λ is an eigenvalue of A, det (A − λIn ) = 0. Thus 0 = det (A − λIn ) =
( T )
det A − λIn , and hence λ is an eigenvalue of A . T
64. We have Au = λu, and consider (A − cIn ) u = Au − cu = λu − cu = (λ − c) u. Thus λ − c is an

eigenvalue of A − cIn with associated eigenvector u.
     
1 c 1
 1   c   1 
65. Since each row of A adds to c, we obtain A   
 ...  =  ...
 = c  . . Thus λ = c is an eigenvalue of
  .. 
1 c 1
A.
66. (a) We prove this by induction on n. When n = 1, det (A − λI1 ) = a11 − λ is a polynomial of degree
1. By considering a cofactor expansion of det (A − λIn ) along row one, we obtain
det (A − λIn ) = (a11 − λ) C11 + a12 C12 + · · · + a1n C1n
Now
    
a22 − λ · · · a2n a22 ··· ann
C11 = det  ..
.
..
.
..
.
 = det  ..
.
..
.
..  − λI
. n−1

an2 ··· ann − λ an2 ··· ann
which by induction is a polynomial of degree n − 1. Hence the first term (a11 − λ) C11 is a
polynomial of degree n. Consider the cofactor C12 ,
 
a21 a23 ··· a2n
 a 31 a33 − λ ··· a3n 
det  
1+2
C12 = (−1)  ... .. .. .. 
. . .
an1 an3 · · · ann − λ
The degree of C12 cannot exceed n −1, since there are only n − 1 entries which contain λ. Similarly,
each C1i has degree less than n for each i > 1. As a result, the degree of det (A − λIn ) will match
the degree n of the first term (a11 − λ) C11 , as the other terms have degree less than n. We
conclude that the characteristic polynomial of an n × n matrix has degree n.
n
(b) The coeﬃcient of λn is (−1) . (This can be proved by induction.)
(c) The constant term of the characteristic polynomial is the evaluation of det (A − λIn ) at λ = 0.
But this is also equal to det (A − (0) In ) = det (A).
(d) Write det (A − λIn ) = (λ1 − λ) (λ2 − λ) · · · (λn − λ). Evaluate this at λ = 0 to obtain det (A) =
λ1 λ2 · · · λn .
   
0 0 −2 −1 1 0 0 0
 1 1 6 5   0 1 0 0 
67. det  − λ = λ4 − 6λ3 + 13λ2 − 12λ + 4
2 0 4 1  0 0 1 0 
−2 0 −2 1 0 0 0 1
2 2
= (λ − 1) (λ − 2) = 0 ⇒ λ = 1 and λ = 2 are the eigenvalues, with bases for their eigenspaces:
       1 
 0 1   −1 −2 
   
 1   0   5   92 
λ=1⇒   ,  ,λ=2⇒   ,  .
 0
 −1  
 1 0 
0 1 0 1
Section 6.2: Diagonalization 535
   
−20 −9 14 18 1 0 0 0
 40 17 −18 −28   0 1 0 0 
68. det  − λ = λ4 − 2λ3 − 13λ2 + 14λ + 24
17 9 −10 −11  0 0 1 0 
−17 −9 14 15 0 0 0 1
= (λ − 2) (λ − 4) (λ + 3) (λ + 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = 2, λ = 4, λ = −3, and λ = −1 are the eigenvalues, with
bases for their eigenspaces:
   
 1  
 1 
   −3  
 −2 
λ=2⇒   ,λ=4⇒  3 
 − 2  ,
 −1 
  

 

1 1
 1   

 
 
 1 
 1  2
 − 5  
λ = −3 ⇒  − 2  , λ = −1 ⇒   3  .
      −1 
 −1 
  
 
1 1
   
10 0 1 −3 3 1 0 0 0 0
 23 −1 6 −3 2   0 1 0 0 0 
   
69. det  −24 0 −1 9 −9  − λ  0 0 1 0 0  = −λ5 + 5λ3 − 4λ
 14 0 1 −5 5   0 0 0 1 0  
−10 0 −1 3 −3 0 0 0 0 1
= −λ (λ − 1) (λ − 2) (λ + 2) (λ + 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = 0, λ = 1, λ = 2, λ = −2, and λ = −1 are the
eigenvalues, with bases for their eigenspaces:
     

 0   
 −1   
 −1 
 −1 
   0 
   −2 
 

     
λ=0⇒  0  ,λ=1⇒  3  ,λ=2⇒  2  ,

  1   
  −1  
  −1  

 
 
 
 
 

1 1 1
   

 −1   
 0  

 −3   
 1  
   
λ = −2 ⇒  3  , λ = −1 ⇒  0  .

  −2   
  0 

 
 
 

1 0
   
5 0 2 1 −1 1 0 0 0 0
 6 1 4 3 −3   0 1 0 0 0 
   
70. det  −6 0 −3 −3 3  − λ  0 0 1 0 0  = −λ5 + 8λ4 − 24λ3 + 34λ2 − 23λ + 6 =
 2 0 2 3 −2   0 0 0 1 0  
−4 0 − 2 − 1 2 0 0 0 0 1
3
− (λ − 2) (λ − 3) (λ − 1)
⇒ λ = 2, λ = 3, and λ = 1 are the eigenvalues, with bases for their eigenspaces:
       1   1  
 −1   −1  
 0 −2  

 −3   
 −2    1   0   0  
 2

         
     
λ = 2 ⇒  3  , λ = 3 ⇒  2  , λ = 1 ⇒  0 , − 3 , 3  .

  −2   
  −1   
  0   2  
 1   0 
2 


 
 
 
 
 

1 1  0 
0 1
6.2 Practice Problems

[ ][ ]4 [ ]−1
4 4 1 2
−1 1 0 1 2
1. (a) A = P D P =
2 5 0 −1 2 5
[ ][ 4 ][ ] [ ]
1 2 1 0 5 −2 1 0
= =
2 5 0 (−1)
4
−2 1 0 1
[ ][ ]4 [ ]−1
1 2 1 −1 0 0 1 2 1
−1
4
(b) A = P D P 4
= 1 −1 0 0 1 0 1 −1 0
0 2 −1 0 0 2 0 2 −1
[ ] 4
 1 4 1  [ ]
1 2 1 (−1) 0 0 5 5 5 7 −6 −9
 1 1 
0  0   5 −5
1
= 1 −1 0 (1)
4
5 = 0 1 0
0 2 −1 0 0 2 4 2
− 25 −3 −6 6 10
5 5
[ ][ ][ ]−1 [ ]
1 1 2 0 1 1 5 −3
2. (a) We may obtain A as = .
1 2 0 −1 1 2 6 −4
 
[ ][ ][ ]−1 1 2 7
−1 1 1 −2 0 0 −1 1 1 3 3 3
 − 13 4
− 31 
(b) We may obtain A as 0 −1 1 0 2 0 0 −1 1 = 3 .
1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
− 43 − 32
3
([ ] [ ])
−3 −2 1 0
3. (a) det −λ = λ2 − 3λ + 2 = 0 ⇒ λ1 = 1, and λ2 = 2.
10 6 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ]
−3 −2 1 0 −4 −2
Because − (1) = , a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = 1 is
10 6 0 1 10 5
{[ ]} [ ] [ ] [ ]
1 −3 −2 1 0 −5 −2
. Because − (2) = , a basis for the eigenspace of
−2 10 6 0 1 10 4
{[ ]}
2
λ2 = 2 is .
−5
[ ] [ ][ ][ ]−1
−3 −2 1 2 1 0 1 2
We therefore have = .
10 6 −2 −5 0 2 −2 −5
([ ] [ ])
−2 −8 2 1 0 0
(b) det 0 2 0 −λ 0 1 0 = −λ3 + λ2 + 2λ = −λ (λ + 1) (λ − 2) = 0 ⇒ λ1 =
−1 − 2 1 0 0 1
0, λ2 = −1, and λ3 = 2.
Because
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
−2 −8 2 1 0 0 −2 −8 2 1 0 −1
0 2 0 − (0) 0 1 0 = 0 2 0 ∼ 0 1 0 ,
−1 −2 1 0 0 1 −1 −2 1 0 0 0
{[ ]}
1
a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = 0 is 0 . Because
1
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
−2 −8 2 1 0 0 −1 −8 2 1 0 −2
0 2 0 − (−1) 0 1 0 = 0 3 0 ∼ 0 1 0 ,
−1 −2 1 0 0 1 −1 −2 2 0 0 0
{[ ]}
2
a basis for the eigenspace of λ2 = −1 is 0 . Because
1
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
−2 −8 2 1 0 0 −4 −8 2 1 2 0
0 2 0 −2 0 1 0 = 0 0 0 ∼ 0 0 1 ,
−1 −2 1 0 0 1 −1 −2 −1 0 0 0
{[ ]}
2
a basis for the eigenspace of λ2 = 2 is −1 . We therefore have
0
[ ] [ ][ ][ ]−1
−2 −8 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 2
0 2 0 = 0 0 −1 0 −1 0 0 0 −1 .
−1 −2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0
[ ]
1 2 1
4. For example, A = 1 2 2 has eigenvalues 0, 2, and 8.
1 2 7
5. One of the eigenvalues must be a repeated eigenvalue, of multiplicity 2. Its eigenspace must have di-
mension 2, because the matrix is diagonalizable. The other 3 eigenvalues have eigenspaces of dimension
1.
6.2 Diagonalization
[ ][ ]5 [ ]−1
4 3 2 0 4 3
1. A5 = P D5 P −1 =
1 1 0 −1 1 1
[ ][ 5 ][ ] [ ]
4 3 2 0 1 −3 131 −396
= =
1 1 0 (−1)
5
−1 4 33 −100
[ ][ ]5 [ ]−1
2 1 1 0 2 1
2. A5 = P D5 P −1 =
7 3 0 −3 7 3
[ ][ 5 ][ ] [ ]
2 1 1 0 −3 1 −1707 488
= =
7 3 0 (−3)
5
7 −2 −5124 1465
[ ][ ]5 [ ]−1
1 3 1 1 0 0 1 3 1
3. A5 = P D5 P −1 = 0 −1 2 0 2 0 0 −1 2
0 0 −1 0 0 −1 0 0 −1
[ ]  15 0 [ ] [ ]
1 3 1 0 1 3 7 1 −93 −184
= 0 −1 2  0 25 0  0 −1 −2 = 0 32 66
0 0 −1 0 0 (−1)
5 0 0 −1 0 0 −1
[ ][ ]5 [ ]−1
1 1 −1 3 0 0 1 1 −1
4. A5 = P D5 P −1 = 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 2  [0 0 1 1 0 2
[ ] 5 ] [ ]
1 1 −1 3 0 0 0 2 −1 1 484 −242
= 1 0 1  0 15 0  1 −3 2 = 0 485 −242
1 0 2 0 0 15 0 −1 1 0 484 −241
[ ][ ][ ]−1
2 3 1 0 2 3
5. A = P DP −1 =
3 5 0 −1 3 5
[ ][ ][ ] [ ]
2 3 1 0 5 −3 19 −12
= =
3 5 0 −1 −3 2 30 −19
[ ][ ][ ]−1
4 1 3 0 4 1
6. A = P DP −1 =
7 2 0 1 7 2
[ ][ ][ ] [ ]
4 1 3 0 2 −1 17 −8
= =
7 2 0 1 −7 4 28 −13
[ ][ ][ ]−1
1 1 −1 −1 0 0 1 1 −1
7. A = P DP −1 = 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
[ ][ ][ ] [ ]
1 1 −1 −1 0 0 −1 2 −3 2 −3 4
= 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 −1 2 = 0 −1 2
0 1 1 0 0 1 −1 1 −1 −1 1 −1
[ ][ ][ ]−1
1 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 0
−1
8. A = P DP = 3 1 2 0 1 0 3 1 2
1 −1 1 0 0 1 1 −1 1
[ ][ ][ ] [ ]
1 2 0 2 0 0 3 −2 4 4 −2 4
= 3 1 2 0 1 0 −1 1 −2 = 9 −5 12
1 −1 1 0 0 1 −4 3 −5 3 −2 5
([ ] [ ])
1 −2 1 0 2
9. det −λ = λ2 − 2λ + 1 = (λ − 1) = 0 ⇒ λ = 1.
0 1 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ] {[ ]}
1 −2 1 0 0 −2 1
Since − (1) = , a basis for the eigenspace of λ = 1 is . The
0 1 0 1 0 0 0
multiplicity
[ ] of the eigenvalue λ = 1 is two, which exceeds the dimension of its eigenspace. Thus
1 −2
is not diagonalizable.
0 1
([ ] [ ])
−2 2 1 0
10. det −λ = λ2 + 2λ = λ (λ + 2) = 0 ⇒ λ1 = 0 and λ2 = −2.
0 0 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ] {[ ]}
−2 2 1 0 −2 2 1
Since − (0) = , a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = 0 is . Since
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] {[ ]}
−2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 1
− (−2) = ˜ , a basis for the eigenspace of λ2 = −2 is .
0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
[ ] [ ][ ][ ]−1
−2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1
We thus have = .
0 0 1 0 0 −2 1 0
([ ] [ ])
7 −8 1 0
11. det −λ = λ2 − 2λ − 3 = : (λ + 1) (λ − 3) = 0 ⇒ λ1 = −1 and λ2 = 3.
4 −5 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
7 −8 1 0 8 −8 8 −8
Since − (−1) = ˜ , a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = −1
4 −5 0 1 4 −4 0 0
{[ ]} [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
1 7 −8 1 0 4 −8 4 −8
is . Since −3 = ˜ , a basis for the eigenspace of
1 4 −5 0 1 4 −8 0 0
{[ ]}
2
λ2 = 3 is .
1
[ ] [ ][ ][ ]−1
7 −8 1 2 −1 0 1 2
We thus have = .
4 −5 1 1 0 3 1 1
([ ] [ ])
7 −10 1 0
12. det −λ = λ2 − 5λ + 6 = : (λ − 2) (λ − 3) = 0 ⇒ λ1 = 2 and λ2 = 3.
2 −2 0 1
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
7 −10 1 0 5 −10 5 −10
Since −2 = ˜ , a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = 2 is
2 −2 0 1 2 −4 0 0
{[ ]} [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
2 7 −10 1 0 4 −10 4 −10
. Since −3 = ˜ , a basis for the eigenspace of
1 2 −2 0 1 2 −5 0 0
{[ ]}
5/2
λ2 = 3 is .
1
[ ] [ ][ ][ ]−1
7 −10 2 5/2 2 0 2 5/2
We thus have = .
2 −2 1 1 0 3 1 1
([ ] [ ])
1 2 1 1 0 0
13. det 0 −3 −2 −λ 0 1 0 = λ − λ3 = −λ (λ − 1) (λ + 1) = 0 ⇒ λ1 = 0, λ2 = 1,
2 4 2 0 0 1
and λ3 = −1.
 
[ ] [ ] [ ] 1 0 − 13
1 2 1 01 0 1 2 1
 2 ,
Since 0 −3 −2 − (0) 0 = 0 −3 −2 ˜  0 1
0 1 3 
2 4 2 10 0 2 4 2 0 0 0
 


1
3


 
a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = 0 is  − 32  .

 

1
 
[ ] [ ] [ ] 1 0 − 12
1 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 1
 1 ,
Since 0 −3 −2 − 1 0 1 0 = 0 −4 −2 ˜  0 1 2 
2 4 2 0 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 0
 


1
2


 

 

1
[ ] [ ] [ ]  
1 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 − 12
Since 0 −3 −2 − (−1) 0 1 0 = 0 −2 −2 ˜  0 1 1 ,
2 4 2 0 0 1 2 4 3 0 0 0
 
 1
2

a basis for the eigenspace of λ3 = −1 is  −1  .
 1 
 1   1 −1
[ ] 1 1 [ ] 1 1
1 2 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 2
   
We thus have 0 −3 −2 =  − 2 − 1 −1  0 1 0  − 2 − 1 −1  .
2 4 2 3
1
2
1 1 0 0 −1 3
1
2
1 1
([ ] [ ])
4 −1 −2 1 0 0
14. det −6 3 4 −λ 0 1 0 = −λ3 + 3λ2 − 2λ = −λ (λ − 1) (λ − 2) = 0 ⇒ λ1 = 0,
8 −2 −4 0 0 1
λ2 = 1, and λ3 = 2.  
[ ] [ ] [ ] 1 0 − 13
4 −1 −2 0 1 4 −1 −2
0
 2 ,
Since −6 3 4 − (0) 0 = −6
0 13 4 ˜ 0 1 3 
8 −2 −4 1 0 8 −2 −4
0 0 0 0
 


1
3


 

 

1
 
[ ] [ ] [ ] 1 0 − 12
4 −1 −2 1 0 0 3 −1 −2
 1 ,
Since −6 3 4 − 1 0 1 0 = −6 2 4 ˜ 0 1 2 
8 −2 −4 0 0 1 8 −2 −5 0 0 0
 


1
2


 

 

1
[ ] [ ] [ ]  1 0 −1 
4 −1 −2 1 0 0 2 −1 − 2 2
Since −6 3 4 − 2 0 1 0 = −6 1 4 ˜ 0 1 1 ,
8 −2 −4 0 0 1 8 −2 −6 0 0 0
 1 
 2 
a basis for the eigenspace of λ3 = 2 is  −1  .
 
1
   −1
[ ] 1 1 1 [ ] 1 1 1
4 −1 −2 3 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 2
   
We thus have −6 3=  − 2 − 1 −1 
4  − 2 − 1 −1  . 0 1 0
8 −2 −4 3
1
2
1 1
3
1
2
1 1 0 0 2
([ ] [ ])
0 1 −1 1 0 0
2
15. det 1 0 1 −λ 0 1 0 = −λ3 + 2λ2 − λ = −λ (λ − 1) = 0 ⇒ λ1 = 0, and
1 −1 2 0 0 1
λ2 = 1.
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
0 1 −1 1 0 0 0 1 −1 1 0 1
Since 1 0 1 −0 0 1 0 = 1 0 1 ˜ 0 1 −1 ,
1 −1 2 0 0 1 1 −1 2 0 0 0
{[ ]}
−1
a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = 0 is 1 .
1
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
0 1 −1 1 0 0 −1 1 −1 1 −1 1
Since 1 0 1 −1 0 1 0 = 1 −1 1 ˜ 0 0 0 ,
1 −1 2 0 0 1 1 −1 1 0 0 0
{[ ] [ ]}
1 −1
a basis for the eigenspace of λ2 = 1 is 1 , 0 .
0 1
[ ] [ ][ ][ ]−1
1 −1
0 −1 1 −1 0 0 0 −1 1 −1
We thus have 0 1
1 = 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 .
−1 1
2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
([ ] [ ])
3 5 3 1 0 0
2
16. det −5 −7 −3 − λ 0 1 0 = −λ3 − 3λ2 + 4 = − (λ − 1) (λ + 2) = 0 ⇒ λ1 = 1,
3 3 1 0 0 1
and λ2[ = −2. ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
3 5 3 1 0 0 5 5 3 1 1 0
Since −5 −7 −3 − (−2) 0 1 0 = −5 −5 −3 ˜ 0 0 1 ,
3 3 1 0 0 1 3 3 3 0 0 0
]} {[
−1
a basis for the eigenspace of λ2 = 1 is 1 .
0
The
[ multiplicity ] of the eigenvalue λ2 = 1 is two, which exceeds the dimension of its eigenspace. Thus
3 5 3
−5 −7 −3 is not diagonalizable.
3 3 1
   
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
 0 2 0 0   0 1 0 0 
17. det  − λ = λ4 − 10λ3 + 35λ2 − 50λ + 24
0 0 3 0  0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1
= (λ −1) (λ − 2) (λ −3) (λ − 4) = 0 ⇒  λ1  = 1, λ2 = 2, λ3= 3,
 and λ4 = 4. 
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
 0 2 0 0   0 1 0 0   0 1 0 0   0 0 1 0 
Since  − 1
0 0 3 0  0 0 1 0   0 0 2 0   0 0 0 1 
= ˜ ,
0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
 


1 

 0 
a basis for the eigenspace of λ1 = 1 is   .

 0  
0
       
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 −1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
 0 2 0 0   0 1 0 0   0 0 0 0   0 0 1 0 
Since  − 2
0 0 3 0  0 0 1 0   0 0 1 0   0 0 0 1 
= ˜ ,
0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Springfield District M. E. Church, North, relating to the parsonage
(marked F).
“This communication was immediately sent to Hon. Jno. S.
Phelps, our counsel.
“Thus we have given you all that we have been able to do in this
matter, simply adding our opinion that we will ultimately recover our
property.
“The condition of the church at Springfield, as will be seen by
reference to the letter of R. P. Faulkner, who examined it, requires
immediate attention.
“The damage done to the house on the occasion of the defeat of the
religious fair is thus reported on by R. P. Faulkner:
“Though seriously damaged, yet it can be repaired for much less
than I had any idea of until I visited it. I had a builder go and
examine and make a rough estimate of the cost to repair the damage,
including everything but seats, pulpit, &c., who reported to me that,
if a thousand dollars would not do it, twelve hundred would.’
“From a careful survey of all the interests of our Church in
Springfield, we recommend to the Conference that measures be
immediately taken to secure for that station a man of experience,
who shall take the charge of the society and the oversight of the
repairs of the church. And to this end we submit the following
resolutions:
“1. Resolved, That the Bishop be requested to station one of the
most efficient pulpit and business men at Springfield.
“2. That the Missionary Society be requested to make as liberal
appropriations as they are able for the support of the preacher
stationed at Springfield.
“3. That with the approval of our counsel at Springfield and the
recommendation of the Board of Trustees, the preacher in charge be
authorized and requested to visit such places as he may see proper to
raise means to pay debts and repairs on the Church.
“4. That the whole matter pertaining to the church and parsonage
at Springfield be referred to the Presiding Elder of Springfield
District, the Preacher in Charge of the Station and the trustees of the
church.
“Respectfully submitted,
“W. M. Prottsman,
“W. C. Jamison.”
Church in Potosi.
The worthy Presiding Elder of the Potosi District, St. Louis
Conference M. E. Church, South, makes the following statement of
the attempt to seize and hold the church in Potosi. It furnishes at
least an illustration of the fertility of resources possessed by these
church seizers, to use a soft term, and the facility with which they
could take advantage of circumstances.
“Mississippi County, Feb. 6, 1867.
“Bro. M‘Anally: I send you, for the benefit of your correspondent

—a member of the Missouri Conference—some statements of an
attempt of ‘our brethren, the enemy,’ to take, hold and possess our
church in Potosi.
“Some time during the year 1865 a Mr. or Major Miller came to
Potosi and reported himself a minister of the ‘Old Wesleyan
Methodist Church;’ that he was neither North nor South, but
belonged to the good old Mother Church.
“As our people had no pastor, they permitted him to preach in our
church, and attended his ministry. He made an earnest effort to
proselyte our members, but failed. Rumor said he intended to take
possession of our church, but he denied it.
“Early in 1866 Mr. Sorin, his Presiding Elder, announced publicly
from the pulpit on the Sabbath that the house belonged to them, and
henceforth they intended to hold and possess the same.
“That week Bro. Wallace, one of the trustees of the church, who
had been a member for two score years, locked the door, took
possession of the key and notified Mr. Miller that he could not
preach there any more.
“Mr. Miller then notified Bro. Wallace that he would bring suit for
the church. Bro. Wallace assured him that when the law gave him the
house he would give him the key.
“In the meantime the Radicals of the town rented a hall for Mr.
Miller, in which they put an organ to help him make music.
“I held a quarterly meeting in Potosi in January, 1867, and while
there I learned that the Rev. Major had sold his friends’ organ,
pocketed the money and gone on a long journey toward the north
pole. So Madam Rumor reports.
“Our people are in quiet possession of our church house, have an
excellent Sabbath school, an organ to help the children sing, a very
gratifying increase in the membership of the Church, and no fears of
being disturbed by Messrs. Sorin, Miller and company, unless they
do as their confederates did on Castor—burn the church.
“Several of our church houses at other points have been quietly
occupied by them, but I believe they have run their race and are not
likely to trouble us much more.
W. S. Woodard.”
This case, as it exists in the above statement, ought to be sufficient

for all the purposes of history.
In Plattsburg, Clinton county, they purchased an old debt and in
that way obtained a kind of title to half the church. They also
purchased an old debt and got a title to the Plattsburg High School
property, and retain it to this day.
The property of the Southern Methodists in nearly every part of
the State suffered one way or another, and many houses of worship
were seized and used by the Northern Methodists that were not
reported in the public prints, adjudicated in the civil courts or
published in their Conference statistics.
Amongst the latter may be mentioned the churches at Plattsburg,
Macon City, Fillmore, and a church at Glasgow, built and owned by
the Southern Methodists for the use of the colored people. They
purchased the other half of the Plattsburg church, gave up the
Fillmore church after using it about five years, and never gave up the
churches at Macon City and Glasgow.
In the presence of these facts the statement so often made from the
pulpit and through the press, that the ministers and members of the
M. E. Church never at any time engaged in seizing and appropriating
to their use the property of the M. E. Church, South, sounds very
strangely in the ears of candid, honest people. They evidently did not
foresee the necessity for such a denial, and consequently were not
very careful to cover up their tracks. They so far gloried in the history
they were making as to report the property they had seized and
appropriated in their Church statistics, which they published to the
world.
The following list of property is taken from the published Statistics
of the Missouri and Arkansas Conference M. E. Church for 1865–6,
and which disappeared as fast as the suits were decided or the cases
compromised:
Independence church $17,000

Independence parsonage 3,000
Lagrange church 12,000
Springfield church 12,000
Springfield parsonage (not reported) 3,000
Boonville church 10,000
Plattsburg church 5,000
Fillmore church 500
Louisiana church 5,000
Glasgow colored church 3,000
Macon church 2,500
Total $73,000
To this may be added the churches seized and held by them for a
short time only, and given up before they could be reported to the
Conference, the property obtained for “less than half its value,” by
buying up old debts and forcing sales, where that course was
necessary, and the furniture and fixtures destroyed and damaged in
the use and abuse of the property held by them for so long, and
which was assessed upon the lawful owners in the claims of restored
decency and comfort, and the grand total would reach over
$100,000, to say nothing of rentals, costs of suits, the damage of
deprivation, etc.
In the face of all these facts, it must require no ordinary degree of
moral courage for men in high position to affirm that the ministers
and members of the M. E. Church never stole, seized, pressed,
appropriated or possessed themselves of property that did not belong
to them. Only the moral abrasion of civil war could produce the
requisite “hard cheek.”
The civil war has passed away. Missouri is no longer ruled by
shoulder straps and bayonets—the civil law is supreme—and even by
judges who “neither fear God nor regard man,” except of their own
party, the M. E. Church, South, has been reinstated and secured in
her property rights.
Those who figured conspicuously in this church-seizing business
often and loudly proclaimed that they were “making history.” True,
they made history, and now they should not complain if they stand
before the world in the light of the history they have made.
If they could afford to make the history and then boast of it, we can
certainly afford to record it, especially when it is a record of the
martyrdom of those sacred Christian principles for which a
discriminating, righteous charity has no mantle.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHURCH SEIZURES CONTINUED AND
MADE GENERAL.
War Claims of Northern Methodists Settled by Ecclesiastical Black-

Mail—Military Mitres and Episcopal Shoulder-Straps—The
Difference—The “Stanton-Ames Order”—“The Great Episcopal
Raid”—“Special Order, No. 15,” from Major-General Banks—
Official Board of Carondelet Street Church, New Orleans, and
Bishop Ames—Episcopal Power then and Ecclesiastical Criticism
now—Popular Verdict—Abandoned (?) and Embarrassed
Churches and Ecclesiastical “Bummers”—Church Extension in
the South—Letters and Extracts—Bishop Clark and “Church
Extension Meetings”—Does the End Justify the Means, or
Success Satisfy the Demands of Modern Ethics?—Property
Acquired by the M. E. Church in the South in a few Years—Four
Hundred and Eight Churches, Eighteen Parsonages and Eight
Literary Institutions in two Years, worth $446,659.00, all in Five
Conferences—Opinions of their Leading Men and Journals—
Hon. John Hogan, of St. Louis, Scuttles the Episcopal Ram—
Order from the War Department, with President Lincoln’s
Endorsement—Possible Deception—Rev. Dr. Keener, of New
Orleans, Sues for the Churches of Louisiana four Months—
McKendree Church, Nashville, Vacated, “by Order from Bishop
Simpson”—Memorial of the Holston Conference M. E. Church,
South, to the Chicago General Conference, and How it was
Treated—Action of Chicago General Conference—“Stanton-Ames
Order” Duplicated for the Baptists—Conclusion—Sensible
Warning from the St. Louis Anzeiger.
Both the purpose and plan for the seizure and appropriation of the
property of the M. E. Church, South, contemplated a much wider
range of territory than the State of Missouri. The M. E. Church,
North, had done too much to put down rebellion; had entered too
heartily into the struggle, sent too many men to the front, put too
many orators on the stump, offered too many prayers from her
pulpits and altars for the success of the Union armies and the
destruction of all rebels, and had supplied too liberally the moral and
material sinews of war, to lose a golden opportunity. The M. E.
Church, South, had many fine churches, with costly furniture and
garniture, in the chief cities of the South; and were they not rebels—
all rebels? What rights have rebels that loyal men are bound to
respect? Were not Southern Methodists traitors above all others?
The Federal Government, as represented in Generals Grant,
Sherman, Butler and Banks, could confiscate, seize and appropriate
the property of chief rebels in the South, and especially that which
had been, or could be, used in the interest of treason or rebellion;
and why could not the Federal Government, as represented in
Bishops Simpson, Ames, Clark, Kingsley and the great body of the M.
E. Church, confiscate, seize and appropriate the church property that
had been, or could be, used in the interest of treason and rebellion?
Rebel chaplains might preach in them, rebel soldiers might be
quartered in them, rebel hospitals might be made of them, and in
them the great rebellion might receive moral support. What reward
for loyalty had been specially set apart for the M. E. Church? What
the price of her prayers, her sermons, her money, her men? Another,
and that the smallest Protestant Church in the land, had the best
army and navy chaplains—had the lion’s share of appointments. Did
not the M. E. Church, South, inaugurate rebellion in 1844? And when
the force of the Southern Church is broken by the military arm—
when her great centres are broken up and her property confiscated
or destroyed, and loyal men preach a loyal gospel from her pulpits,
and teach loyalty in her halls and institutions of learning, then may it
be hoped that the moral and political heresy will be exterminated
with the heretics. Make the M. E. Church a part of the military arm of
the Government; invest the Bishops with ecclesiastico-military
authority; supply them with transportation, supplies and military
escorts; make Department Commanders subject unto them, and if
the great rebellion is not put down, the great national Church will be
put up, and the property of traitors will be converted to loyal uses.
The centres of population and power in the South will be put under
loyal training and discipline, and a moral result will be reached
which “military necessity” demands. All moral questions down in the
presence of a war measure so manifestly right and proper. Military
necessity has no conscience in the presence of a gigantic rebellion.
What religious difference between a military and an ecclesiastical
raid upon the property of rebels? Will the Government and the
Church ever quarrel over the spoils of conquest, whether gained by
an Episcopal General or a Military Bishop? Episcopal shoulder-
straps and military mitres may well lose their distinction in a
common cause against a common enemy.
The appropriateness and force of these reflections will appear in
the following well authenticated facts.
What has been called, by way of distinction, the “Great Episcopal
Raid,” had its announcement and authority in the following order,
issued from the War Department of the Federal Government, and
known as the
“Stanton-Ames Order.”
“War Department, }
Washington, D. C., Nov. 30, 1863. }
“To the Generals Commanding the Military Departments of

Mississippi, the Gulf, the South, Virginia, North Carolina,
Missouri, etc., etc.:
“You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop

Ames all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, in which a loyal minister who has been appointed by
a loyal Bishop of said Church does not officiate. It is a matter of great
importance to the Government, in its efforts to restore tranquillity to
the community and peace to the nation, that Christian ministers
should, by precept and example, support and foster the loyal
sentiments of the people.”
“(Signed) E. M. Stanton, Sec’y of War.
Thus armed, Bishop Ames started on his Episcopal raid upon the
Southern Methodist Churches, taking with him and picking up along
the route down the Mississippi a goodly number of “loyal ministers.”
The details of his exploits in the South, seizing and appropriating to
the uses of a “loyal religion” the churches of others would not be
appropriate to this work, but will be left to the history of these
strange times in their appropriate localities.
In Memphis, Tenn., Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss., Baton Rouge
and New Orleans, La., the Episcopal General found and possessed
himself of fine and costly churches. In the latter city he called the
Official Board of Carondelet street Church together—the largest,
finest and wealthiest Southern Methodist church in the city—and
formally demanded the surrender of that and the other Southern
Methodist churches in the city to him.
They objected, and in their objection set forth that “Bishop Ames,
as an officer of another Church, had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction
over them.” He replied that he “claimed no ecclesiastical jurisdiction
over them any more than over the Catholic or Episcopal Churches,
but that he came with an order from the United States Secretary of
War, and an order from General Banks, Department Commander at
New Orleans, and by that authority he demanded the surrender of
the churches.”
They replied that, as they “held the property in trust for the use
and benefit of the M. E. Church, South, they could not voluntarily
give up that trust. If they did so it must be under the stress of a
compulsion they had no power, civil or military, to resist—the Bishop
would have to compel them.”
Whereupon the Bishop obtained a military force, and the churches
were taken, just as Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans and Richmond
were taken.
An extract from the Special Order of Major-General Banks, then
commanding the “Department of the Gulf,” will show the light in
which this church-seizing business was viewed by the military
authorities as a moral “war measure.”
“Headquarters Dep’t of the Gulf, }

New Orleans, Jan. 18, 1864. }
“Special Order, No. 15.]
“V. In accordance with instructions contained in a letter from the

Secretary of War, under date of Nov. 30, 1863, all houses of worship
within this Department belonging to the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, in which a loyal minister, who has been appointed by
a loyal Bishop of said Church, does not now officiate, are hereby
placed at the disposal of the Rev. Bishop Ames.
“Commanding officers at the various points where such houses of
worship may be located are directed to extend to the ministers that
may be appointed by Bishop Ames, to conduct divine service in said
houses of worship, all the aid, countenance and support practicable
in the execution of their mission.
“Officers of the quartermaster’s and commissary departments are
authorized and directed to furnish Bishop Ames and his clerk with
transportation and subsistence, when it can be done without
prejudice to the service; and all officers will afford them courtesy,
assistance and protection.
“By command of Major-General Banks.
“George B. Drake,
Ass’t-Adj’t-General.”
Under this “Special Order No. 15” the Bishop was put in possession
of many churches, his ministers protected, and this general
superintendent and representative of the M. E. Church and his clerk
were furnished transportation and subsistence by the Government as
a “war measure.”
This involves more than that Church will admit, now that military
protection from the judgment of enlightened Christendom will not
avail, and now that ecclesiastical criticism is as unsparing as
ecclesiastical presumption was then reckless. The corollary that the
M. E. Church made distinct and aggressive war upon the M. E.
Church, South, and hence claimed belligerent rights to capture and
hold the property of the enemy in perpetuity, or until formally given
up under treaty stipulations, is a very unwelcome and uncomfortable
position to those whose religious consciences were not destroyed by
a “military necessity.” Strenuous efforts are required of the pulpit
and press to break the force of the popular verdict of the people upon
the religious and ecclesiastical aspects of this “Episcopal Raid.”
The authority thus given to Bishop Ames had a much wider and a
more general application than his personal operations. This gave the
sanction to the church seizures in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, East
Tennessee, and all through the South. The Bishops of the Methodist
Episcopal Church and their ministers penetrated the South in every
direction, and were keen on the scent of abandoned (?) churches and
other property of the M. E. Church, South. They went to the large
cities and railroad centres; got possession of churches by military
order or otherwise—“honestly, if they could, but”—they got them,
and then went out in every direction in search of abandoned,
embarrassed and libelled property which they could seize and
appropriate to the uses of a “loyal Methodism.”
While this plan was being executed in the South the “Church
Extension Society” in the Northern States and the “Missionary
Society” were furnishing the material aid necessary to support the
preachers, buy up old church debts, force sales and bid in the
property for the amount of the debt, and thus possess themselves of
property for “less than half its value.”
To show how the business was carried on, see the following
extracts from a letter of one of their missionaries in Alabama—Rev.
W. P. Miller—to the Corresponding Secretary of the Church
Extension Society of the M. E. Church, published in the Western
Christian Advocate of Jan. 1, 1868:
“There are two churches that I could secure with a little ready
money. Can you help us in time of need?
“1. A church, 45 by 55, a plain frame, covered with shingles, good
floor, with seats and pulpit, but not ceiled; built during the war, but
has never been paid for.
“Last year I raised two hundred and fifty dollars, leaving one
hundred and fifty unpaid. The man who owns the land and built the
house says if we pay him the hundred and fifty dollars he will give us
a deed, but we are so prostrated that we can not do it now. If we fail
others will do it, and we will be shut out of doors.
“Another church, 40 by 50, in general description like the
first. * * * This house was also built during the war and partly paid
for. The builder built on his own land, and was to convey the title
when paid for. He died in the war, but his widow says she will give us
a deed if we will pay her the balance, one hundred dollars. Please
help us, if possible, in this case also.”
They held “Church Extension” meetings in all the Methodist
churches in the Northern States to raise funds to meet just such
emergencies. An account of a “Church Extension Meeting,” held in
Indianapolis, Ind., is given in the Western Christian Advocate of
February 19, 1868, soon after Mr. Miller’s letter appeared. The
following is an extract:
“At Ashbury chapel Bishop Clarke preached with great power, and
in conclusion set forth the claims of the Society. He presented the
wants of three Churches in Alabama—one could be saved for fifty
dollars, another for one hundred, and a third for one hundred and
fifty. The Bishop asked the Church to aid these societies of loyal
Christians struggling for an existence, and Asbury most cheerfully
responded in a contribution of three hundred dollars.”
Upon the same subject the Northwestern Christian Advocate of
March 18, 1868, says:
“When the Church Extension Society was first organized, in
commending the new cause to our people, the Bishops in their
address said ‘We know of no agency in which the contribution of our
people can accomplish a greater amount of good.’ At a later date
Bishop Clarke, after a careful survey of the field, and especially of the
South, put the case in stronger terms, and said: ‘I do not know where
else a man’s money can be used with such certainty of sure and large
returns.’”
He then mentions as an illustration the churches reported by Rev.
W. P. Miller, and says: “The money was forwarded to Bro. Miller and
he has written to the Corresponding Secretary the results, as follows:
‘I have invested the means you sent me, and have secured the two
churches of which I wrote; title all right. The churches are frame, and
are worth here about $1,000.’”
The Missouri and Arkansas Conference, held in Louisiana, Mo.,
March 7, 1866, adopted the following:
“Resolved, That the preachers be urged to exercise personal
supervision over such church property not yet secured to trustees,
urge the churches to select trustees, and when this can not be done,
to petition the County Court to appoint such officers.” (Pub. Minutes,
p. 36.)
The Louisiana and Boonville Church property cases are in
illustration.
All the Bishops and all the Conferences of the M. E. Church
endorsed the work of Church Extension in the South, just as it was
carried on by Mr. Miller, Mr. Drake, Mr. Pearne, Dr. Newman and
their associates, and the plan was successful.
In the philosophy of some men the end justifies the means, and
success satisfies all the demands of modern ethics. It will not do to
question every wealthy man or wealthy Church too closely as to how
their property was acquired during the war. It is enough for the
curious to know that they have property, and to hope that they have
consciences as well.
That the M. E. Church has property in the Southern States in
churches, parsonages and literary institutions is an admitted fact.
That nearly all, if not all, of this property has been acquired in a very
few years, and years, too, of great poverty and destitution through
the South, will not be denied. Now, take the following facts and
figures:
The Tennessee Conference was organized Oct. 11, 1866, with
thirteen churches valued at $59,100. At its second session it reported
thirty houses of worship and one parsonage. The Georgia
Conference, at its organization, Oct. 10, 1867, reported forty-nine
churches. The Mississippi Conference was organized in 1866 with
five churches, and at its session held in December, 1867, reported
forty-seven churches, five parsonages and eight institutions of
learning. In 1866 the South Carolina Conference reports no
churches, but at its session in Charleston, February, 1868, reported
forty-nine churches and six parsonages. The Holston Conference was
organized by Bishop Clarke in 1865 with 100 churches, valued at
$31,250. At its session in October, 1867, just two years after, it
reported 203 churches and six parsonages. These five Conferences,
with an average existence of two years, report 408 churches,
eighteen parsonages and eight institutions of learning, at an
estimated aggregate value of $446,659. The increase up to 1868 will
reach largely over half a million.
Others may ask where and how they acquired so much property in
so short a time, and amongst a people desolated and torn by war and
impoverished even to beggary and want by the sword, the torch, the
pestilence, the famine, the floods, the drouth, the Bureau and the
reconstruction.
The policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as announced in
their great official organ, the New York Christian Advocate, and
carried out as far as could be by their emissaries in the South, was to
“disintegrate and absorb the M. E. Church, South.”
Dr. Newman, editor of the New Orleans Advocate, said in the New
York Methodist, of May 23, 1868:
* * * “And we solemnly hold that it would be of incalculable
advantage to the South, and the cause of Christianity therein, if the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, should cease to be.”
Upon the reunion of the two Churches, Dr. N. E. Cobleigh, of
Athens, Tenn., in an article in the Northern Christian Advocate, of
April 1, 1868, says:
“The Church property, too, of which we have taken possession in
the South, must be given back to them (the M. E. Church, South,)
before they will consent to treat upon the subject.”
Dr. Daniel Curry, editor of the New York Christian Advocate, said
before the Preachers’ Meeting of New York, in May, 1866:
“Wherever we have taken churches the policy has proved bad. The
first act of the Church, South, toward us, after this, was a charge of
church stealing—a high crime before the law. We did not mean to do
wrong, but it has put us in a bad position.”
The New Orleans Advocate, of Feb. 10, 1866, says:
“We have seen a letter from Bishop Ames, which was dated
Baltimore, Md., Jan. 20, 1866, and which contained this glorious
news: ‘The President has issued an order putting us in possession of
210 churches and 32 parsonages, which the Rebel Methodists in
Virginia have occupied during the war.’”
This was “glorious news” to Dr. Newman, himself occupying at the
time a church obtained from “Rebel Methodists” by this same Bishop
Ames upon an order from Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War. These
Bishops had a summary way of getting possession of other people’s
property. The cry of “Rebel Methodists” and treason against the
Government from them and their tools could always move the
Government officials to issue such orders as would put them in
possession of the property of rebels. But whether the rebels
themselves were crushed out or made better by the transaction, are
matters about which little was said.
There is yet another aspect of this general question worthy of note.
While Bishop Ames was in the South prosecuting under War
Department orders his great scheme of ecclesiastical piracy, and the
many smaller ecclesiastics were similarly engaged in other portions
of the conquered provinces, steps were being taken to forestall the
Bishop when his ecclesiastical ram should be directed against the
“Rebel Methodists” of St. Louis. Hon. John Hogan, member of
Congress from St. Louis, went to Washington and made
representations to the President of the facts in the case, and when
the good Bishop reached St. Louis he was met by an order from the
War Department, with an endorsement from the President of the
United States, repealing his Stanton order and putting an estoppel
upon his proceedings, especially in Missouri.
The following order was obtained by Mr. Hogan from the War
Department, with President Lincoln’s endorsement exempting the
churches of Missouri from seizure under Mr. Stanton’s order:
“War Department, Adjutant-General’s Office, }

“Washington, February 13, 1864. }
Order.]
“Major-General Rosecrans, U.S. Volunteers, Commanding

Department of the Missouri, St. Louis, Mo.:
“Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that the orders

from the Department placing at the disposal of the constituted
Church authorities in the Northern States houses of worship in
other States is designed to apply only to such States as are
designated by the President’s Proclamation as being in rebellion,
and is not designed to operate in loyal States, nor in cases where
loyal congregations in rebel States shall be organized and worship
upon the terms prescribed by the President’s Amnesty
Proclamation.
“I am, sir, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,

“Jas. A. Hardie,
“Assistant Adjutant-General.”
This order bears the following endorsement in Mr. Lincoln’s own

proper hand:
“As you see within, the Secretary of War modifies his order so as
to exempt Missouri from it. Kentucky was never within it; nor, as I
learn from the Secretary, was it ever intended for any more than a
means of rallying the Methodist people in favor of the Union in
localities where the rebellion had disorganized and scattered them.
Even in that view I fear it is liable to some abuses; but it is not
quite easy to withdraw it entirely, and at once.
A. Lincoln.
“February 13, 1864.”
That is a damaging disclosure. Were Mr. Stanton, Secretary of

War, and Mr. Lincoln, President of the United States, imposed upon
and deceived by these high Church dignitaries? The famous Stanton-
Ames order “never intended for any more than a means of rallying
the Methodist people in favor of the Union in localities where the
rebellion had disorganized and scattered them!” Was it ever used for
other purposes? How about the Churches seized and appropriated by
authority of this same order in cities and communities where the
Methodist people had never been disorganized and scattered, and
where “the Methodist people” intended to be “rallied” had never
been organized—never even had an existence?
It did not require Mr. Lincoln’s sagacity to see that such an order
was “liable to some abuse,” but it does require a good deal of effort to
believe that even Northern Methodist Bishops could deceive the
Government, and then pervert and “abuse” an order from the War
Department. But we are forced to accept the facts in the case.
The action of Mr. Hogan and his success in defeating the purposes
of Bishop Ames gave hope and courage to others, and in June, 1865,
Dr. Keener, of New Orleans, went to Washington and made a formal
and most earnest application to the President and Secretary of War
for the restoration of the churches in Louisiana to their rightful
owners.
He remained in Washington prosecuting his almost hopeless
mission for four long, weary months. After this wearisome
prosecution of what seemed to be a forlorn hope, the President (Mr.
Johnson) gave the order and restored the property, which the
Northern Bishops could have restored with the stroke of a pen. This
gracious favor was obtained from the President much upon the
principle of the widow and the unjust judge: “And there was a widow
in that city; and she came unto him and said, avenge me of mine
adversary. And he would not for awhile; but afterward he said within
himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this
widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming
she weary me.”
So it was the Churches, at least some of them, were restored. “And
will not God avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him?
I tell you, he will avenge them speedily.”
Enboldened by success, others made application to the President
for the restoration of their churches. Upon such application the
churches in Vicksburg, Miss., Memphis and Nashville, Tenn., were
given up.
In regard to the latter a Nashville (Tenn.) correspondent of a
Northern Methodist paper says:
“Things are moving slowly, as far as our church is concerned.
Upon an order from Bishop Simpson, we vacated McKendree last
week, and are now holding services in Masonic Hall. Our
congregations are small, but we hope for better times. * * * * Our
dear Southern brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
persuasion are flocking back to their old haunts, and hold up their
heads as if they were not guilty of the blood and suffering of the past
four years.”
“Upon an order from Bishop Simpson” they vacated McKendree,
after they had been put into it and occupied it so long upon an order
from Bishop or General somebody else. But who “ordered” Bishop
Simpson? Why did he require his brethren to “vacate McKendree?”
For the same reason that Dr. Newman vacated Carondelet street
Church, New Orleans, and the churches in Memphis, Vicksburg and
other places were vacated.
Others may detail the “pious fraud” upon the churches at
Knoxville, and Athens, and other places in Tennessee, while the
general subject only requires here a notice of the Memorial of the
Holston Conference, M. E. Church, South, to the General Conference
of the M. E. Church at Chicago, in the spring of 1868, and the notice
taken of it by that General Conference. The following is the
MEMORIAL OF THE HOLSTON
CONFERENCE METHODIST EPISCOPAL
CHURCH, SOUTH.
“To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, at Chicago, Ills., May, 1868:
“The undersigned were appointed a committee at the session of

the Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South, held at
Cleveland, East Tennessee, in October last, to memorialize your
reverend body, and to set forth distinctly the wrongs which we are
suffering at the hands of agents of the M. E. Church within our
bounds; and also to entreat you to devise some means by which an
end may be made to these outrages, for the honor of Methodism and
for the sake of our common Christianity.
“Our churches have been seized by ministers and members of the
M. E. Church, and are still held and used by them as houses of
worship.
“To give the semblance of legality to these acts and of right to this
property, trustees have been appointed by the authorities of the M.
E. Church; and these churches are annually reported by your
ministers in their Conference statistics.
“From these churches our ministers are either excluded and
driven, or allowed only a joint occupancy with your ministers. From
some of them our ministers in their regular rounds of district and
circuit work are excluded by locks and bars, or by armed men
meeting them at the doors; from others they are driven by mobs, and
threatened with death should they attempt a return; at one a
presiding elder and a preacher in charge of the circuit, at a quarterly
meeting appointment, were arrested and marched fifteen miles
amidst indignities and insults; at another, an aged and godly
minister was ridden upon a rail; at another, the same man found at
the door bundles of rods and nails, and also a written notice
prohibiting him from preaching at the risk of torture; at another, a
notice was handed to our preacher, signed by a class leader in the M.
E. Church, in which was the following language: ‘If you come back

Download Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Holt Solutions Manual all chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Download Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Holt Solutions Manual all chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Holt Solutions Manual all chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd

Edition Holt Solutions Manual

Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Holt Test

Linear Algebra with Applications 2nd Edition Bretscher

Linear Algebra with Applications 5th Edition Bretscher

Linear Algebra With Applications 8th Edition Leon

Elementary Linear Algebra with Applications 9th Edition

Financial Algebra Advanced Algebra with Financial

Linear Algebra and Its Applications 5th Edition Lay

Linear Algebra And Its Applications 4th Edition Lay

Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors

6.1 Practice Problems

6. (a) False. The zero vector is not an eigenvector.

6.1 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors

45. The characteristic polynomial is det (A − λI) =

46. The characteristic polynomial is det (A − λI) =

51. Since λ = 1 is an eigenvalue of A, det (A − λI) = det (A − I) = 0. Thus A − I is singular.

53. If Au = λ1 u = λ2 u, then (λ1 − λ2 ) u = 0. Since u is an eigenvector, u ̸= 0, and hence λ1 − λ2 = 0.

56. Consider the case where A is upper triangular,

) λ ̸= 0. (Let u be)an eigenvector of A associated with λ, so Au = λu. Multiply by

64. We have Au = λu, and consider (A − cIn ) u = Au − cu = λu − cu = (λ − c) u. Thus λ − c is an

det (A − λIn ) = (a11 − λ) C11 + a12 C12 + · · · + a1n C1n

6.2 Practice Problems

“Mississippi County, Feb. 6, 1867.

“Bro. M‘Anally: I send you, for the benefit of your correspondent

This case, as it exists in the above statement, ought to be sufficient

Independence church $17,000

War Claims of Northern Methodists Settled by Ecclesiastical Black-

“To the Generals Commanding the Military Departments of

“You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop

“(Signed) E. M. Stanton, Sec’y of War.

“Headquarters Dep’t of the Gulf, }

“Special Order, No. 15.]

“V. In accordance with instructions contained in a letter from the

“War Department, Adjutant-General’s Office, }

“Major-General Rosecrans, U.S. Volunteers, Commanding

“Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that the orders

Your obedient servant,

This order bears the following endorsement in Mr. Lincoln’s own

“February 13, 1864.”

That is a damaging disclosure. Were Mr. Stanton, Secretary of

“The undersigned were appointed a committee at the session of

You might also like