This summer brought three new graduates of the Masters in American History and Government program: Emily Swogger, graduating in May, and Matthew Lo and Brandon Fox, who graduated in August. Each took a close look at one aspect of the American Founding, applying it to an important question in American life.

Emily Swogger wrote a capstone project examining how the concept of the "American Mind" influenced the Women's Rights movement. The term "American Mind" was coined by Thomas Jefferson, who used it to characterize the mindset of those pursuing the Revolution. These men staked their effort on the conviction that human beings possess natural rights that government cannot abrogate; that therefore government exists only by consent of the governed. While the prominent actors at the time of the Revolution and Founding were indeed men, Swogger wanted to show the ways in which women applied these convictions to their own movement for political representation.

"I love women's history," Emily said, laughingly complaining that none of the classes in the MAHG program focus on women's experience. "But in a class I took on the American Revolution, I was struck when Professor Rob McDonald mentioned a woman shortly after the Revolutionary time period who was calling for the principles of the Declaration to be applied to women.

"I was also thinking about Abigail Adams' letter to John Adams, during the time of the drafting of the Declaration, in which she asked those planning the new nation's laws to 'remember the ladies' and threatened a female insurrection if they did not," she continued. Emily wrote a three-lesson teaching unit on the political movement among women that culminated in the mid-nineteenth century founding of a drive for women's suffrage in the United States.

The first lesson, covering the Revolutionary period, helps students understand the idea of the "American mind" as well as the concept of "republican motherhood," a role often assigned to women in the Revolutionary era by religious leaders, who called on women to raise patriotic sons who would take on public service roles in the new republic. One effect of this new emphasis on the contributions of women was an increase in educational opportunities for them. "The thought was, educate women and they can educate their sons," Emily explained.

The second lesson introduces students to social movements in the early 19th century in which women took leading roles. Emily noted that women active in the Temperance and Abolition movements gained confidence and learned techniques that would serve them in the Women's Rights movement.

The third lesson covers the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, where Elizabeth Cady Stanton presented a Declaration of Sentiments stating that "all men and women are created equal" along with eleven resolutions calling for protection of equal rights between men and women in all spheres of national and social life, including the crucial right to vote.

Emily's lesson plans include readings in such primary documents as Catherine Beecher's "Suggestions Respecting Improvements in Education," which advocated training women as teachers, and Alexis de Tocqueville's remarks, in the second volume of Democracy in America, on female education in the United States. She also devised an activity in which students write journal entries from two points of view, one that of a girl living in 1790 and another that of a girl living in 1820. "There was a big change in attitudes about women's education during that thirty-year period," Emily said.

"I was surprised by the number of women in the early republic who were speaking out about women's rights," Emily said of her study. Noting that such important leaders as Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were no longer living by the time of the passage of the 19th amendment, Emily said her study suggests the importance of civic activism. "It's important for students to see how long and hard people worked" for rights such as women's suffrage, she said. This teaches students that movements that begin in small ways "may lead to accomplishment much later."

Emily's advisor was Professor Chris Burkett, who said, "Emily put a lot of work into her project, especially in searching for the best documents to incorporate in the lessons. She also did a nice job of tying all of her major themes together in the scholarly paper that accompanied her lesson plans." Emily described Professor Burkett as "very helpful. He even called me on Christmas Day to talk with me about the capstone proposal I had submitted!" Emily, who teaches eighth grade social studies in Akron, Ohio, is now pursuing a second Masters degree in library science.

Brandon Fox embarked on his thesis, "Constitutional War Powers," as a way of focusing on a seldom discussed aspect of the statesmanship of Thomas Jefferson. "I always liked Jefferson; I thought this would be the most novel or unique approach to him," Brandon explained. His research uncovered yet another of the many paradoxical relationships between Jefferson's thoughts on government and his practice.

Although war powers in the Constitution are divided between the executive and legislative branches, the exact distribution of these powers between the two branches was controversial during the writing and ratification of the Constitution and remains controversial today. Brandon argues that the Founders intended for the executive to wield the decisive power. His thesis tests this argument by examining one of the first uses of executive authority to wage war.

In 1801, during a Congressional recess, Jefferson decided to send a naval fleet to suppress the Barbary pirates. Operating off the shores of North Africa, this group of pirates customarily attacked merchant ships passing through the area, holding their crews for ransom. For centuries, European powers had paid tribute to the rulers of North African states in order to protect their commercial vessels from attack. American ships had enjoyed British-bought protection during the colonial period and then the protection of France during the Revolution. After winning independence, however, the United States had to arrange its own way of appeasing the pirates.

Jefferson had opposed the paying of tribute since his service as ambassador to France. Brandon points to an exchange of letters in 1786 between Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as ambassador to Great Britain. Jefferson deplored the payment of tribute, speaking of the possibility of forming an alliance of powers to fight the pirates. Adams did not think such an attempt feasible and was resigned to continue paying tribute, which became the policy of first Washington's and then Adams' presidencies.

Soon after Jefferson became president, he had to confront a demand from the pasha of Tripoli for more tribute. Jefferson's refusal to pay prompted the pasha to declare war. The new president, who earlier had opposed developing the U.S. Navy beyond a capacity for coastal defense, now dispatched a squadron of naval ships to the Mediterranean.

The Barbary War lasted until 1805 and was effective in ending, over time, the Euro-American appeasement of piratical states. Remembered primarily today as the occasion for American Marines to fight on "the shores of Tripoli," it is to Brandon an instructive lesson in the willingness of presidents, even one like Jefferson, who is known for his suspicion of executive authority, "to wield a robust foreign policy."

The Barbary War occupies the middle chapter of Brandon's thesis. The first chapter aims to construct the original meaning of the Constitutional assignment of war powers, primarily by examining the differing arguments of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. During the ratification debate, eight papers of The Federalist, largely authored by Hamilton, discuss these powers. After ratification, an action of President Washington prompted Hamilton and Madison to take up the question again, this time with contesting interpretations.

In 1793 Washington, in disregard of the nation's alliance with France, proclaimed American neutrality in the war between France and Britain. Hamilton defended Washington's proclamation in a newspaper editorial, and Madison, using the pseudonym "Helvidius," attacked this defense. He saw it as an abrogation of Congressional authority. This prompted an exchange of public letters between the two, known as the Pacificus-Helvidius debate. While Madison argued that "constitutional war powers are evenly split between the two branches," Hamilton maintained that "the President has all the executive power he needs" to wage or to decline war in the Constitutional statement that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," Brandon said.

Jefferson, who had urged Madison to attack Hamilton's view of executive authority, would later find himself having to defend his decision to dispatch a fleet during a Congressional recess. Speaking of the Barbary War in his first annual message to Congress, Jefferson admitted his own view that "technically, he acted outside of the boundaries of the Constitution." In defending his decision, Jefferson "draws on Locke's idea of 'prerogative power,' which he defines as the executive's power to act where the letter of the law is silent, or even sometimes against the law, in order to protect the common good." Essentially, Brandon said, Jefferson "throws himself on the judgment of the people" to approve or disapprove his action by reelecting him or not.

In the last chapter of his thesis, Brandon moves the debate over Constitutional War Powers to the present day, discussing George W. Bush's declaration of a "war on terror." Conceding that, "certainly, the details of the circumstances are different," Brandon says he concluded that Jefferson had asserted the executive authority to wage war "even more boldly than Bush," especially when one considers that Jefferson's decision during a Congressional recess guaranteed him an unequalled period of uninhibited action. Given the state of the roads in 1801, "it would have been very hard for Congress to come back into session" to reverse an executive act.

Brandon, who teaches history at North Olmsted High School, located in a western suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, said he has "very much enjoyed the MAHG program" and particularly appreciated the help given by his thesis advisor, Jeffrey Sikkenga, who "steered me in the right direction and pointed me to critical resources." Professor Sikkenga said, "Brandon dug deeply into the question of war powers and developed an argument that was both theoretically rigorous and rooted in a careful study of history. It was a fine effort."

Matt Lo's thesis focused on the clause of the Constitution regarding the international slave trade. Titled "Article I, Section 9: A Principled Act of Prudence," the thesis examines the compromise made between anti-slavery and pro-slavery delegates on the question of whether to ban the importation of slaves into the new nation. Tracing the debates over this clause through the Constitutional Convention, the state ratification conventions, and the subsequent debates over slavery in the new Congress during 1790, Matt assesses the justice and prudence of this peculiarly specific provision of the Constitution.

The provision, carefully worded to avoid mention of the term "slavery," stipulated that the importation of slaves into the United States could not be abolished prior to 1808: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

This clause resulted from a controversy over congressional powers that erupted during the 1787 Convention when the Committee of Detail presented its initial draft of the Constitution. The committee, chaired by South Carolina delegate John Rutledge, had written a clause barring Congress from ever prohibiting or taxing the importation of slaves. When the convention delegates came to debate this clause in the draft, opposition arose not only from northern delegates but also from influential Virginians, including James Madison. They countered with a proposal that Congress be permitted to abolish the international slave trade by 1800. The point was resolved when, at the request of delegates from North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, this date was moved back to 1808.

After this, the question of the slave trade became part of the debate over whether to ratify the Constitution. Matt focused much of the research for his thesis on the debate in three key states where the slavery question played a crucial role: South Carolina, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. "I tried to focus on who the people were who supported the clause concerning the slave trade, and what their reasoning was. The overall question was whether this clause was just and prudent."

Matt explained that there are two competing views of the Founders' attitude toward slavery in the republic. According to historians who say the Founders pursued the "high road" on the slavery question, the Constitutional provision regarding the slave trade was intended to support the gradual abolition of slavery. Others, who claim the Founders took the "low road" on the question, say the stipulations of Article one, Section 9 were not expected to undermine slavery. Established planters in the South already had more slaves than they needed and would sell the children of these slaves to planters beginning operations in newly settled areas. Further importation of slaves from Africa would not be necessary to perpetuate the slave labor system.

Matt argues that "the best thinkers of the time felt that if you cut off the international trade in slaves, this would eventually end slavery." His examination of the debate showed an emerging consensus that slavery needed to be gradually ended. "I was surprised by the number of Americans speaking out forcefully against the international slave trade" at the time of the Founding, he said. "A lot of these arguments were made in Virginia by Virginia slave-owners, which I thought fascinating as well."

Perhaps it was this emerging consensus that emboldened two groups to ask Congress in 1790 to act against slavery. One petition was presented by a delegation of Quakers and the other by Benjamin Franklin, acting on behalf of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Arguing that the slave trade was inconsistent with America's political and religious ideals, these groups essentially asked Congress to override the provisions of Article I, Section 9. Lo was surprised to find that the Southern response to these petitions went beyond demanding compliance with the Constitution as written. Southern Congressmen presented "a thorough defense of slavery on moral, religious, and economic grounds.… I thought that this philosophical defense of slavery had emerged later, with people like John Calhoun, but I found that by 1790 a lot of it's already there."

Given the vigorous Southern reaction to anti-slavery measures presented to Congress only months after ratification of the new Constitution was secured, Lo concluded that any effort by the Founders to speedily abolish slavery in the United States would have failed—or won only at the cost of secession by the southernmost states. His thesis argues that the slave trade clause, while "not entirely just, was the best of the alternatives on the table." It was a prudent measure, because it made room for eventual Congressional action to stem the spread of slavery, but distanced the time of this action enough to reassure the lower Southern states that they could safely ratify the new Constitution.

Matt, who has begun his seventh year teaching history at Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory in Indianapolis, says his time in the MAHG program has "reinvigorated my career." His thesis work has helped him formulate a way of countering a typical shallowness in discussions of history, he said. "It's really easy to focus on the negative accounts, what people failed to do." If you look more closely, however, "always there are people standing up for what is right. Even though they may not win the day, they set the framework for the justice that will be done later."

Matt praised his thesis advisor, Professor Chris Flannery. "I couldn't have asked for anyone better," he said. "When I sent him the first draft of my thesis, he read it closely and carefully, and got it back to me within 24 hours.… I went through about four rounds of revisions, but would you believe that the whole task was completed within about nine days after I sent him my first draft?" Professor Flannery said that the first draft Matt submitted to him was very impressive. He asked Matt to fix or develop a few sections and, when he did, Flannery sent it off to Gordon Lloyd who was the second reader. "Gordon knows more about this subject than anyone I know," said Flannery. Dr. Lloyd suggested a couple of substantive points for Matt to reconsider, which he was able quickly to do. At that point, all that was needed was signatures. "Matt produced a fine thesis," said Flannery. "It contributes substantially to understanding the founding statesmanship behind Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution."