LAD #21: Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth

While orating his "Gospel of Wealth" Andrew Carnegie voices the benefits of a capitalistic economy centralized around Big Business.  Despite many's belief that he, being a billionaire of his time, was an upright robber baron, Carnegie stands strong on his opinion that the rich and poor gap is necessary to maintain a healthy and stable economy.  He believed that universal, communistic equality was not the best method to maintain the nations economy -- it needed the rich-poor gap.  Then, he proceeds to propose methods of equally spreading out the wealthy's money in order to maintain a balance, for it was their duty to use their excess to better the entire human race.  First he brings up the primogeniture ideal of Europe, saying that even though it positively promotes money circulation, it creates numerous restrictions and limitations.  Since all of the money is passed onto the first born son, it both impedes his determination to succeed (he now has everything he needs) but it also deprives state money.  Secondly he addresses that when the wealthy die, there should be death taxes placed on his wealth so that his unused money gets into the hands of many -- not just staying with one.  All in all, that is the focal belief and voice of Andrew Carnegie.  He believed that men ought to spend and invest their money to benefit society and the entirety of the human race.  For example he himself was a great philanthropist, supporting many libraries and the establishment of the Carnegie Institute of Technology while Carnegie-Mellon University bears his name.

LAD #20: Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation, in general, states two central ideals. One: that any blacks that held as slaves in the Southern Seceded States, currently joining the rebellion with the Union, are considered "forever free" and are to be fully respected and considered a citizen with the social liberties, freedom, and respect of any other -- this was prominent in the military (blacks were to be considered regular soldiers and were to be held in the same standards as any other, white or black).  The second ideal explained the extent to which these ideals were to be implied (what states the proclamation applies to).  Even though some regions in Louisiana and Virginia do not have to comply to Lincoln's emancipation (an example would be Nawlins), the following states of: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia have to stand by the freedoms that Lincoln expresses in his speech.  Anyone considered a slave that resided in these states were to be, from then on, considered free men, liberated from their perpetual servitude.

LAD # 19: Lincoln's Second Inaugural

In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln expresses his view of the Civil War and the Union whilst portraying the nature of two and their similarities.  He talks about how neither side (Unionists nor Secessionists) wanted a war, for there had been much appeasement and diplomatic disagreements between the two that had been bloodless and relatively peaceful (yet still proving to divide the nation).  Antebellum America was basically a peaceful war between the two opposing sides -- there were fights and arguments, but no bloodshed.  But, the extremism on both sides -- which resulted in the war -- was eventually accepted and rallied upon by both sides.  The surprising factor was the unexpected brutality and length that the war undertook.  Neither side saw the ominous and foreboding future until it had already befallen them.  However, this naivety portrays all of the similarities between the seemingly polar opposite forces.  Each side looked to the omnipotent and Almighty God to aid them against their foe.  Yet Lincoln refutes this statement explaining that no such prayer has been or will ever be answered, for God has his own priorities and agenda when it comes to war.  He may desire a short, brief, war with minimal blood spilt, or may convene the two forces until "every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword."  The overall purpose of his speech is more meant to expose the natural destiny of the country as an organized Union, and to press the people of the North to continue their efforts to ensure that America remains as such.

LAD #18: Dred Scott Case

In lue of the Supreme Court's decision of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney agreed with Sanford.  His decisiveness was the causation of the fact that Scott, being a slave born of parents who emigrated to the United States from a foreign country, was not an American citizen and therefore not guaranteed any basic Constitutional rights.  Taney loosely interpreted that America's prized document made no clear distinctions between slaves and property -- technically Scott was never in position or viable to claim his civil and liberal rights as a person, much less present his case to a court (State of Federal).  Moreover, Scott's owner (Sanford) -- who was a legitimate and legal citizen of the United States -- was protected and backed by the Constitution.  Since Scott was a slave, the property of Sanford, the Courts were left with no other option than to hand over Scott to Sanford.  Yet, this challenged and rivaled the authority and written consent of the Missouri Compromise because despite Scott's habituation in Illinois (a free slave state) as a free man, he was still considered the property and belonging of Sanford and therefore had no basis to sue in a slave-state (Missouri).  In the end, Taney found the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional.

LAD #17: Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" Speech

Sojourner Truth's famous speech in Akron, Ohio rotates around the injustice that despite womens' frequent proof that they are equal and just as capable as men, they are denied the same rights.  Contrary to the infamous stereotypes, "Nobody ever helps [her] into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives [her] any best place! And ain't [she] a woman?"  She expresses to the listeners that she plows and works in the field, just like a man, and eats as much but she's still a woman.  Everything that she does in her life is equal. or greater, to that of a man, and she's still a woman.  Later, she questions that despite their lack of intelligence, what does intellect have to do with womens' rights?  "If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?"  She lastly reasons with the beliefs of Christianity and the belief that Christ was a man -- not a woman.  Yet he must have came from a woman.  She voices that men have been, and will always be, nothing without women -- so why can't they be equal.

LAD #16: Frederick Douglass' "5th of July" Speech

"What to a slave is the 4th of July?"  This was the centerpiece to Frederick Douglass's "5th of July Speech" taken place in Rochester, NY in 1852.  Deciding to speak with his enslaved brothers of the South, he expresses his dislike for the practices of slavery within the United States and illustrates that these feelings are only magnified by Americans' celebration of Independence day -- their sovereignty and liberation from the British tyranny.  However, he also finds it essential to remind the country that amongst their joyous festivities, the forgotten and neglected African Americans feel that much more adamant about the injustices of America.  To take away one's right to freedom, to strip them of their inalienable rights, to beat, whip, burn, and/or starve them into obedience, to separate them from their family, etc., exemplifies the idea that African Americans are less than their fellow men. Yet Douglass reminds America, such a notion is ridiculous being just as successful as their white counterparts.  Occupations such as, "erecting houses, constructing bridges...capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshiping the Christian's God." Lastly, Douglass puts forth that while no other nation in history has made such noble claims for independence there is no other country on Earth that has allowed the injustices on human lives (slaves) compared with this free and independent America.

LAD #15: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was created to both commemorate the soldiers of the civil war who gave their lives to preserve the Union and to stress the importance and gravity of such a demanding cause. However, Lincoln understands that by no means could any value of worth be added to sacrifices that these Union soldiers made by mere words alone. By paying the ultimate price they have consecrated the lands with their blood and the living cannot serve the dead merely by commemoration, but by their will to continue with utmost devotion the cause the martyrs chose to protect: a free government "of the people, by the people, [and] for the people...four score and seven years ago."

LAD #14: Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he focuses on the issue of slavery (which was the main cause of the schism between the North and Southern states).  Lincoln begins by refusing to choose a side on the issue -- he made it clear that his only goal was preserve the unity of the States as a unified nation.  Furthermore, he exemplifies that he has no lawful right, desire, nor inclination to interfere with either factions beliefs in slave holding policies.  He turns to the Constitution for the final judgement of the matter.  In its accordance, any person who is issued into service or labor in one state can be liberated in another.  This is the basis for the fugitive motive to make it to the North --  if they can make it there then they are guaranteed freedom and is also why Lincoln stressed to the North to not fully return all the fugitive slaves (an action which is countered by the South's infrequent engaging with illegal international slave trade).  Despite Lincoln's belief that these problems will never be fully solved, he strengthens the case that if the nation splits over the cause then minor problems will become worse, and all conflicts or feuds between the two factions will never be mended. Lincoln also stresses the importance of the Unity that has held together the United States since before the creation or ratification of the Constitution. The states, whether they engage in hostile or amicable relations with each other, must interact for mutual benefit -- any act of secession would lead to anarchy, or worse: despotism.  He concludes that we must not be enemies but friends.

LAD #13: John Calhoun's Speech (Clay's Antebellum Compromise)

In Calhoun's speech, he brings up the controversial topic of slavery that, at the present time, has plagued and divided the union.  Despite the agreeable compromise of 3/5 representation that the South had been using ever since it was created in 1787, the North had slowly been gaining the upper hand of representation and was ready to assume complete control of the government.  Calhoun states that all that is needed for a political party/faction to take command is the majority of population and states represented in the Senate.  This is further solidified because the Union is about to admit five new northern states based off of the newly acquired territories in Oregon, Minnesota, and land ceceded from Mexico. However, in the South, there are no new states are open for acceptance into the union.  Population wise, Calhoun believes that the import tariffs used to collect revenue are augmenting the split in favor of the North, not only by contributing to their wealthy elite (at the expense of Southern farmers no less) but by also making the North a prosperous  attraction  to immigrants (which would further tip the scales).  Finally, the hostilities between the two sections on slavery are further straining the Union. While Northern abolitionists scream at slavery's supposed immorality, Calhoun states that it has been a fundamental institution to the social and economic status of the South -- its relinquishing will cause ruin and devastation. Calhoun affirms that the only way the Union can be preserved is if the stronger party, the North, is willing to give the South its rights to represent newly acquired territory, return fugitive slaves, and cease agitation over the morality of slavery. This way the political equilibrium of the North and South will be at ease, decreasing the threat of secession from an integral part of the Union.

LAD #12: Polk's War Message

Polk's War Address identifies the causes surrounding the United States' impending involvement in war with Mexico.  Originally seeking a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to the problems, President Polk sent an envoy to peacefully negotiate terms with Mexico's head of government, General Herrera, to resolve the border disputes and numerous injustices of the Mexican Government against American settlers.  However, after a revolution in Mexico, its political and social relations with the United States shifted with its shift in power, and the government no longer sought peaceful appeasement.  They did not associate themselves with the American envoy, John Slidell, and refuted any attempts of peace.  In fact, the Mexican government actually engaged in hostile relations with American soldiers and settlers along both the Rio del Norte and the Nuces River -- these actually became part of Texas when it was annexed in 1836.  With the uneasy regards of both sides, the Mexican hostilities towards the U.S. troops provided him a complete justification against a nation already with shaky relationships.

LAD#11: Seneca Falls Declaration

The Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions is a fantastic example for claims to one's civil liberties and rights in respect to the public.  Modeled after America's prized document -- The Declaration of Independence -- the Seneca Falls Declaration shows the desire for equal and inalienable rights in both men and women.  The document then follows suit with the Declaration and goes on to explain that the government is supposed to protect and enforce these equal liberties and rule in the consent of the governed.  However, according to the Seneca Falls Convention, history has shown that government has not been able to illustrate this belief for equality; women have always been subordinate to men.  Furthermore, a list of grievances is listed that explains the 'tyrannical' and sexist acts of men towards women, such as: denial of suffrage, denial of property and wages, prevention of a high education, creating a different moral code for men and women, etc.  Yet, the document ends on a high note, explaining resolutions that would gain women a balance in the equality of men, further asserting their civil rights to that of a man that have been unjustly taken away.

LAD #10: Monroe Doctrine

In the Monroe Doctrine, President Monroe declared that the American Continents, in accordance with the agreements made with the governments of imperial Russia and Britain, have been declared free and independent to any belief of colonization. Next, Monroe discusses international alliances (because of the impending Civil War occurring in Spain). Sympathizing with the rebels' claims to independence yet also noticing they are not an official government by themselves, the United States must again adopt and stand by a policy of neutrality, so as not interfere with the concers of "de facto" governments. This act of neutrality will ensure that the United States does not become enthralled by the allied system of the major European Powers suchas as Britain, Spain, and France -- The policies of the western hemisphere are incompatible with those of the eastearn.  America has taken a position which requires action only when the rights of its citizens are effected on their side of the Atlantic and shall only make preparation for their defense in expectation of such injuries. Lastly, Monroe asserts that any affiliation with the allied European system will result in unhappiness and conflict (making neutrality the only acceptable option).

LAD #9: Jefferson's First Inaugural Address

In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson first presents the nation with a modest acceptance of the task that is "too great for his talents." However, he assures the people that he will find resources of virtue, wisdom, and zeal.  Once found, he can use these principles to resolve the problems facing the commercial, physical, and industrial expansion of the nation. He then explains that in order for this union to fully thrive and become prosperous, the people must "unite in common efforts for the common good." He attests that as a tolerant republic, the people will have the same idealistic principles, even though they may not have the same opinions. Jefferson is still able to unquestionably support the dissenters of Republicanism (as with any minority).  He blatantly supports their equal rights to freedom of opinions and religion as he does for the majority, letting common sense and the lessons of history be their sole arguers. The nation is therefore left to develop and progress their views of Federalism and Republicanism, unhindered by the the social torrents of a Europe. Void of their destructive influence, America has developed their own political "religion," which includes honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and love of man (civic virtue).  Every man has "equal rights to the use of their faculties," and that honor and confidence are not manners of birth right but of our actions to carry out such civic virtues. After describing these public virtues, Jefferson expresses his own political priorities which include: equal justice to all men regardless of views or background; support of State's rights for domestic policy (hand in hand with the support for the Federal Government for peace abroad) -- foreign policy; full agreement with the will of the majority; the maintenance of a well trained militia until "regulars" are employed; supremacy of agriculture; freedoms of speech, press, trial by jury etc.  Jefferson concludes by saying that he will uphold these priorities to the best of his abilities, and asks the people to forgive him of unintentional defects of judgment on his quest to uphold the happiness and liberty of the people.

LAD #8: Columbus Blog

All Americans know the day of October 12, 1492 to be the very day the Christopher Columbus discovered America.  It is a national holiday and celebrated all over the country as one of the most important days in American history.  Everyone praises Columbus for this singular task and view him as a world renowned hero.  However, people seem to forget all of the atrocities and violence that was involved in his discovery and establishment.  When the Arawak people saw the foreign ship with "alien" people, they were more than generous and giving.  They shared everything that they could, and more, with Columbus and his men.  They provided food, shelter, water, gifts, and anything else that the Spaniards needed.  And how did Columbus react?  He completely annihilated the native population causing mass genocide, that's what.  He enslaved the Indians by the thousands, shipping them all back to Europe as slaves, promising more and more each time he came back to Spain with "Indians": which he called them because he was oblivious to the actual size of the Earth and miscalculated his journey.  The thing is, a considerable amount of the Indians would die on the journey overseas.  As Howard Zinn explains, one of the ships carried 500 of the strongest and best fit natives, and by the end of the journey 200 were dead.  Not only did the natives die from travel, but thousands were massacred in the Americas as well.  For all the Indians that did not cooperate with the Spanish rule, severe punishment -- that almost always resulted in death -- was imminent.  When the Spaniards bounced around the Caribbean islands, any native population that would not voluntarily listen to the Spanish demands were destroyed.  The biggest Spanish weapon that Columbus unleashed was disease.  Not only did the new European illnesses that Columbus as his men brought over instantly affect the immediate population, but over time 90% of the Native American population would fall to European disease.  Grant it, bringing disease and spreading death was not Columbus's primary goal for the Americas.  His intention was to find the wealth and riches of gold and glory.  He originally meant no harm to any native beings, he just greedily sought the power that he would gain through discovery, and the riches he would unleash.  Yet it was his greed that was his downfall.  No matter how innocent his original intentions may have been, nothing could be used to defend the atrocities that he and his men showed the Arawak Indians.  Even though that might have been the custom treatment at the time, the things that he and his men did to the Arawak people is inhumane and just plain old wrong.  Furthermore, Columbus's actions were mirrored by later adventurers (Cortes, Pizarro, and the English settlers), who ravaged violence and war instead of seeking peace and a sense of  respect.  It is as if he set a precedent for others to follow.  Being the first to settle in the Americas, he needed to set a good example for people to follow, but just as he was blinded by superiority and glory, future conquerors became entangled in war and strife between themselves and the natives.  So all in all, even though there are legitimate cases to portray Columbus as either a hero or a villain, my personal viewpoint stands that he is drastically more of a villain than the hero that people portray him to be.

LAD #7: Washington's Farewell Address

In his Farewell Address, Washington not only thanks the American people for their support for his policies, but also stipulates many political virtues and warnings against their subordinates that, if left unimpeded, will plague the union, unravelling it like a ball of yarn. He expresses the idea that the American people are one, singular body, held together by their love of liberty and their shared political beliefs. Washington claims that the multiple sects of America's frontier (the North, South, Western frontier, and Atlantic) are interconnected through communication and economic lines.  In no way are even the strictest of alliances between them stronger than their unity under one body of government. While promoting unity he also warns against foreign influence that can easily sway and bias the factions of the American people. The factions should also be checked, for zealous leaders can use the peoples' support to control the government and repeal the liberties that they used to usurp their power. Washington also speaks his fears that the Constitution could be radically altered by the passions of inflamed groups of men (notably dominant political parties that will act in revenge) resulting in dissension. To combat these vices Washington calls for the spread of knowledge and religious piety, promoting national morality and reason, which he believes are key in the preservation of liberty and union.

LAD #6: Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality

To prevent any participation from any United States citizen (be it government or regular civilians) in the wars that pitted the "belligerent powers" of Britain, Sardinia, Prussia, Austria, and the Netherlands against revolutionary France, Washington declared that the country should be passive and neutral to such muddles of chaos. He warns the American people that any citizens who decides to engage in hostilities with any of the European nations at war will lose their protection of the United States, and will be prosecuted.  They will become liable to forfeit and punishment by the law of nations.

Republican Motherhood Blog

1.  What role did the Revolutionary War play in the transformation of housewifery to Republican Motherhood?
"Republican Motherhood" centered on the belief that children should be raised to uphold the ideals of republicanism, making them the ideal citizens of the new nation.  After the Revolutionary War, people began believing that it was the mother's 'civic duty' to uphold the republican beliefs within the household (Document B).  Mother's were supposed to encourage their sons to pursue liberty and roles in government, while their daughters would perpetuate the domestic sphere of the next generation.  As opposed to before the Revolution, women's rights afterwards greatly increased (Document D).


2.  What were the consequences of Republican Motherhood on women?
Women had the essential role of instilling their children with values conducive to a healthy republic.  They were supposed to make sure that the next generation would be able to uphold the republican zeal that was created during the revolution (Document A).  Not only did this show a growing respect for the intellect of women, but it also began slightly opening the gates to more women's rights.  Not only was their education and religious affiliations strengthened, but the relationship with their husband also became more liberal (Document C).   Love and affection instead of obedience and subservience began to characterize the ideal marital relationship.


3.  What is the significance of the ideology of Republican Motherhood as a stage in the process of women's socialization?
The belief of "Republican Motherhood" was one of the first major bricks that would bridge the gap to the equality of men and women.  Its significance is that it was one of the first major signs that showed a growing respect of men towards women.  Not only were they encouraged to become more educated and knowledgeable, but they were also given the extremely important responsibility of withholding the republican belief within society (Document D).   




1.  Describe the setting.
The setting of this portrait seems to be in a living room or family room environment within a home.  There is a red couch in the background as well as a bland blueish-grey wallpaper.  Also, there appears to be a mirror or painting in the upper right hand corner of the portrait.


2.  Who serves at the center of the portrait and why?  How does the woman look?  How is she "republican" rather than aristocratic?
The mother (Mary Gibson Tilghman) is in the center of the portrait.  I believe that she is in the center because that was the mother's role in society as the belief of the "Republican Motherhood" grew.  The mother was supposed to be the one to lead her children down the right path to beliefs of liberty and republicanism.  She looks happy and content to be in the center of the family.  Her clothes seem laid back (not too laid back nor too dressed up).  The way she is dressed indicates that she is not aristocratic -- she is not wearing any extravagant or 'up tight' clothing.  She seems to be dressed modestly and is actually showing care towards her son (paintings did not show this family closeness in aristocratic beliefs).


3.  What values do her sons exhibit?
The values that her sons exhibit are happiness, innocence, freedom, and lovingness.  They appear to have no worries and are happily sitting with their mother (they appear to show great affection to).  By portraying these values, the painter is able to illustrate a good sign for republicanism.


4.  Is the significance to the position of Mrs. Tilghman's arm?
The significance of Mrs. Tighman's arm placement is due to the fact that it is in the lap of one of her children.  Generally, women were not usually known to show such great affection and closeness towards their children.  She is basically eluding that she cares for her children and is leading them down the right path... to liberty.

LAD #5: Federalist #10

1. 

Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?

A: Factions are difficult to be eliminated because they are a natural and unavoidable part of civilization. Unless each man is given equal rights, treatement, and circumstances, the different needs and desires of the people will form their perceptions and ideals with which others will connect in empathy.  This creates multiple parties (i.e. Factions) in society. These factions can be formed by any means among the people: be it between rich and poor, landed and landless, mercantilists, manufacturing interests, or any other interest. The only ways to destroy these factions are to either rescind their liberties (which would contradict everything for which the American Revolution was fought for -- making the federal government hypocritical) or give each citizen the same options (this would never happen because each individual is shaped by their own experiences).

2.  If factions cannot be removed then how can they be controlled?
A: Since the people themselves are never abled judges of actions connected to their personal lives (they are often biased), a pure democracy in which the people make up the government is blatantly ineffective in controlling teh inflamed factions.  On the other hand, a representative democracy would ensure that the candidate for the representation is sufficiently separate from the zeal of the faction and is able to operate in a rational way that is best for the state.  Given that resting the political power in the hands of a meager few is a recipe for disaster, the extensive republic will consist of an established number of officials (large enough to cobat corruption, small enough to prevent confusion) that will be elected by a number of people that will ensure the official is neither too little nor too involved with the ideals of the people.  Furthermore, the prevention of one dominant faction is prevented by the fact that the United States as a whole consists of numerous different factions that will not have the strength to completely overpower the others.  Thus, each faction is equally represented without fear that one will impede on the liberties of the others.

LAD#4: Rethinking the Revolution

Things that I learned:
1) The American Revolution was America's longest declared war (eight years).
2) By around 1830, practically every member of the Revolutionary generation had died.
3) Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was not necessarily a call for war (it had already been raging for eight months), but written to prevent any form of reconciliation with Britain.
4) Similar to how World War I was eclipsed by World War II in significance, many believe that the Revolutionary War was downplayed due to the fact that six times as many people died in the Civil War than in the War for Independence (But: Compared to the Civil War, 1 in 4 people died in the Revolutionary War, and 1 in 5 died in the Civil War.  More people died proportionally in the Revolutionary War).
5) Some American soldiers were forced to walk barefoot and naked in the coldest of winter because they lacked so much supplies.

LAD #3: Declaration of Indedendence

1) The Democratic Principles Section of the Declaration of Independence states that the government obtains and grasps its power from the governed.  The reason the government exists is to comply to the wants and needs of the people.  Its sole purpose is to make the majority happy.  If the "unalienable rights" of the people (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) are infringed upon, or taken away, the people have the right to overthrow such a government, and abolish its rule.  Since, this is exactly what the King of England is doing to the colonies, it legitimizes their cause for revolt.

2) The List of Grievances gives multiple examples of the "usurpation" and tyranny that the King of England showed towards the colonists and further exemplifies their reason for rebellion.  Prime examples are his refusal to cooperate with colonial officials and dissolving the representative houses that made up the government.  He stripped them of almost all of their human, civil rights, and remained oblivious to all of their laws.  He "plundered [their] seas, ravaged [their] coasts, burned [their] towns, and destroyed the lives of [their] people." 

3) The conclusion of the Declaration of Independence states that the colonies are removing themselves from British control.  The colonists warned the British that they were unhappy.  They warned Parliament that their human rights were being taken away.  They warned the King that they would rebel.  Since no one listened the colonists have no other option than to secede from the British Union.  They will form their "free independent states" that have dissolved all ties to the Britain and its empire; having a fresh start.  It simply declares war and independence from Britain as one unified and strengthened nation.

LAD #2:

1.  Who was John Peter Zenger?
A:  John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant who moved to New York City in 1710.  There he fell into an apprenticeship under the New York Gazette's printer, William Bradford.  Later, he left his job at the Gazette to become the official publisher and editor of a magazine, the New York Weekly Journal, that disagreed with the beliefs of New York Governor William S. Cosby.  Cosby had prosecuted the Interim Governor Rip Van Dam and had removed Chief Justice Lewis Morris from office in favor of the royalist James Delancey.  The writers of the journal were cynical and criticized all of Cosby's decisions.

2.  What was the controversy over his charges? Talk about Hamilton's defense.
A: The main controversy stemmed from the two branches of Zenger knowingly publishing offensive stories about the present governor against the fact that the stories he published happened to be true.  One of Zenger's published stories involved Cosby both rigging the elections for governor, and giving the French free reign to explore the New York harbor.  Not only did this hurt his political image, but his sanity as well.  The fact that he allowed the 'enemy' French to freely observe the harbor basically label him as an idiot.  With the law denying any written opposition to the government, Zenger was immediately thrown in jail.  However, when the trial came around the jury found Zenger innocent on all charges.  They believed that the truth of the published statements out-weighed any illegality involved.  His defense attorney, Alexander Hamilton was able to win the jury over with the statement that Zenger's actions were "the cause of liberty."

3.  What influence did his case have on American governmental tradition?
A:  Zenger's case showed the significance of a jury in court cases (that the jury had the final say in a court case, not the judge).  Even though the highly prized Chief Justice James Delancey believed Zenger to be guilty (although his decision most definitely was based of his connections and relationship with Crosby), that was not the final say.  Delancey's beliefs were thrown aside by the jury and they announced Zenger's complete innocence and acquittal. Despite the judge's demands for conviction due to Libel, which Zenger openly admitted, the jury decided in under ten minutes that he was not guilty. Zenger's case proved to the colonies that the power in the court room did not reside in the sole power of the judge, the people of the jury had a majority of the say in the verdict of a trial.

4.  What is the lasting significance of his trial? Explain.
A:  Not only did Zenger's trial help push America towards the validation of the absolute truth in America in the courtroom, but in the press as well.  Although his freedom was not officially stated until the creation of the First Amendment, the case gave newspapers, editors, and publishers a sense of security and safeness.  It gave them the belief that they were no longer subjugated to limited freedom, when it came to writing; they were enabled the chance to write their opinions with no belief of consequence.  This sense of security became more and more prevalent and helpful to the colonists as the American Revolution drew nearer.  With the confidence of the press to print the truth no matter what, not only did a surge for Democracy rise, but shots against corrupt government officials and policies as well. Most importantly though, the trial's result increased the people's claim to liberty as publishers began to unfold the true corruptness of the government that they were ruled under.

LAD #1:

1) What concepts are included in the Mayflower Compact?
              First and foremost, the Mayflower Compact, like all other English documents in this era, confessed its faith in the Christian religion.  All of the ideas, practices, and beliefs involved in the document was said to be done in the name of God.  Its writers pledged their obedience and service to their mother country and, in turn, agreed to follow, create, and enforce laws that will benefit the whole of the colony (not the individual).  The Compact also mentions the belief of unity, of becoming one civil force that works together to help not only themselves, but to England as well.

2) How does the Mayflower Compact reflect and attachment to both the "Old" and "New" worlds?
          The Mayflower Compact refers to "Old" world beliefs when it portrays their king, King James.  References such as the Defender of Faith, a religious title, relate to the extremist faith people had in the Anglican Church, and the rest of Europe's utmost belief in the Catholic Church.  Furthermore, the Mayflower Compact professes the imperialistic need to expand in the northern-parts of their pre-established colony.  The New world ties in the Compact is most noted in the belief of a Democratic-like government.  The belief that the colonists could create their own government, unite as a whole, and adhere to their own laws was unheard of in England at the time.  Not only that, but the document also mentions the creation of a constitution, an aspect of government that was not provided overseas.  Although the Mayflower Compact adheres to the obedience and loyalty to England, the freedom it provides noticeably out-weighs the negatives.
   

3) How did the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut differ from the Mayflower Compact?
         The Mayflower Compact only went into the basics and the gist of how the colonists should create their Democratic-styled government.  The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut not only explained what the colonists should do, but how they should do it too.  It explains that the people should elect their own government officials, and those officials will elect their own Governor of the state.  There will be two meetings between the town officials and the Governor per year (the first one will be about politics and the second will determine laws and law making).  The Mayflower Compact only laid out the top layer for how the colonists should act (only generalizations and not direct laws) whereas the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut displays the entire 'blueprint' for how the government, lawmaking, and people's influence should be built.  In summation, the Compact only displayed the desire to create the government and the Orders was the actual plan.

4) What prompted the colonists of Connecticut to take this approach to government, i.e.: use of a written Constitution?
          If you only read the preamble of the Fundamental Orders, the reason would clearly be to appease the one, almighty God of the Christian faith.  However, this is the only blatant reference to religion in the rest of the document.  The rest of the inspiration, I believe, comes from the basic roots of England dating back to the Magna Carta.  All the peoples of society, be it commoners, magistrates, or the governor, need to adhere to the laws.  The Fundamental Orders provides a more open rule for the colonists in the strict and rigid Parliamentary government of England.

5) In what significant way(s) does the Fundamental Orders reflect a fear of and safeguard against the usurping of power by one person or a chosen few?
           There is a clear-cut and fully explained way of how the government should be set up.  There are annual elections for both the magistrates and the governor.  The magistrates from each town are the ones who vote for the governor.  At each town, the people hold meetings that discuss and vote for the delegates that will represent them as magistrates in the government.  By doing this, the creators of the document not only laid forth a simpler form of a Democratic government, but they created an effective and non-complaintive system of voting for officials in government.  The people got what they wanted.

Finally got in.