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.