LAD #21 Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth

Summary of Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth speech, 1889:

Carnegie states how civilization has changed and revolutionized within the past hundred years in that the homes, lives, and possessions of the wealthy have advanced drastically beyond those of the common laborer. However, he states that the economic inequality is actually a good thing, for it provides for the development of art and the advancement of "civilization", which effects not only the wealthy but also the common laborer.

Carnegie then raises a question- "What is the proper mode of administering [the] wealth..." that has fallen into the hands of the few. He then proposes three solutions, and then considers each of these three "modes". First, he states that a family's wealth could be kept and passed down through the family, in some cases from father to son. However, he dislikes this mode, for "great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients." 


Next, he mentions the public dispersal of wealth after the death of the wealthy. He states this may be the wisest option, but he believes that such a situation would reflect the government's "condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life." Thus, this "death tax" actually serves to provide incentive for millionaires to spend money for the good of public works while alive, which he states is the "and that society should always have in view".


His third "mode" and most worthy method of wealth distribution is for the wealthy to use their surplus for the good of the masses-
   "Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves."


Thus, in effect, the wealthy should spend some money on their legitimate wants, and the remaining surplus should be considered as "trust funds" that the wealthy have been called upon to administer for the most practical and beneficial result for the community. The wealthy become the "trustee for his poorer brethren, who do a better job for them than they could do for themselves. 

LAD #20 Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation

Summary of Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, issued September 22nd, 1862, effected January 1st, 1863:

In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln declares that all slaves held in any states or parts of states were declared free, and that the executive government, including the army and navy, will "recognize and maintain the freedoms of such persons." Furthermore, he claims that any states who maintain slavery will be in rebellion with the United States, and those states which have representation in Congress will not be in rebellion. Lincoln then lists the southern states that are in rebellion, and he again declares that the slaves held in those states are thenceforward free, and will be supported by the executive government and army and navy.

Lincoln then calls out to the newly freed blacks and enjoins them to avoid violence, and declares that any "persons of suitable condition" will be received into the military service of the Union.

LAD #19 Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

Summary of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, 1865:

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Speech is rather short, and at its opening he declares that there is little new news to present to the nation, and that the progress of the war was as well known to the general public as it was to himself. He states that his first inaugural was devoted to saving the nation without war, but now war has come upon them because "...one party would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish."

He goes on to briefly discuss the how slavery led to the war, and how the war to date has surpassed the worst expectations on either side. He contemplates how both sides have prayed to God for assistance, and also how he believes that the Lord has his own plan on how to exact justice for the hundreds of years of bondage the slaves have been made to suffer.

Lincoln concludes with the resolution to complete the war, repair the nation, care for the damaged soldiers and their widows and orphans, and "...do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace..."

LAD #18 Dred Scott vs. Sanford Decision

Summary of the Decision of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford Case, 1857:

Roger Taney had been chosen to write the majority opinion of the court in the Scott vs. Sanford Case, which would include considerations of Negro Citizenship and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, after a rejected opinion originally written by Justice Nelson. President elect James Buchanan even threw his support to the Supreme Court in his Presidential inauguration before the case had been settled.

Taney reported in a low voice the "shameful decision" of the Court on March 6th, 1857. In regards to the citizenship of Negros, Taney claimed that Negros, even free ones, were imported to America as slaves and are thus not legal citizens. Thus, without citizenship, they do not enjoy the privilege to sue in Federal Court

Furthermore, Taney stated that real citizens of the U.S. (in this case slaveowners) could not be deprived of life, liberty, or property anywhere in the U.S., including American territories. As slaves were not distinguished from other forms of property, and the Missouri Compromise deprived slaveholding citizens of their "property", the Missouri Compromise was thus declared unconstitutional.

Lastly, Dred Scott hoped that he could be declared free because of his stay in the free state Illinois. Unfortunately, Taney declared that the status of the slave depended on the laws of the state of residence when they brought the suit to Court, which was for Scott Missouri. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, sent to the lower court with directions to again dismiss it, and thus the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court in Sanford's favor  was upheld. Dred Scott was still a slave.

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

Summary of Sojouner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" Speech, Akron, Ohio, 1851:

A very brief speech in which Sojouner starts by describing how white women are treated delicately. But is Sojouner a woman? Then how come she works in the fields, gets beaten and whipped, has 13 children who were mostly sold off as slaves, and never receives comfort?

Further, she argues that, even if her intellect is less capable than a white's or a man's, as whites and men claim, doesn't she still deserve to be taught regardless? And addressing the argument of clergy, which states that women have less rights than men because Jesus was a man, Sojouner states that Jesus was born to a woman. She concludes that women ought to be able to turn the world right side up again, and that "the men better let them."

LAD #16 Frederick Douglas's "5th of July" Speech

Summary of Frederick Douglas's "Fifth of July" Speech, Rochester, NY, 1852:

Frederick Douglas was asked to speak on the 4th of July at Corinthian Hall in Rochester New York on the question "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" (he actually gave his speech a day later). Instead of issuing a joyous speech about liberty, he declares that while the white man may celebrate his independence, the Fourth of July is merely a mockery for Blacks, who have been brutally oppressed by the very people who celebrate "equality". Douglas declares that for this reason the Fourth of July is an even darker day than any other to the Black slave. Also, he declares that he will with all his power denounce slavery, but will only do so in ways that are right and just. Finally, he claims that the dark actions of American slavery are the vilest inhuman history.

LAD #15 Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

Summary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863:

Lincoln delivered a very short speech at Gettysburg. He stated that America was born of the notions of liberty and equality, and that the men who died at Gettysburg- in America's Civil War- were fighting for the perseverance of any nation born of such noble and democratic ideals, as though the war was a test to see how a nation of America's ideals could be sustained.

He discusses how the people need to dedicate the battlefield to those who gave their lives. However, he recognizes that a dedication from the living at this time has little value compared to the consecration that the brave men who died on the field imparted to it.

Finally, he states that the men who passed away their will not have died in vain, and that he resolved, "...that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

LAD #14 Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

Summary of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

Lincoln states that he does not believe in discussing matters that are not of pressing concern to the nation in his public address, and he immediately starts discussing the issue of slavery. He claims that it is not his intention to interfere with Southern slavery; that it is a right of the states which he has no right to interfere in, and that no States within the Union will be favored in regards to Constitutional protection over any others. Further, he claims that the return of fugitive slaves is written in the original Constitution, and thus that the Fugitive Slave law will be enforced. He pleads for States to abide by existing laws instead of reputing them in the hope that they will be examined and found unconstitutional.

Further, Lincoln is aware that he is entering the Presidency at a difficult time, with the threat if disunion perpetually growing.  However, he believes that disunion by any one state from the union undermines the Constitution and the laws of the Union, and it is Lincoln's intention to execute the established laws to the best degree possible, as is his assigned job for his post. Ultimately though, it is the peoples' right to decide the fate of the country. Furthermore, he does not intend to use force against any portion of the nation.

Lincoln claims that never have Constitutional rights been openly denied to people of America. Also, if the minority secedes from the majority if the States, as they threaten to do, who is to say that the resulting body will not continually secede from the greater body every time the minority does not get its way? The idea of secession is essentially anarchy. In addition, a secession may separate the government of the United States and the independent body, but it is impossible for the independent body to physically move away from the mainland United States.

Although he does not advocate it, the people have the right to amend the Constitution. He even acknowledges that they have the right to revolutionarily overthrow the government. However, he generates his power from the people, and it is his task to uphold the present government. Finally, he encourages the people to carefully of their decisions, and it is ultimately in their hands whether or not to go to civil war. And Lincoln promises that he will preserve, protect, and defend the nation.

LAD #13 Calhoun's Speech on Clay's Compromise Measures

Summary of John Calhoun's Speech on Clay's Compromise of 1850, in regards to slavery in Texas:

(Speech was read by another senator, as Calhoun was too ill to read it himself. The speech was read on March 4, 1850, and Calhoun passed away March 31, that same month.)

Calhoun recognized that the unity of the Union was threatened. He goes on to discuss the issues that were endangering the Union.

The Southern States were originally agitated by the slavery question, and their discontent has grown, despite the meager calming influence of widespread political parties. The overpowering force of the North in government has overshadowed the South, which was caused by the North's greater number of States and greater population. And the growth in States in the North showed no signs of letting up. Thus, the North will gain a much larger representation in the Senate over the South.

Also, the South claims that their States have been restricted in land claims (in the Northern attempts to receive Texas) and have received an undue amount of taxation, while the North gained territory and most of the benefits of taxes. Similarly, the South is a major exporter of goods, and thus was hard hit by the tariffs, and it has few factories, and thus did not receive the benefits of the duties taxes.

The slavery question is particularly perplexing, and as the North pushes so ardently for abolition, Calhoun believes abolition or secession are the only options available for the South. To prevent the dissolution of the nation's unity, Calhoun pleads to appease the demands of the Southern States, claiming that appeasing them will remove the source of agitation that initiated the Southern discontent. However, he claims that only the stronger power, the North, can institute a Constitutional amendment to re-establish the equilibrium between the North and the South. He then rawly challenges the Senators to make their choice, reducing the issue to either submitting to Calhoun's idea of Northern support or to forcing the Southern secession. He even proclaims that California will be a test, and if it is admitted under Northern conditions, the South will interpret the situation as though the North were deliberately crushing the South for ambitions of power and aggrandizement.

LAD #12 President Polk's War Message

Summary of President James K. Polk's War Message, 1846:

An America envoy, John Slidell, was sent to Mexico to reestablish friendly relations between the nations and to solidify international boundaries, but he was rejected by their government. Furthermore, Mexico has invaded American territory and shed American blood.

Mr. Slidell had been assured he would be accepted by the Mexican government under General Herrera, which was at the time tottering. When he arrived, a popular revolutionary party forced the government to refuse Mr. Slidell. Approximately a month later, General Herrera surrendered the Presidency to General Paredas; a revolution conducted solely by the military.

Mr. Slidell attempted to become an envoy to the new, militaristic Mexican government, but was refused. Thus, the Mexican government refused negotiation with American for no sufficient reason, and had made no propositions of its own to remedy the existing border and citizen issues in Texas.

An American military force had previously been assembled between the Nueces and the Del Norte Rivers to meet a potential Mexican invasion attempt, which was threatened after Texas's appeal and resulting annexation into the U.S.

American generals were instructed to move troops but without aggressive action towards Mexico, on the Mexican side of the Del Norte River. However, Mexican General Ampudia ordered the Americans to retreat, and after a month without their cooperation, he announced that he considered hostilities to have commenced. A small group of American soldiers were attacked while scouting the Mexican troops, and some were killed while the rest were forced to surrender.

Polk proposes that America is called to fight Mexico as a result of Mexico's wrongs against American citizens over the past years, that trade with Mexico long ago stopped being beneficial, and that America has long attempted unsuccessful peaceful negotiations. Furthermore, after Mexico has declared war on the U.S., invaded American territory, and killed American citizens, the conflict would be a vindication of American honor, rights, and interests.

LAD #11 Seneca Falls Decleration

Summary of the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan b. Anthony, and M.J. Gage, July 19, 1848:

There are two portions in the Seneca Falls Declaration, the first being the Declaration of Sentiments. This first portion was structured very similarly to the American Declaration of Independence. It copies the wording the the Declaration of Independence's intro and simply adds in phrases like "...all men and women are created equal...". This method both draws attention to the document, invokes the patriotism of the heroic Declaration of Independence, and takes a stab at the hypocritical irony of the glorified male struggle for independence and the suppression of women under the law. It further copies the Declaration of Independence by citing a list of grievances, most valid, some exaggerated, including such points as the historical lack of women's right to vote; the lack of women's civil rights, particularly for married women; her inability to participate in law, medicine, the church, or the government; her inability to earn a male's wages; the altered codes of moral behavior between men and women; and a woman's inability to receive a complete education at college. Finally, the authors acknowledge that they will be ridiculed, but that they will continue to petition for their rights and attempt to hold further conventions.

The second portion lists the resolutions of the women, which proclaim their views on the issues mentioned in their grievances and proclaim what ought to be accomplished. For example, the women resolve that it is their duty to secure their "sacred right to the elective franchise". They close by mentioning it is the right and duty of both men and women to promote "...every righteous cause by every righteous means..." and thus that the rights of women ought to be proclaimed.

LAD #10 The Monroe Doctrine

Summary of the Monroe Doctrine, 1823:

In President Monroe's seventh inaugural address to Congress in 1823, Monroe mentions negotiations with Russia and Britain, and arising from the discussions, Monroe proposes that "the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents...are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers..."

Monroe claims that the United States is unwilling to take part in any European wars, and that it only will fight in defense of American rights or a menace to public safety. However, America is intricately tied the other nations/colonies of the American continent, and that any attempt to colonize the newly-independant nations of the Americas will be viewed as a threat to the peace and safety of the United States. However, the United States will not interfere with current colonies, it only will protect the freedom of those nations that the U.S. officially recognizes as independent.

The U.S. foreign policy in regards to European nations remains unaffected; refrain from interfering in their internal affairs and to maintain friendly relations with them.

LAD #9 Jefferson's Inaugural Address

Summary of Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address:

1st Paragraph- Jefferson appreciates his election to the Presidency, but is humbled by the enormous undertaking.

2nd Paragraph- Jefferson encourages Americans to unite for the common good under the freedoms granted by the Constitution; he assures them that the majority will prevail but will preserve the rights and  equality of the minorities; and he asserts that they are all a united people under a strong government, free from the trials and errors and bloodshed of the governmental mishaps of the Old World.

3rd Paragraph- Jefferson encourages the Americas to look to the future, reminds Americans of the bountiful blessings of their country, including available land, industry, and beliefs in morality, and especially a good government that protects the rights of the people.

4th Paragraph- Jefferson lists the essential principles of the Constitution:

• Equal justice to men
• Support of State Governments
• Preservation of the Central Government
• The Right of Election
• Absolute Acquiescence in Majority Decisions
• Well-disciplined Militia
• Civil Authority over Military Authority
• Public Economy
• Payment of Debts
• Encouragement of Agriculture and Commerce
• Freedom of Religion, of the Press, and of Person

4th Paragraph- Jefferson understands that he will not be a perfect President, and asks that the public to forgive him for any mistakes he is bound to make, but he will do all the good in his power for the good of his fellow Americans.

5th Paragraph- Jefferson is prepared to work for the country, and invokes "that Infinite Power" to lead his councils to "what is best".

Columbus Blog #8

Is Christopher Columbus a hero or a villain?

Christopher Columbus can neither be defined solely as a hero or as a villain. He is a complex figure, created by the culture and ethics of the early European Renaissance, and there is no denying his seamanship. If one were to classify Columbus as either a hero or a villain, he would be both. However, he was perhaps more a villain because of his cruel treatment of the Natives he encountered in the "New World".

Columbus is arguably the instigator of the first genocide in the Western hemisphere. In fact, when Columbus first landed in the Bahama Islands in 1492, some of the first comments he made reflected what we now perceive with moral repugnance. He comments on the fine build and naivety of the Native Arawak people, and then he adds, "They would make fine servants...With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." And Columbus did just that- despite the excessive generosity of the Natives, Columbus and his crew took some of them captive to guide the Spaniards to gold.  After sailing to Hispaniola, Columbus took more Native prisoners, killing several when they refused his demands. As Columbus sailed back to Spain with his human cargo, the Natives started to die.
Columbus soon returned with a larger expedition, pursuing slaves and gold. When excessive amounts of slaves started dying en route, he turned to forcing Native children to collect gold for him. When the children did not produce the precious metal, the Spaniards would mutilate them, cutting off their hands and letting them bleed to death. Native resistance became impossible due to Spanish weapons, and soon Natives started committing suicide. Natives who didn't were forced to work to death on encomiendas. By 1515, only about 23 years after Columbus first landed in the New World, only about fifty thousand of an original two-hundred and fifty thousand Natives were alive.

However, it is important to remember that Christopher Columbus was (most likely) not a particularly sadistic man. During this time period, slavery was a common practice, and Columbus can not be considered a villain for following the common beliefs of the day. It would not be abolished in Spain and in most of Europe until the early nineteenth century. Columbus certainly cannot be vilified for pursuing gold and wealth for his country, considering that the Gulf War and even arguably the current war in the Middle East is motivated by oil, the "new gold". It is really Columbus's inhumane treatments of the Natives that incriminates him, but again, Americans would continue to treat Native Americans inhumanely for hundreds of years to come. Furthermore, Columbus was brave enough and enterprising enough to lead an expedition that spearheaded the future of the modern world.

Thus, Columbus was both a hero and a villain, although his incredibly cruel actions towards Natives arguably incited the first modern genocide. Thus, Columbus is considered a villain to a greater extant than he would be considered a hero.

LAD #7 Washington's Farewell Address

Summary of Washington's Farewell Address, 1796:

Washington proclaims that he is taking himself out of the running for the next Presidency, but that he wishes that the public elect another capable man for the job. He had been considering retiring early, but the instability of foreign affairs and the advice of his advisors held him in his post until the next election. He also looks eagerly forward to retirement, but he is deeply grateful of the country that has conferred so many honors upon him. He presents some parting advice to the nation:

• The unified government is crucial to and responsible for the people's protection, liberty, and prosperity, and Washington warns the public to remember this when the public is encountered with attempts to separate or degrade the government.
• When unified, different portions of the country work together and achieve greater growth and success. Example: combination of North seafaring and Southern agriculture generate prosperous trade and maritime strength.
• Also, the Union prevents wars between neighboring states like small neighboring countries have, and wars are embittering and dangerous to republican liberty.
• Obstructions to the laws are dangerous and factious, and he warns to beware of attempts by a minority to take control of the government or to undermine and reduce the importance of laws that cannot be overthrown.
• He warns of the dangers of competing parties, which could lead to oppression of one group by another.
• Religion and morality are necessary guidelines for the continuation of political prosperity.
• Public opinion and credit is a source of strength that should be used sparingly.
• Cultivate peace and harmony with all foreign powers, but alliances with particular foreign powers are discouraged.

Republican Motherhood

• What role did the Revolutionary War play in the transformation of housewifery to Republican Motherhood?

The Revolutionary War inspired heightened enthusiam for ideals like independence, patriotism, and republicanism. It became a common belief following the Revolution that such ideals needed to be instilled into the minds of generations of Americans to come, and it became the hallowed service of the mother to instill such virtues in their sons (Document A).

• What were the consequences of Republican Motherhood on women?

It was commonly agreed at the time that it was a mother's job to instill republican ideals in their sons. To quote Jonathan F. Stearns in Document D, "On you, ladies, depends, in a most important degree, the destiny of our country." There were several opinions as to how women could best accomplish this task. For example, in Document A, Mrs. A.J. Graves writes of how women should restrict their lives to the household, and that women have no influential place in society outside of their "appropriate domain". Benjamin Rush, in Document B, stated that in order to accomplish their duties they needed a certain amount of education, and thus proposed educating young women.

• What is the significance of the ideology of Republican Motherhood as a stage in the process of woman's socialization?

The role of women in Republican Motherhood gave them an individual and cherished role in society. It changed the mindset of women, and led them to believe that the "...reformation of the world is in [their] power." (Document C). Their growing role in the functioning of America led to increased pride and self-assertion. Mary Morris writes in Document C that "...Already may we see the lovely daughters of Columbia asserting the importance and the honor of their sex."

• Describe the setting:

A young and rather attractive-looking woman is portrayed on a pink sofa, and she is surrounded by her two young sons, who are interestingly dressed up in female dresses.

• Who serves at the center of the portrait and why? How does the woman look? How is she "republican" rather than aristocratic?

The woman is at the center of the portrait, which portrays her as the central and dominant figure. The woman appears young and attractive, but she differs from Old-World aristocratic excessiveness in that her dress and hair are plain and muted.

• What values do her sons exhibit?

Her sons portray the growing importance of women in society and family life, most likely a symbolic portrayal of the influence of Republican Motherhood.

• Is there a significance to the position of Mrs. Tilgham's arm?

The position of Mrs. Tilghman's arm could suggest the restraint and influence that she exerts over her children. She holds it over her younger son's lap, perhaps to protect him if he falls and to direct him and influence his actions/

LAD #6 Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality

Summary of Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality:

Washington proclaims that the United States should pursue an impartial foreign policy and maintain friendly relations with foreign powers despite any conflicts between them. Furthermore, he proclaims that the United States will not attempt to protect any citizens who have committed a crime against foreign powers, and that those citizens will also be prosecuted by the United States.

LAD #5 Federalist #10

• Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?

Factions are essentially impossible to eliminate for two reasons- firstly, it would (theoretically) be possible to eliminate them by eliminating liberty. However, that would be choosing the greater of two evils, for factitious arguments are far preferable to a totalitarian state. Secondly, the other method of eliminating factions would be to give every citizen the same opinions and interests, which is an impossibility due to human nature.

• If factions cannot be removed then how can they be controlled?

Factions only need to be controlled if they constitute a majority. Thankfully, a minority faction will never gain power under the Constitution, although it may still be a bother in society. However, a majority faction, which can gain power under the Constitution, can be controlled if the factious beliefs are not present at the same time or are not conspiring at the same time. The election process of the Constitution in a republic the size of America is an effective check against such a majority faction.

LAD #4 Revolution Article

Five Things I Learned from the Revolutionary War Article:

1. I found it interesting that certain Founding Fathers and some elite upper class chose to propagate specific images of the American War that would define history in a way most suiting for their needs. 
2. I had never previously considered how great an emphasis was placed on the political events and people in the revolution, as opposed to the actual battles and fighting. The fact becomes very unique when compared to other American wars since, with a much greater emphasis placed on the battles.
3. The beliefs that the American Revolution was less violent than other, more recent American wars is partially due to the non-violent and sterile portrayals of the Revolution in art and the lack of moving statements from Washington and Thomas Paine, among other prominent figures, in regards to the brutal fighting.
4. The American Revolution was actually far more savage than it is generally given credit for, even compared to the enormous death toll of the Civil War. For example, a much greater percentage of POWs perished in POW camps in the REvolution than even in the horrendous camps of the Civil War, and about half of the Continental Army was completely naked and two-thirds lacking in food at times. 
5. Civilians suffered enormously in the American Revolution, and were subjected to diseases, had their towns burned, and were massacred in their homes. Loyalists were persecuted like no other civilian group in the Civil War- ten times more Loyalists were exiled than Confederates, despite a much smaller overall population.

LAD #3 Declaration of Independence

• Summary of Democratic Principles- The Declaration of Independence mentions in its opening several basic democratic principles. Firstly, it states that all men are created equal, and that every person has certain basic rights that cannot be taken away. Secondly, it claims that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed in order to secure peoples' basic rights. The Declaration also mentions that the people have a right to cast off a destructive old government and create a new government based on the principles of the people, in order to guard the peoples' safety and happiness. These democratic principles were mainly based on the beliefs of the philosopher John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, and the democratic arguments included were used primarily to justify the rebellion of the American people against the British government. 

• Several Grievances of the British Crown- The King refused to pass and denied the rights to institute colonial laws, he dissolved representative governing assemblies and forced compliance to his legislative measures, he indirectly blocked the administration of justice and influenced judges of law, he maintained armies in the colonies in peacetime and allowed them lodging in private homes, he cut off foreign trade, he taxed the colonies without their consent,  he deprived colonists of trial by jury, he hired foreign armies to fight the colonists, he impressed colonists into British service, and he only responded to colonial petitions against such infractions with further grievances.

• Summary of the Conclusion- The American people have time and again pleaded and warned the British people not to continue supporting the issuing of unwarranted jurisdiction over the colonies, else it would damage the good connections and correspondence with Britain. However, since they have failed to comply with us, the Americans will turn and fight them in times of war. Furthermore, the representatives of the United States of America, with God's help, declare that the United Colonies are and deserve to be free and independent states, without any political ties to Britain. 

LAD #2 John Peter Zenger

• Who was John Peter Zenger?

John Peter Zenger was the publisher of the unauthorized "New-York Weekly JOURNAL", which published propaganda against the corrupt and despicable New York governor William Cosby. Zenger was jailed by the Governor on charges of publishing seditious libel. At his trial, the prestigious lawyer Alexander Hamilton defended Zenger, and Zenger was famously acquitted despite a corrupt judge.

• What was the controversy over his charges? Talk about Hamilton's defense.

There was some controversy over the charges placed on Zenger. He was accused of publishing seditious libel, or malicious untruths inspiring rebellion, against Governor Cosby. It is important to note that, while the facts Zenger published were indeed malicious and intending to vilify the Governor, they were also true. Regardless, in Zenger's trial, the prosecuting Attorney General Bradley argued that, whether the published facts were true or not, the act of printing them at all was enough to prosecute Zenger. Such an argument was actually supported by the British (and thus colonial) law at the time. However, Hamilton argued that the libel law of Britain should not be applicable in the colonies. When the corrupt Chief Justice Delancey stated that no laws supported Hamilton's argument and that the jury should leave the case to the corrupt judges to decide, Hamilton eloquently explained the key point of his defense, which was that the jury was able to decide the ruling of the case for itself without the decision of the judges. This is known as jury nullification. So regardless of the existing law that would have condemned Zenger, the jury could decide whether Zenger was guilty or not.

• What influence did his case have on American governmental tradition?

The Zenger case proved that the truth is an absolute defense against libel. Thus, the precedent that a statement is not libel if it can be proved to be true was set. This established the American policy of Freedom of the Press. Also, it set a precedent of a jury's right to nullify the judges decision.

• What is the lasting significance of his trial? Explain.

The trial had lasting significance. Even though no new laws relating to seditious libel were  created directly after the trial, the outcome of the case greatly impacted the colonies. For example, the case demonstrated the intense public resentment towards libel prosecutions. Similar prosecutions were discouraged by the new precedent of jury nullification. Lastly, freedom of the press started growing, and would be codified about a half-century later in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. In the words of Gouvernor Morris, a drafter of the Constitution and the great-grandson of Lewis Morris, a man who worked with Zenger in the creation of the New-York Weekly JOURNAL, "The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American Freedom...which subsequently revolutionized America."

LAD #1 Mayflower Compact & Fundamental Orders of Connecticut:

• What concepts are included in the Mayflower Compact?

The most prominent concept in the Mayflower Compact is that of a government based on the consent of the governed. First outlined by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, the early application of this theory in the Mayflower Compact was a surprising and symbolic step forward. The ideal of consent by the governed forms the basis of democracy, and it was an especially surprising decision considering how the men aboard the Mayflower had lived their whole lives under a monarchial government. Other prominent concepts in the Compact include the settlers' deep faith in God and in God's guidance; the settlers' resounding loyalty to the English King, despite his persecution of the settlers'; and the settlers' beliefs in mutual equality under God and under the law.

• How does the Mayflower Compact reflect and attachment to both the "Old" and "New" worlds?

The Mayflower Compact reflects the settlers' deep attachments to the Old World in their continuing loyalty to the English King and in their steadfast religious beliefs. However, it also reflects their hopes and ideals for the New World in their beliefs in the equality of citizens and their formation of a government derived from the consent of the people. According to the Mayflower Compact, in looking towards the new world, the settlers were willing to discard the distinct social classes and overwhelming government of the Old World.

• How did the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut differ from the Mayflower Compact?

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut differed from the Mayflower Compact in its design and intent. The Mayflower Compact was simply an agreement among the Mayflower's small group of settlers to cooperate in and help construct a fair government. The Mayflower Compact never specifically detailed how such a government would be run. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were the "next step" in the process- The Fundamental Orders specifically stated what positions would have power in government, and how people would be elected to such positions. It also laid out what powers those government positions would have.

• What prompted the colonists of Connecticut to take this approach to government, i.e.: use of a written Constitution?

The colonists of the Connecticut River Towns chose to create the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, perhaps the first written Constitution, that clearly spelled out the system of government and assured individual rights. This was a response of the Puritans and Congregationalists of the Connecticut River towns to the rapidly increasing Anglican reforms in Massachusetts. The Puritans and Congregationalists, fearing persecution and a loss of their rights as more Anglicans immigrated to Massachusetts, wished for an ecclesiastical society of their own. About four years after the creation of the Connecticut River towns, Roger Ludlow proposed and drafted the Fundamental Orders to safeguard the establishment and the individual rights of its inhabitants, and also to make Connecticut a self-ruled entity.

• 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?

The Fundamental Orders attempt to prevent against the usurpation of power by limiting the influence one man or a small group of men could have in government. The Orders extend voting rights to a greater percentage of the male population, which results in a wider array of diverse candidates for office. They also limit the amount of time that one man could hold office- for example, one man is not allowed to hold the Governor's office for more than two consecutive years. It also creates an early system of checks against an illegal election and disorderly conduct of people holding offices, with the power to fine poor behavior and to re-do foul elections.

9/6/11

Hello