LAD #21: Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth Summary

Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth
1889
Summary:

Andrew Carnegie was an extremely successful businessman through the wealth he obtained with the railroad industry, but as a person felt that this fortune was better spent on socially beneficial projects, and his idea became known as the "gospel of wealth."

Carnegie's main concern was how the wealth was administered throughout the country, responding with the notion that the rich and poor ought to bind together and benefit as one. He noted that not only had the conditions of their lives changed, but had actually 'revolutionized,' creating a vast contrast between the social classes. However, he stated that this change could be beneficial for the human race as a whole.

The wealthy businessman believed that wealth ought to have been shared among people and could be most readily shared through families leaving their money to their descendants, spent on public projects, or simply administered during the lives of the wealthy themselves. He felt that the rich had only made their money because of other people, and in the end ought to reimburse them and the public rather than squandering away their fortune. By using this method, in the end the wealth or property of one would become the wealth of many, and the sharing of this money would better society and perhaps civilization.

Andrew Carnegie concluded that it was the job of the wealthy man to set an example of living and spending for his descendants in order for their wisdom and experience to be passed down and to do what they could not.

LAD #20- Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" Speech

Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" Speech
Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio
1851

Summary:

Though faced with a lack of suffrage and the ideal that they lack the equality with men, white women actually had better social standings that any other women in the country, namely the black population, or slaves. Sojourner Truth was one of these very women, but only one of the few to ever speak out against this.

She had done much more than her 'fair' share of work during her time, and received little compensation for it -most of her children were even sold off into slavery. All she asked in her speech was to have some equality, or at least a bit recognition for what she'd done. If she could change this by getting all of the women in the country to band together, they could alter the nation as a whole, even with the men standing in their way.

LAD #19- Frederick Douglass' "5th of July" Speech

Frederick Douglass' Independence Day Speech
Rochester, NY.
1852

Summary:

Frederick Douglass was born into slavery in 1818 and as such felt little reason to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday in the same manner the white men of the United States did. He felt that this anniversary only annually exemplified the differences between the races, as whites celebrated the freedoms and independence they had been granted after years of struggle, whereas the slaves and other black populations faced discrimination and prejudice. The Fourth of July was ironic really, because it honored freedom in a country where not all of its residents were free due to the use of slavery. "This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."

"What, to an American slave, is your Fourth of July?" To many slaves, this day represented the injustices they faced and the gross irony of their situation. The United States was not the open-minded, free nation it thought it was, as it was the leading nation allowing the practice of slavery to be used within its borders, and a hypocrite in itself.

LAD #18- Emancipation Proclamation

Emancipation Proclamation
January 1, 1863
Summary:

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued by Abraham Lincoln on September 22nd, 1862, and in doing so the sixteenth president freed each and every one of the slaves in the United States. These men and women would have their rights and freedoms now protected by the American government, and there would be not acts or actions taken to suppress these newly freed people.

This Proclamation would be executed on the first of January in the year 1863, and in doing so the American people would no longer be rebelling against their country and the Union they had disrupted. Lincoln declared that those once under the bonds of slavery would be now and forever free, and their rights and individuality as people would be recognized by all.

Abraham Lincoln saw this as a form of necessary justice granted to them by the Constitution, and felt there ought to be no need for an military action against it.

LAD #17- President Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address

Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
Saturday, March 4th, 1865

Abraham Lincoln found little reason for a drawn out presidential address to lead into his second term, and now the country's focus has settled more so on the internal conflicts it was faced with. Despite this, Lincoln began his second term as president with hope for a better future. He referenced the civil war that had been looming, and mentioned those who had attempted to disrupt the Union and divide the country without bloodshed. Lincoln felt that these men would already accept the idea of war, which inevitably came.

No one had expected the war to last as long as it did or take such a toll, just as neither of the regions in the country thought that the cause for the war would end before the conflict did. Lincoln pointed out the similarities between the men who opposed slavery and those who supported it in his Second Inaugural Address, pointing out that they both worship the same God, and have asked Him for aid in their disputes amongst themselves. Was it God's will that their country remained locked in a civil war fought between its own people?

Lincoln declared that their God was giving them the ability to end their violence and right their wrongs, and to "cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. "

LAD #16- Dred Scott Decision

The Supreme Court's Decision on the Dred Scott Case
February 14, 1857
Summary:

As the Supreme Court first met for the Dred Scott Case, its judges assumed to reach a verdict that ruled in Sanford favor, but failed to see the larger picture of what their decision had to do with the issues faced by the Negro population. Justice Nelson was chosen to come up with a decision to express the opinion of the majority, though once he presented it to them, it turned out to be only the opinion of himself. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was instead chosen to write the actually opinion, and in it would include the issue of Negro citizenship and the dispute over the Missouri Compromise.

Many Americans had become aware of the impending decision of the Scott vs. Sanford case, and President-elect James Buchanan even asked some of the Supreme Court members if they had made a decision yet so that he knew of what to say in his inaugural speech. In his address he had an idea of their decision, and supported them by saying "A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time when the people of a Territory shall decide this question [of slavery] for themselves. "

A short time after the inauguration speech, Chief Justice Taney revealed the final decision of the Supreme Court, saying that "Negroes, even free Negroes, were not citizens of the United States," because of this, Scott did not have the ability to sue in a federal court. As for the Missouri Compromise, Taney said that they acquired land had fallen under the Constitution power, and no rights of the citizens who moved there could be revoked. Therefore, there was no distinction between slaves and property in general.

Despite this, the Compromise was still ruled unconstitutional, though that did little for Scott, whose stay in the free state of Illinois did not alter the Court's decision. Because he had filed suit in the slave state of Missouri, he was still seen as a slave. The Supreme Court inevitably ruled in the favor of Sanford.

LAD #15 Gettsyburg Address

Gettysburg Address
Thursday November 19th, 1863
Summary:

The Civil War was, without a doubt one of the most controversial and violent wars in American history, though the American Revolution itself holds its own in that ranking as well. Though this war was no entirely fought over the issue of slavery, the practice did little to quell the abolitionist feelings that spurned in some and evaporated in others. Upon the end of this bloody battle of ideals, Abraham Lincoln took the public spotlight in Gettysburg Pennsylvania, the same town where the bloodshed had finally ended.

The Battle of Gettysburg signalled the end of the war, yet also became known as the resting ground for many of those who gave their lives supported their beliefs, and that they deserve to be remembered and honored. These men were brothers, fathers, and sons, and though the rest of the world may fail to remember them and who they were, there was no reason for the Americans to.

The close of the Civil War may have put an end to the secession of states, yet it would face the nation with the task of proving to itself that these men did not die in vain. There was still much for the nation to accomplish.

LAD #14 -Lincoln's First Inaugural Adress

First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
Monday March 4th, 1861
Summary:

Abraham Lincoln began his inaugural speech by bringing up the oath he swore to in the Constitution, but quickly went on to discuss more prominent matters at hand, namely to discontent in the Southern states. In his speech he claimed that he had no purpose in infringing upon their establishment of slavery, as he had no right or desire to do so at the time. He declared that each state had the right to control "its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment."

During his speech Lincoln read certain passages from the Constitution to support what he said, including one regarding the laws of labor in one state in regards to those of another, he himself hinting that this law pertained to escaped slaves. To the sixteenth president, an oath ought to be followed if it is given, and that pertained to any laws and regulations regarding slavery. Lincoln himself stated that he had no desires to remain overly critical of the Constitution, however.

The national government of the United States had endured a great deal, yet had always come out on top during the course of democratic America, and Lincoln hoped to continue that legacy. Although he felt pride in the federal government, he felt that the Union had existed for a longer period of time, causing him to worry over the hinted threat of separation within the country. Lincoln therefore took it upon himself to see to it that the Union remain unbroken "to the extent of my ability," though he claimed that there ought to be no need for violence in doing so. His power belonged to the government rather than he himself completely.

Throughout his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln appeared more concerned over the use of slavery and the threat it posed to the Union as it continually drove a wedge between the sectionalist North and South. If the South was to fully secede and become its own nation entirely, what exactly would be the course of American history then? Lincoln found little solace in the answer to that question, closing his address with the statement "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies."

LAD #13- John Calhoun Speech

John C. Calhoun on the Clay Compromise Measures
March 4th, 1850

Summary:

John Calhoun already had the preconceived notion that slavery would be the ultimate downfall to the unity of the United States, though he felt his claims to be ignored by both political parties.
With the question of how the union could be saved, he said it was necessary to have a background on the United States and to know all aspects that could lead to the downfall of the union. With all things considered this brought up another question in regard to just what has endangered the union.

Calhoun stuck by the belief that slavery and the use of it by the South had been one of the main factions leading to division, though the division of people into the political parties of Whigs and Democrats had also done little to maintain unity. The beliefs of the North and South differed greatly, and Calhoun thought that this difference could be traced back to the practices of owning and selling slaves. This idea has formed a division between the two sections of the country.

There had also been the addition of new territories to the nation, though these lands only added to the North rather than the South, bringing with them new Senators as well. The growth in the Northern legislature caused some discontent in the South, fearing under-representation in the government.

The government's new revenue system threatened to take its toll on the South's economy, as the wealth of the North already greatly surpassed that of the South. Immigrants also did little to aid the population of the South, as they found that the North had more to offer them. The Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise in turn slightly hindered the region as well, as it divided the populations as well.

Not only did the North fail to hold the South in high regards for its lifestyle, but further resented it for failing to abolish slavery as the North wished it would do. The ties that held the country together were slowly unraveling after years of wear. Soon all that could hold the nation together would escalate into force. Calhoun claimed that the last resort of keeping the union together would be by resolving any and all of the issues brought on by the disputing sections, thinking that it could be done as long as both regions complied.

LAD #12- Polk's War Message

Polk's War Message, 1846
Summary:

The relationship between the countries of the United States and Mexico had been faced with the growing threat of disputes which could lead to an outbreak of violence. James K. Polk went to Congress to discuss this issue, bringing up the fact that America wished to have peace with Mexico, but at the same time desired the annexation of more land as well. This desire had caused a rift to form between the two nations, and a band of American troops had been sent to Mexico, though the later refused to "receive him or listen to his propositions," and eventually invaded American territory.

Mexico further refused to hear from the United States, and a result more troops were issued to resolve the matter with the former. The Mexican minister, however, also refused to ignore the claims of his citizens over the boundary in question. John Slidell of Louisiana had been sent to Mexico in order to settle the boundary dispute. A revolutionary faction had seized Texas, determined to restore peaceful relations with the United States, but failed in doing so.

Polk, in an effort to maintain friendly ties with Mexico asked to met with Slidell to discuss the matter. Under orders by the president, Slidell wrote a letter to the Mexican minister of foreign relations and asked that he be met with as a government official, though this was denied to him. In essence, Mexico had outright refused the offer of peace with America.

It would soon became necessary to met the Mexican forces in Texas with military action, as the territory had agreed to join with the Union, and America felt the need to protect her new citizens. The American troops moved to the Del Norte River with the directions to protect property and citizens' rights. The Mexicans went to the river as well, though no violence broke out until April 24th. American men left the camp to see if any Mexican soldiers had begun crossing the river, which was when the fighting first broke out.

Polk saw the Mexican government unfit to run its own country, as there were many issues he saw that ought to be redressed. However, Polk is still working toward restoring the other country, even though reconciliation had failed. He concluded by claiming that the declaration of war had come from Mexico's actions, and America must follow through with this to defend its claims.

LAD #11- Seneca Falls Declaration

Summary:

The Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
July 19, 1848

Immediate origin of the woman's rights movement began during the anti-slavery crusade, as at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840, American women delegates found themselves excluded. These women "determined the cause of emancipation effected them as well as slaves," and so the Seneca Falls Convention was held in response.

The women of the Seneca Falls Convention held fast to the belief that all men and women were created equal and that they are all given natural rights granted to them in the Constitution -"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They once more brought up the idea that the people have a right to amend the government if it is to become destructive, and that it is necessary to remove said legislation if there is a long list of abuses and neglect. The women's main argument was that the American government had existed for too long with men at the center, and now women ought to have the same rights.

The women of the Seneca Falls Convention listed most of the major infringements made by men in the country, and how they have oppressed both the voice and the entitled rights of the women, limiting the already near non-existent role of women in politics. With these actions taken in part by the men, they have assumed dominance over the female gender. The late felt that by now they deserved to get their own form of justices after such a long period of time.

In writing this declaration the women acknowledged that they would undergo ridicule and ignorance in order to obtain what they wanted, yet fully agreed to withstand all that was necessary to reach their goal. With this they hoped the rest of the country would follow in their example.

By issuing this document, the women of the Seneca Falls Convention hoped that all laws and regulations restricting women in the United States would be lifted, and that the country truly could live freely without oppression.

LAD #10 -Monroe Doctrine Summary

Summary:
Monroe Doctrine; December 2 1823

James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress included a brief discussion regarding a proposal made by the Russian Government similar to that of Great Britain to negotiate the rights and interests of the two foreign countries in regards to the United States. The latter of the three had been discussing the role and interests of being involved with the other two nations, but also made sure to point out that America would serve as the breeding ground for the colonization by the Europeans.

The Doctrine brought up the efforts made by Spain and Portugal to improve the lives of their people, and while the results of these attempts differ from what they could have been, this message also makes the American people out to be "interested spectators." The Americans though, did not wish to become overly involved in foreign affairs, and while they were not involved in the European wars they were in favor of the growing liberty of the Spanish/Portuguese. Monroe claimed that the only time America should ever take part in a foreign war was when they were either invaded or exceedingly insulted. This doctrine stated that the United States owed it to the re-prospering countries to create friendly ties with other nations so long as they did not impede America's liberty or peaceful situation. The United States should not interfere with European countries, but should not oppress the growth and development of independence and democracy in any of them either, which could result in unfriendly relations with the aforementioned nations. However, throughout the entire war, America had decided to remain neutral.

James Monroe warned that any allied powers would not be able to spread any of their political systems without threatening the American peace and happiness, and these systems ought to be met with outright indifference. The United States should have no part in controlling other countries, and they deserve to be left to their own devices, leaving examples for later nations.

LAD #9- Jefferson's First Inaugural Address

Summary:

When Thomas Jefferson first took office in 1801, he was knew of the power and responsibilities he would be granted upon doing so. Although there other problems and issues arising in his country -which was still in the developmental state-, he spoke with such ingenuity and awareness that he appeared well prepared to become its third President. Jefferson observed the honor and happiness in what would be his citizens, and hoped to maintain these aspects of their lives through his Presidency. He looked to the other men involved in the government- namely legislation and the Congress- for what aid he needed, along with support to undertake future conflicts. He relented to the Constitution, saying that all would "arrange themselves under the will of the law." Jefferson asked that all Americans come together to protect their unity, claiming that they all had a common goal in mind, and were both Republicans and Federalists, therefore Americans. He called The United States' political body the strongest government on Earth due to the representation it allowed to its people. The third President of the United States asked that they set an example for following generations, whether through their morals or the rights granted by the government.


Upon entering his presidency, Thomas Jefferson promised to abide by the regulations administered by the government and Constitution, deeming them essential to his country and the peoples' rights -his favorites being freedom of the press and religion, alongside freedom of a person under 'habeas corpus'. Jefferson had gained governmental experience while working toward American independence decades earlier, and told Americans that while there would often be times when his judgment may not be impartial, he claimed that any errors on his behalf would never be intentional. In his closing he wrote that if ever seen as necessary, the people had the right to remove his from office due to the power they themselves held as individuals.

Columbus Blog #8

-Should Christopher Columbus be considered a hero or a villain?

While he was thought to have 'discovered' the Americas in the year 1492 -despite the fact that there were already people leaving there- Christopher Columbus' character was not without flaws. Granted, no one man is perfect, but there are some actions or traits are a bit more than unnecessary in a person.

Upon his arrival to the Caribbean isles, Columbus encountered a great deal of people native to these lands, and despite appearances, this event seemed to throw him off a bit, though he had expected to arrive in India or China. The initial response between the two was fairly warm, as trade was prosperous, yet took a turn when Columbus began demanding gold. Due to the short supply of the desired metal, Columbus and his men quickly began enslaving the Indian people, shipping them back to Spain as compensation for failing to find gold. What little gold was acquired was by the labor of the slaves held captive back in the Caribbean, and even then, those who failed to do so were either bled to death or killed. Columbus used religion a great deal to defend their pursuit in the islands, and due to the desire for gold and glory furthered by Columbus, Indians died by the thousands at the hands of Spaniards. Any of their attempts to flee resulted in their demise. While his conquest was not as gruesome as that of Hernando Cortes toward the Aztecs Columbus did establish a pattern of bloodshed and ignorance toward the Natives that was followed all through the development of the Spanish, English, and American colonies.

Contrary to information taught to children in elementary schools and the celebration of the so-called 'Columbus Day', Christopher Columbus was not the hero he was made out to be. As Howard Zinn even questioned, "Was all this bloodshed and deceit a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?" It is a misfortune that this appears to have been the thought during Columbus' initial discovery, and although he was not the only man to wage violence against the Indians, he definitely did little to stop it.

LAD #7: Washington's Farewell Address

Summary of:
Washington's Farewell Address 1796

Washington wrote his Farewell Address while his final term was coming to a close and thought it was only decent to give the people of the United States a proper farewell. He thought it was necessary for him to step down at the time, but also included that he was grateful for the kindness he had been offered and said that there had been no negative influences forcing him to leave his title. Washington stated that he had already been preparing his Farewell Address before he was elected to a second term, but decided against it when the problems of foreign affairs had been brought up at the time. In his address, he also asks that the American citizens not to disapprove of his decision to retire.

He wrote that as President his intentions had only been for good, administering the government as best he could, yet after years of working in the government and the people, Washington had begun to welcome the idea of retirement, pleased with what had improved in the nation during his terms. Washington wanted the public to know that nothing much would have been accomplished had it not been for their continued support even among chaos and changing times in the country. The Constitution is all but in the hands of the people and will be taken care of by them and the government bodies, he said. Unity was now important to the country, and liberty should be a given. However, measures must be taken and undergone to maintain this and overcome difficulties.

Washington said that the Americans, while differing in degrees, had a common cause and principles, and will most often had the pride of patriotism embedded within them, even though some convicts are sometimes overshadowed by the idea for self-gain and interest. He brings up the notion that the states will have to work with one another, and will benefit as a whole because of this whether from merely goods or services or from deeper principles gained from unity. Washington wrote that "In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other," to further support that idea.

He does warn against some of the power of factions as well, claiming that they often turn out to be their own worst enemy, and that there may or may not be hostilities when one faction gains more ground than another. Washington urges that citizens in a free country take caution when electing others into higher roles in the administration of the government, as they ought to be aware of who in fact they are granting power to, while also making sure that one 'department' of the government has not hindered the power another. If one of these branches is deemed 'in the wrong', they may be amended in any way seen fit by the Constitution within reason. Washington offers the idea that the government is also partly in the hands of the very people it governs, thus making it a democracy.

Most of George Washington's Farewell Address was at first offering gratitude for the support he gained while serving as the United States first ever President, yet once he began writing after that, he went on to elaborate on the key aspects of America's new government, saying that the free citizens had just as an important role as those directly involved in the government. He warns his people about foreign affairs, claiming that while it may be perfectly necessary to have commercial relations, political connections should be very few, and a system of neutrality may be a key policy to use. Washington acknowledges that he has made errors, though not intentionally, yet asks that his people and nation not hold these mistakes against him.

George Washington had nothing but pride for his country and his citizens at the end of his Presidency and the beginning of his retirement, wanting them to forever enjoy life under a government by the people and for the people, finally acquired after years of their suffering.

LAD #6: Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality

Summary of:
The Proclamation of Neutrality 1793

The Proclamation of Neutrality was written by George Washington in 1793 during a war in Europe -also known as the War of the First Coalition- between the countries of Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, the Netherlands and France while the new nation of the United States adopted a policy regarding this dispute. Washington declared that America was to remain impartial to the fighting nations, and would take no action against these nations in Europe. American citizens were not to aid or take up arms, creating no alliances and not promising protection to those in the war either. Anyone who did so in the United States would be violating the law and subject to prosecutions in court.

L.A.D. #5: Federalist #10

1.) Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?
-The factions were groups people united for a certain cause of interest, and were commonly "adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." One of the main methods thought to remove a faction was by removing their cause or controlling what every person thought, granting them the same opinions and interests. This goal was fairly unattainable because of the variety of opinions that would exist due impart to the liberty granted in the community and diversity was difficult to compete with. Different opinions involving religion, government, leadership, and other topics had separated people into different factions, and were more likely to "vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."

2.) If factions cannot be removed then how can they be controlled?

-Keeping a common opinion among them all was thought to have been a method to control these factions. It soon became evident that the causes of the formation of these parties could not be removed, the only compensation for putting up with these independent minded parties was by acquiring control of the effects the factions brought about. The majority could also be deemed by the government unfit to continue with its support of a certain idea or topic, the faction could "...lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together...in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful." The republican government also decided that "If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control" involving certain factions and their people.

Blog #4- Revolution Article

New facts learned from "Rethinking the Revolution" by John Ferling:

1) The American Revolution is and was actually thought of as less important and vital to American History, paling in comparison to the casualties and widespread suffering seen in the Civil War that took place nearly a century later.

2) July 4th lectures have made the Boston Massacre, Boston tea Party, Liberty Trees, Liberty Poles, and the Sons of Liberty themselves the focal point of the time. These have also continually served as remembrances for those killed in past wars.

3) In George Washington's letters to Congress he said nothing notable about the war, and neglected to discuss the nature and other gruesome aspects about the fighting. He also made no mention about any battles or the war itself during his term as President, unlike Lincoln, who established a day to remember those who fought in combat.

4) One of the most savage periods in the Southern colonies took place from 1780 until 1781, in which Colonel Banastre Tarleton led Loyalist cavalrymen in South Carolina's Waxhaws, killing off roughly seventy-five percent of the rebels who had already laid down their arms in a rampage. What remained of these rebels were able to gain retribution now and again however.

5) The British rarely ever suffered the same as colonial troops, who often ran short of food and clothing, resorting to eating pet dogs, their own shoes, and tree bark as means of sustenance. It was not uncommon for the rebels who seized British and Hessian strongholds to rob them of their own clothing, leaving the foreigners out in the cold.

LAD #3: Declaration of Independence

1.) Democratic Principles
-All men are created equal and have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all citizens have natural rights in general. Those governed have the right to abolish a government and establish a new one if the governing body was ever to become corrupt. The consent of the people was also necessary for the passage of laws in the new government.

2.) Handful of Grievances
-King George III of Great Britain disabled the civil liberties of many of those in the colonies, also appearing to pass laws in the colonies that better the economy and lifestyle in his own country, rather than in his settlements overseas. Legislative bodies in the colonies were also been shut down at the King's will as he believed them to set up in opposition to him. He had also kept a great deal of his soldiers in the colonies and allowed them to stay in any quarters they see fit without the consent of the colonists themselves. Taxes were passed with the representations of the colonists, resulting in resentment as well as limiting the nations the American colonies could trade with.

3.) The Conclusion
-The assembly of the General Congress declared that the United States had the right to be free and independent of Britain and that any political ties were to be thereby severed. As a free nation the United States would therefore reserve the right to declare war or peace along with creating alliances and establishing commerce as needed, just like many other countries in the free world.

LAD #2: John Peter Zenger

1.) Who was John Peter Zenger?

-John Peter Zenger was a printer and an editor in the New York Weekly Journal. He arrived in the colony of New York in 1710 from Germany and was an apprentice of William Bradford of the New York Gazette. He printed articles that criticized the colonial Governor William Crosby, who had him arrested for these publications.



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

-Zenger's lawyer Andrew Hamilton admitted that while Zenger had taken part in the publication of articles criticizing the governor, he also said that these stories were merely attempts at bad-mouthing the official unless proven otherwise, as the persecution had already claimed that the evident publication was enough to convict Zenger. Hamilton appeal to the jury to take into account the law and the facts, and was able to get Zenger acquitted.



3.) What influence did his case have on American governmental tradition?

-This trial involved the use of the truth as a defense against slander. Hamilton's defense also became an example to be following in subsequent trails opposing tyranny in the regional and colonial governments.



4.) What is the lasting significance of his trial? Explain.

-Zenger's trial and the defense of his lawyer proved to be a step forward with the idea of 'freedom of the press', successfully establishing the policy in the colonies. This was mainly a result of Hamilton's defense, in which he claimed that a single statement is not a lie exactly, unless proven otherwise.

LAD #1 Mayflower Compact & Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

1.) What concepts are included in the Mayflower Compact?

-The concept of colonization in the new world for -what could be considered- the glory of King James of England, along with the basic idea for a similar religion in this region of the New World. There is also the concept of self-government hinted at, as reflected in the quotation, "...hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers...as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience", although at the end it may be implied that the obedience may be toward the officers in the colony or the King.


2.) How does the Mayflower Compact reflect and attachment to both the "Old" and "New" worlds?

- The Compact reflected on how the religion of both 'worlds' were similar, and the spread of the Christian Faith became a goal for many of the colonists in the new world. The "Old" and "New" worlds both had some common ground as well, as most settlers overseas shared the same background as some people back in England and the rest of Europe. As for further attachment, the colonists all but promised continued loyalty to King James of England, also going as far as referring to him as their "Sovereign Lord."

3.) How did the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut differ from the Mayflower Compact?
- The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut dealt mainly establishing a form of government in Connecticut, and had little to do with anything else in the colony. Although the Mayflower Compact did in fact hint at some ideas of self-governing, there was no concrete evidence of it every actually happen in that time. The Fundamental Orders set up an entire system of Magistrates and a Secretary, along with elections and how one way to go about it. These Orders revealed the backbone of a planned government, while the Mayflower Compact as a whole did not.


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

-These colonists were residing in a fairly large number along the Connecticut River, and believed that an established government would be needed to keep them all together in order to maintain peace. It was also thought that this was the idea of prosperity and unity according to God, as religion played a key role in most of their lives. This written Constitution was not only forming a government in the colony, but uniting the people within it -through both religious and social aspects-, and also may have been written as a way of unknowingly showing that the colonies had the basic ideas of how to take care of themselves.

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?

-The Orders allowed for one Governor for a year, yet there would always be six other Magistrates with power at the time, and all would have the power to administer justice as seen fit. Freemen also had the ability to 'petition' the Governor or the Magistrates neglected or refused to call the General Court when necessary. Towns were also able to four Freemen to each General Court, therefore having somewhat of a say in the laws and orders that were to be passed in the towns. All actions were to be voted upon as well, and none of the Courts could disassemble without the consent of the majority in said Court. Complete power was not given to one sole person, rather it was divided amongst a body of colonists, each with their own degree of control.