LAD#20: Emancipation Proclamation

Summarize.
Lincoln proclaimed on September 22^nd 1862, that on the first day of January in 1863, all slaves, in any state especially those at the time rebelling, would be considered freedmen. The government and military, if need be, would enforce this proclamation.  Lincoln urges these freedmen to abstain from violence unless it is in self-defense, and to work for reasonable wages. He also declares that the freedmen may choose to join the army as well. He closes by saying that he believes all of this act to be an act of justice allow by the constitution.

LAD#19: Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

Summarize.

Lincoln starts by saying there is little new to say as there was in his first inaugural. Unlike the first, where half the nation was desperately trying to save the union without war and the other half trying to break from the union, now they were in the middle of it. He attributes the issue of slavery as a major component of the war, as the southern insurgents wished to extend it while the government merely wished to restrict its territorial enlargement. No one thought slavery would end, due to the emancipation proclamation, before the fighting did, but then again God did not fully answer either side’s prayers. Lincoln continues to speak of God, indirectly praying that the conflict should soon come to an end but accepting that if it were to continue, that was His will. He ends by not wishing malice upon anyone, only peace, and for the nation’s wounds to be healed.

LAD#21: Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth

Summarize.

Carnegie believes that in earlier times, there was little difference in the situations of the rich and poor. Now that there is, he argues, it is for the better that some live in more comfort than none do, and it is essential for the progression of civilization. He believes that it should be the aim of all to acquire a moderate wealth to live comfortably. He finds a surplus of money can be disposed of in one of three ways; left to decedents, left after death towards public purposes, or given away by the possessor during his life. He believes the first way to be unjust, pointing to the high class in Europe who have become impoverished due to their own mistakes or a fall in value of land, believing that it is of no benefit to the receiver to simply be given such wealth. The second he also believes to be questionable, for the wealth may not be used as the giver intended as he would no longer have any say in it. However, he does believe in taxing a wealthy estate after death, since a selfish millionaire in life should be condemned by the state at his death, and would encourage a rich man to administer his wealth during his lifetime. This is the third point, of which Carnegie believes is the best and only way to use fortunes. He believes it is the best antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth that differs from a communist overthrow of a system but is instead a further evolution of it. The surplus wealth of a few will thus become the property of many when the individual administers it for the common good, as when it passes through the individual the wealth can be a bigger force than small sums distributed to the masses.

Finally, Carnegie believes it is the duty of the wealthy to set an example of modest living, not of extravagance, but to provide moderately for those dependent upon him, and to administer any surplus towards the common good in a philanthropic and intelligent manner.

LAD#18: Dred Scott Case

Summarize.
The court originally rules in favor of Sanford, against Scott, but they did not take into account the larger issues of African American citizenship and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Justice Nelson, who was chosen from the majority to write the decision, ended up only conveying his opinion, so the court threw it out and had Cheif Justice Roger Taney write another one that would encompass the majority opinion as well as all the issues in question.

President-elect James Buchanan touched upont he issue in his inaugural address on March 4th 1857, when the case was close to being closed, saying that it was soon to be settled and that he would agree to whatever decision the Supreme Court made. Two days later, the justices again gathered, their majority rule to be read by Taney who was at this point old and sickly. Taney first addressed the question of African American citizenship, stating that even freedmen were not citizens and therefore had no right under the constitution to sue in court. Taney then addressed the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, saying that Congress did not have the right to deny any citizens of a territory under United States control the rights of liberty or property without due process of law. Taney argued that the Consitution made no distinction between slaves and property, and reasoned that the Missouri Compromise denied slaveholding citizens their porperty in the form of slaves, therefore it was unconsitutional. Finally, Taney made the decision that since Scott brought the case in Missouri, a slave state, he was to be considered a slave. Therefore, due to all of these reasons, Taney declared the case to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

LAD#17: Ain't I a Woman?

Summarize.
Sojourner Truth first states that with so much racket there must be something wrong, and she guesses it must have to do with the African Americans in the south and the women in the north talking about their rights. She says that men are always saying women need to be treated with good manners, but she is never treated with any of it. And isn't she a woman, she asks, and tells about the hard work she has been forced to do and only receiving punishment, but isn't she a woman?

She asks what intellect has to do with giving anyone rights; that even if someone else may be smarter, wouldn't it be mean for them to not let those less fortunate have what they were given? She goes on to say that those who justify women not having rights purely because Jesus was a man is crazy, because Jesus came from a woman and God. "Man had nothing to do with Him."

She closes by saying that if the first woman God created, Eve, was enough to turn the world upside down, the combined strength of the women now should be able to turn it right side up again, and the men had better let them.

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

Summarize.
Delivered in Rochester in 1852, Douglass first questions why he had been asked to speak at all, wondering what the or the blacks he represented had to do with the Declaration of Independence when they were not given the rights stated within it. He then goes on to say that the celebration of Independence Day only serves to further the distance between the two races, since they celebrate the blessings which they did not give to the slaves and blacks. He then questions if the people were mocking him by asking him to speak.

Douglass then speaks of the "mournful wail of millions" and that he cannot ignore them, the American slaves. He says that in their eyes, the nation never looked worse nor more false as the day the people celebrated rights that they refused to give to anyone not of their race. He says how surprising it is that African Americans have to prove themselves to be men while they are pursuing jobs and dreaming of the same life just as any other American, but without wages and without liberty and without personal safety.

He closes by summarizing what the 4th of July is to an American slave: a day that reminds him of the injustice he is served. Douglass accuses the Americans at this time to be committing the worst injustice history has ever known.

LAD#15: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

Summarize.
Lincoln begins by stating that 87 years ago, their forefathers created a new nation based on the belief in liberty and that all men are created equal. Now, they are engaged in a civil war that is testing whether that nation or any similar to it can last. He states that they are now met on a great battlefield, where it is fitting and proper that they will dedicate a final resting place for those who gave their lives so that the nation might live. However, he says, they cannot make the ground sacred as much as the men who fought and died on it did. History will not remember what was said there, but it will remember what happened there. Lincoln then states that it is the duty of the living that they finish the work which those who fought had so nobly began, that they give more devotion to the cause which those who died gave the last full measure of devotion; which is to preserve the nation "of the people, by the people, for the people".

(Note- my summary does not do this speech justice.)

LAD#14: Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

Summarize.
Given on March 4th, 1861, Abraham Lincoln begins his first inaugural address by saying he would only speak of those matters of special importance or anxiety. He then addresses the particular anxiety coming from the south, and that there has been no reasonable cause for it. He asserts he has no purpose to interfere with slavery, and does not believe he has the legal right to. He denounces the fears of the southerners that a Republican administration would put their peace and lifestyle at risk. He pointed out that he had just taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and that this meant he had agreed to execute all laws faithfully in all states, including those that had seceded. He assured there would be no use of force against the southern seceded states unless it proved absolutely necessary for him to do so in order to reestablish the union or if the south made the first offense. Lincoln stated that the Constitution was a contract binding all the states into the union, and in order for secession to be legal, all of the states had to agree upon it first. He also said that he had no objection to an amendment to the Constitution, if that is what the people wanted. He states that the President derives all his power from the people and though the people can separate the states it must be done under their agreements, since the President's duty is only to enforce the government as he received it. He also points out the power of the people in that they leave so little room for government mischief that it cannot be ruined in the span of a term of four years. He encourages the people to think long about their decisions, to not rush into them lest they make a mistake. He also points out that the people have taken no oath to destroy the government, while he had just taken one to preserve, protect and defend it.

LAD#13: John Calhoun on the Clay Compromise

Summarize.
(written by John Calhoun, who was too sick to deliver it; read by another senator with Calhoun present.)
Calhoun first presents a question of how the union can be preserved, then steps back and asks what endangered it in the first place, then further to ask what has caused the discontent that is endangering the Union, despite efforts of political leaders to discourage it. The southern states no longer believe that they cannot remain honorably or safely within the Union, due to agitation of the slavery question by the North and unequal representation in the government continually favoring the North, due to a larger population (thus control of the House) and continually more numerous states in the North while there has been no new state added to the South (thus control of the Senate). This destorying of equillibrium, had it come naturally, would not be a cause for complaint. However, legislation pushed by the north -inlcuding acts excluding the south from growing as the north was, higher taxes imposed on the South and higher proceeds going to the North, and a radical change in the original character of the government- have unnaturally destroyed the equality between the two sections. The higher revenue going to the North also explains why immigrants tend to locate there and thus increase the population of the northern states, while the South recieves few to none.

Another major issue causing the feelings of sectionalism is the argument over slavery; to the south it is a vital part of their social and economic organization, while to the north it is basically viewed as a blemish, crime, or even a sin they have a moral obligation to destroy. Unless something decisive is done to stop this agitation, the south may end up being forced to choose between abolition and secession. However, this disunion is not something that comes easily, but over time with many blows to the cords that tie the union together; and this is what has been happening. When all the cords are broken, the only thing that could keep the union together is force, and that in itself cannot create a true union.

However, the union can be saved if the basic causes that are causing the southern states to fear their honor and safety can be removed without the south being forced to surrender more than it already has. The north must concede to the south equal territory, to stop agitating the slavery question, and to make an amendment to the constitution to protect southern equality with the north. Otherwise, the union should be broken.

LAD#12: Polk's War Message (1846)

Summarize.
Polk first describes how the desire to establish peace and good relations with Mexico failed due to the unwillingness of the Mexican government. He asked the Mexican Government under General Herrera if they would receive an envoy; upon answering affirmatively, Polk sent John Slidell with full powers, including the power to discuss the adjustment of borders. However, soon after Slidell arrived, the government changed hands to General Parades. Polk directed Slidell to ask to be received by the new government, since it had changed so much it could not be justly assumed the previous reception was still in order, but Parades not only rejected Slidell but did so rudely, so he had no choice but to return to the United States without any resolution of the conflict.

Polk then goes on to defend sending troops into Texas, because Texas had wished to annex into the United States and Congress had agreed, and it was under the United States' duty to protect them when the Mexican government threatened an attack. The movement of troops was done under the orders of the general to abstain from all aggressive acts towards Mexico and it's citizens, and to respect them as if it were during peacetime unless Mexico should declare war or themselves attack.

The Mexican forces threatened that unless General Taylor should remove his troops from the area, the question would be decided through arms. However, no act of hostility was made until about two weeks later, when a group of Mexican troops meant to attack the American camp were intercepted by a scouting party, of which 16 were killed or wounded.

Polk continues to describe that Mexico has committed many other wrongs against United States citizens and has refused to honor old treaties. He also describes that commerce between the two nations, which was formerly beneficial to both, has now all but disappeared due to the Mexican authorities' treatment of American merchants. He justifies that as Texas was her own nation, it was her choice to annex into the United States and Mexico has refused to honor that.

Finally, Polk declares that Mexico has invaded American boundaries a step too far, has shed American blood on our own soil, and has declared war, despite the attempts of American government to avoid it. Thus it is the duty of the government to defend the United States.

LAD#11: Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments

Summarize.
The Seneca Falls Convention of July 19th, 1848 was something of a response to the cause of emancipation, but in the regards of women instead of slaves. It was held in Seneca Falls, New York, and attended by both women and men, where they drew up a document strikingly similar to the Declaration of Independence.

First the Declaration of Sentiments explains that when a portion of mankind wishes to assume a position different than that which they have always assumed, it is proper to give cause as to why they wish to do this. Then, it rewords the Declaration of Independence, instead saying that "all men and women are created equal", but keeping the same principles of rebellion against an unjust government, and ending by saying that these are injustices suffered by women under the government, and that they are entitled to equality.

It then lists some of the injustices, including: not allowing women to vote, forcing women to submit to laws they had no say in, withheld rights that are given to the lowest of men including any civil rights or right in property, allowing a woman's husband to all but be her master, not allowing women to obtain higher education, and forcing women to live a submissive life. Then it requests that women are given all the rights and privilege which are given to male citizens of the United States, and will employ agents and the press, make petitions, etc. in order to reach this goal.

In the second section, titled "Resolutions", the Declaration justifies resolutions by deriving their validity from the "great precept of nature" that "man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness". These resolutions include that laws preventing women from being equal to men are against this precept and thus have no authority, that woman is man's equal, that women should be enlightened of and allowed to participate in the forming of laws that they are forced to live under, that equality should mean equality across the board for women and men in social as well as political and economic institutions, and that equally to man it is a woman's duty to do what is right.

LAD#10: Monroe Doctrine

Summarize.

Expressed to Congress on Decemeber 2nd, 1823, during President James Monroe's seventh annual message, the Monroe doctrine opens with reference to a discussion with the Russian Imperial Government and the Government of Great Britain about possible colonization of the northwestern coast of North America. He then states that although he values the friendship of both governments, it is in the best interests of the United States that American continents are to no longer be considered for colonization by any European powers. 

Monroe then goes on to speak of the interest Americans have held in the events of Europe, and how much they hope for the "liberty and happiness" of the men who live there. However, the United States does not take part in European wars when it does not concern them, only doing so when they are threatened directly, unlike in Europe where a complex web of alliances brings countries in to wars that don't necessarily concern them. On this note, any further attempt at colonization of the western hemisphere is considered a threat to the United States' peace and safety.

With the recent events in Spain and Portugal, Monroe finds evidence that Europe is still unsettled. The policy of the United States in accordance with foreign affairs, is and will continue to be friendly neutrality, and not interference with any of it's internal government.

He finds that any attempt of the allied powers to extend their government to either of the American continents without the possible endangerment of the United States, and that those in South America would not adopt a European government of their own accord. Therefore, any such attempts would be considered an unfriendly act towards the United States that would not be met with indifference.

LAD#8: Columbus Blog - Hero or Villain?

Should Christopher Columbus be considered a hero or villain?


Personally I find it hard to believe this, but Columbus was definitely more of a villain than a hero. All my life I was taught Columbus was an amazing explorer for his discovery of the Americas. But his treatment of the natives was terrible. One could say that he as only acting as any man would of his time; foreign, non-white peoples were generally considered slaves, barely above animals. By using that logic it could also be argued to an extent that Hitler was only acting on the antisemitism of his time. So I feel that Columbus is a villain for the way he treated the natives that he and his crew came upon, especially in his second voyage where he dragged 500 natives home to Spain, of which two hundred died en route and most died soon after arrival. Though it was custom for his time, it makes it no less evil an act for him to mistreat another human being, no matter how "primitive".


The one thing I won't do is blame Columbus directly for the mass decline in the population of the American natives. It would be like shooting the messenger; he is not responsible for the actions Europeans took when he told them of his discovery.

LAD#7: Washington's Farewell Address 1796

Summarize.
Washington opens by saying that though an election for president is approaching, he will not be running this time. He assures the people that he is stepping down not for any lack of interest in the continued growth of the country, but that it is the right thing to do. He had wanted to retire before but after serious thought decided that since the nation was in a critical period it would be best not to. Now that things are a bit more stable he is determined to retire and hopes that the people can accept that both personal interest and duty can coincide. He goes on to say that he never believed he was qualified to be president and that any successes he had should be attributed to the people who supported him.

He begins his warnings by stating that the independence and well being of the United States all depends on the unity of the states themselves. He warns to watch for people, domestic and foreign, who want to break from the union or weaken it. He encourages people to think of themselves as Americans before any other title, and to look past slight differences between each other. He specifically warns against sectionalists, who he believes  is only out to create distrust and take over the government.

Washington then puts all his support in the Constitution, saying it was an improvement from the Articles. He goes on to say that though it is the right of the people to alter the government when they see the need, they should do so only with reason and through amendments, but only after the government has had time to solidify. He also urges that violent usurps and radical political breaks should be avoided at all costs.

He then warns of the potential dangers of political parties, which can promote the interests of certain groups instead of Americans as a whole. He specifically makes a reference to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties and their attempts to align themselves as parties with other nations, which could potentially tear the United States apart. He points out that political parties have caused trouble wherever they have shown up, especially in a republic.

Washington goes back to defending the Constitution by saying that the separation of powers and the checks and balances between them are important in preventing another single person or group from gaining control, something which they had rebelled from in the Revolutionary War. Again he argues amendment over force should the people want a change in the government.

He then defends morality, religion and education; defends the importance of little government borrowing; talks about foreign relations; talks about his intentions writing this letter; defends his proclamation of neutrality.
to be continued with more details.

LAD#6: Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality

Summarize.
Washington believes that the United States should for it's own best interests stay friendly and impartial in the conflict involving France vs. Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. He declares that the United States, and its citizens, will remain neutral. If a citizen was to break this policy of neutrality in any way he would be punished, or if captured should not expect aid from the United States.
written in Philadelphia on April 22nd, 1793.

Republican Motherhood Blog

1: What role did the Revolutionary War play in the transformation of housewifery to Republican Motherhood?
In a Republican Motherhood, the mother is charged witht he duty of cultivating and raising sons for the next generation of men. During the Revolutionary War, American soldiers fought to defend the lives, possessions and liberty of the Americn people; but these heroics can often be forgotten over the course of years, as children are born who did not witness it. The new role of a Republican mother was to teach her sons about these values that the patriots defended and showed during their fight int he Revolution (Doc C).

2: What were the consequences of Republican Motherhood on women?
In some ways it further confined women to the household, by saying that it was her duty by God and nature, and now also her duty to her country, that her place was the home (Doc A).

3: What is the significance of the ideology of Republican Motherhood as a stage in the process of women's socialization?
Through Republican motherhood women were given much more respect; for they were the ones who could cultivate the minds which could become "enlightened legislatures". The home, which was considered to be their place of duty, was considered the "cradle of the human race" or in other words the place where the nature of the population is nurtured and grows (Doc A). It also encouraged women to be educated, since they were the "stewarsd and guardians of their husband's property" and needed the right tools and intelligence to do so. Furthermore, they needed to be educated in the ways of liberty and republicanism in order to teach their sons these values (Doc B).

Republican Motherhood - Mary Gibson Tilghman & Sons, by Charles Wilson Peale (1789)

1: Describe the setting.
A woman, presumably a mother, sits on a sofa looking directly at the viewer. Two young boys, presumably her sons, sit one on her lap and one next to her.

2: Who serves at the center of the portrait and why? How does the woman look? How is she "republican" rather than aristocratic?
Mary Gibson (Mrs. Richard Tilghman) sits at the center of the portrait, the focal point of the piece. The light seems to radiate from her head and shoulders, and she looks modestly proud with a slight smile and good posture. She is dressed relatively plainly and modestly, her dress made of a naturally colored cloth, unlike an aristocrat who would be wearing a gaudy, opalescent outfit. She also seems to not be wearing much if any makeup, but is still naturally beautiful.

3: What values do her sons exhibit?
They are both sitting relatively calmly and are showing good posture. The seemingly younger child on Mrs. Tilghman's lap is dressed modestly, and even her presumably older son next to her is only dressed in an indigo colored outfit that seems similar to a soldier's uniform. This shows that they, like their mother, are proud but modestly so.

4: Is there a significance to the position of Mrs. Tilghman's arm?
Her arm is placed across the younger child's knees, gently but firmly holding him back from his reaching towards his other brother. This shows that in a Republican Motherhood role, the mother should guide her children to be responsible and civil.

LAD#5: Federalist #10

1.  Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?

Both things that are essential to create factions are also deeply engraved in the nature of mankind. One is liberty, which without it political and daily life could not function. The second is man's ability to form his own opinions and his common fault of attaching them to his emotions and passions, thus making it very hard to ue logic to change his opinion.

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

A minority faction is easily controlled by being outvoted. A majority faction can be prevented by instituting a republic instead of a direct democracy. In this way, a smaller (but not too small) number of elected citizens can hopefully discern the true interest of their people and make an educated and as objective as possible decision. Also, a larger territory for the republic to govern will take in a larger variety of interests and opinions, and less likely that one passion will become a ruling majority.

LAD#4: Revolution Article

Five things I learned from reading "Rethinking the Revolution":

• The author is shockingly correct; personally I never really thought about the Revolutionary War as incredibly bloody or violent. I didn't think that it wasn't, but I just never thought about it that way. Instead I think about it as an almost glorious (for lack of a better word) revolution that brought the United States into existence.
• The Revolution was America's longest declared war - eight years - and 1 in 4 Continental Army soldiers died, compared with 1 in 5 during the Civil War and 1 in 40 in WWII.
• Images shape the way we remember history; a lot of Revolutionary images are very Romantic in style, and don't actually show much battle, merely the supposed honor and dignity in it. Whereas in the Civil War, when photographs were first being taken, obviously more realistic and thus gruesome images were captured.
• With a few exceptions, we tend to remember military leaders from the Civil War [Robert E Lee, Ulysses S Grant, Stonewall Jackson etc.] and civil leaders from the Revolutionary War [Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson etc.].
• The reason the Revolutionary War it self isn't remembered as such a horrible conflict was because it was overshadowed by other things; namely, it was sandwiched between the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention. Also, six times as many people died in the Civil War, causing many to unintentionally downplay the seriousness of the Revolutionary War.

LAD#3: Declaration of Independence

1: democratic principles-
-all men are created equal
-all men are given the indisputable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
-the purpose of government is to ensure these rights
-the government draws power and consent from the governed
-when a government no longer does this, the governed have the right to abolish it
-a long-standing government should not be abolished for small reasons
-when a government repeatedly abuses it's power, it is the right and duty of the governed to rise up.

2: grievances towards the King-
-he forbade governors from passing important laws without his agreement, and then neglected to respond
-he refused to pass certain laws unless the people on which they were passed accepted a lack of representation
-he dissolved representative houses who were calling him out on his wrongs
-he obstructed proper justice systems
-he kept standing armies in the colonies in times of peace without permission, and gave them power above the people
-he allowed troops to quarter where they wished without the possibility of being refused and protecting them from trials for any crimes they committed
-for his policies of mercantilism, including taxing goods and cutting off trade to the rest of the world
-he either did not allow colonists trial by jury or forced them overseas for it
-he obscured or demolished any kind of legislative government in the colonies
-he forced captives to either fight or die against their fellow colonists
-etc

3: the conclusion-
The colonists first modestly petitioned the king against all of these grievances but were repeatedly met with denial and further grievances. They also tried to appeal to other British officers, who turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to their pleas, and so they will be considered the same as the rest of the world, "enemies in war, in peace friends".
Thus they declare themselves free states, cutting all ties with the British crown and government, establishing their own and being given all rights that every independent state has.
ans

LAD#2: Peter Zenger

1) Who was John Peter Zenger?
The hired printer of the New York Weekly Journal, who in 1733 criticized the corrupt policies of NY Colonial Governor William Cosby. He served an apprenticeship to William Bradford after arriving in New York from Germany in 1710.

2) What was the controversy over his charges? Talk about Hamilton's defense.
Cosby accused Zenger's articles to be "scandalous, virulent" and "false", arresting him under charges of seditious libel. His defense lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, admitted that Zenger had published the articles but argued that unless it was false the publications could not be considered libel.


3) What influence did his case have on American governmental tradition?
It was an early instance defending freedom of press; if a statement, no matter how derogatory, can be proved, then it cannot be considered libelous. It was also an example of a precedent; that is, an act or decision that serves as a formal guide for future situations of the same nature.


4) What is the lasting significance of his trial? Explain.
Besides the influence on American governmental tradition regarding freedom of press and stating that truth was a defense against charges of libel, since Hamilton mainly appealed to the jury, it also set the precedent against tyranny by the judge.

LAD#1: Mayflower Compact & Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

1) What concepts are included in the Mayflower Compact?
That the colonists were settling in Northern Virginia in the name of their sovereign, King James, and in the name of God and advancing their Christian religion. By signing, they promised to come together and meet regularly to create government and laws to keep order, and that their duty was to their colony.

2) How does the Mayflower Compact reflect an attachment to both the "Old" and "New" worlds?
The colonists reference King James, their sovereign from England, but also mention "furthering" their Christian religion. They also swear submission to the colony and its future government.

3) How did the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut differ from the Mayflower Compact?
The Fundamental Orders are an actual document of government and laws whereas the Mayflower Compact was more of a promise to create a government and laws in the future. The Fundamental Orders also brought together three settlements (Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield) into a single commonwealth, where the Mayflower Compact only bounded together the people of a single settlement (Plymouth).

4) What prompted the colonists of Connecticut to take this approach to government, i.e.: use of a written Constitution?
In the Fundamental Orders it states that according to the word of God a government should be created beneath him in order to not only keep the peace and union of the people, but to "preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel".

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 first Order dictates that there will be one governor, but six other Magistrates at all times, and for there to be an election held yearly. The second dictates that the people in those positions must be voted in by those qualified to vote. The fourth limits a person to being governor only once in two years, so that they cannot continually be in that position. Other Orders make sure that at all General Courts there are multiple people, including freemen acting as deputies to the settlements, present and able to check the power of the others. All of these limit the power of a single person, and the Fundamental Orders also give ways for the "freemen" of the colonies to fight back should the governor or magistrates fail to follow it.

Hello!

My first post on this blog... I'll be honest, I wonder how much we're actually going to use it. Either way this class will be an interesting adventure, to say the least. Just a quick few things about me: I am in the process of developing my own personal political party/moral system that will probably never be completed, since the only work on it is in my head. It is based on conservative values with a modern twist, I suppose. I'm also a rower, and that is a huge part of my life, not only in time commitment but also in how it has changed my lifestyle into being much more healthy both physically and mentally.

So yeah. That's that. I've got other homework to do so, I'm just going to move along now.

PS: in the URL, "apush-by-e-pers", the name "E-Pers" is one of my nicknames at crew. Just in case you were confused.