Wednesday, September 24, 2014

LAD #7: Washington's Farewell Address


George Washington

With an upcoming presidential election, Washington found a suitable time to give his farewell address. He understood that he was a very popular candidate and would win the election no matter what. For this reason, to encourage a more varied democratic process, Washington withdrew from the race. Along with his withdrawal, he presents a few key points which he believes the American people should keep in mind. Firstly, he states his firm belief that national unity is necessary for America to succeed, and the growing division due to the different factions of government evolving at the time worried Washington greatly. Secondly, he recommends that America not keep permanent alliances with European countries, which would tie America into their constant wars, cause the enemies of their allies to be their enemies as well, and would ultimately hurt them more than it helped them.

LAD #6: Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality

La Liberté guidant le peuple by Eugéne Delacroix


In the aftermath of the French Revolution, war seemed inevitable in Europe, and sure enough, it arrived with celerity. France, led by a government of revolutionary minds, declared war on Great Britain, and by doing so threatened aggression to a great many other European countries. Not believing the Americans to be a necessary part of this conflict, and seemingly confident France would not declare war on them as well, Washington made the choice to declare neutrality in the war. Having just forged a nation on the backs of the American people, and just recently having come out of a war, he did not believe it wise to engage in another. This coupled with mixed American opinions on the French Revolution and the situation in Europe at the time caused him to make this declaration.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

LAD #5: Federalist #10



 The Federalist Papers

1. Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?

Factions at their core are really just groups of like-minded people, all joined together in support of an idea or a collection of ideas. While it could be a majority, a faction was just as often a vocal minority in the community or population it represented, and by joining together these groups of people were able to benefit the needs of their group and themselves, often ignoring the will of the majority. James Madison claimed there were two ways to eliminate the causes of factions and prevent them from forming, both equally implausible. The first was to prevent people from forming these groups, which was unconstitutional and restricting of the freedoms that America was built on. The second was to assimilate these groups into one, which was also impossible because of the conflicting nature of people's thoughts and opinions.

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

Madison came to the conclusion that if the causes of factions could not be stopped or controlled in any way, and that they were intrinsic to the nature of mankind, then the best solution to the problem caused by factions would be to simply let them form and attempt to control their effects after the fact. The effects referred to specifically were the restriction and manipulation of the will of the majority by these individual factions. Madison believed that the best solution was a representative or republican form of government was best suited to prevent this type of manipulation, as the representatives would vote with the needs of their states in mind, rather then based on their own opinions.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Republican Motherhood Blog

Part 1:
 The Artist and His Family by James Peale (1795)


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

Since nearly all of the men had gone off to fight in the war, the traditional "head" of the family was absent, and so was not able to impress responsibilities and virtues upon the children. This role now fell to the mother in his stead. As their contribution to the war effort, women at this time were expected to raise "...good citizens, just, humane, and enlightened legislators" (document A). While they largely had the responsibility of raising and educating the children beforehand as well, the role of women as heads of the family did not surface until all the fathers were not able to fill that role.

2. What were the consequences of Republican Motherhood on women?

As a result of their new and important role as the shapers of future society, young women began to receive formal educations more commonly, so as to impress that knowledge onto their children. As vocalized by Benyamin Rush, "...female education should be accommodated to the state of society, manners, and government..." (document B). They were expected to have knowledge of the English language, being able to read and write, as well as understand basic arithmetic and some geography and history as well.

3. What is the significance of the ideology of Republican Motherhood as a stage in the process of women's socialization?

This new vision of women not only being housewives, caring for the children and cleaning the domicile, but also being knowledgeable of the world and passing that knowledge on to further generations, was likely the first major step in the gender equality movement. Men and women alike, society even began to understand that women were not inferior to men, as many had believed previously, just that they were not offered the same opportunities as men. When they were offered some similar opportunities, they were able to impact society in a way no one previously thought possible. In the words of Jonathan F. Stearns, "On you, ladies, depends in most important degree, the destiny of our country" (document D).

Part 2:
Mary Gibson Tilghman and her sons, Charles Willson Peale

 1. Describe the setting.

The setting is in the home, portraying the mother in her traditional role as caretaker, posing with the children and, note, without the husband. It appears to be a fairly upper class family, and was painted around 1789, when the mentality of women's role in the home was beginning to change.

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

The mother, Mary Gibson Tilghman in this case, takes the central focal point in this painting. She is portrayed as not only proper and distinguished, but also seemingly happy to be with her children. In this way, she is more republican than more aristocratic women appeared in previous portraits; she is reacting positively to the greater recognition and importance of women in society.

3. What values do her sons exhibit?

The children in this portrait appear very prim and proper as well, not only in their dress and manner, but also due to the fact that they are sitting still and posing for a portrait, which many boys their age may have been hard-pressed to do. This likely reflects the responsible and virtuous characteristics their mother has impressed upon them.

4. In there a significance to the position of Mrs. Tilghman's arm?

The mother's arm in this portrayal of familial life at the time is placed around her younger child, showing affection by embracing him, but also restraining him for the portrait. This shows that Republican mothers at the time needed to balance the warmth and tenderness of a maternal role with the strict and commanding demeanor of the paternal role they had to fill.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Blog #4 - Revolution Article

Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze

1. The American Revolution is considered to be more important in our society today than the Civil War by many people, despite the fact that the Revolutionary War was fought on a much smaller scale and arguably affected America less than the Civil War. This is because the Revolutionary War seemed much more illustrious and noble than its counterpart, due to the technology available at the time and the circumstances surrounding the war. and  started as a revolution against England which sparked a war, while the Civil War is often not classified as a revolution, since it started as a war to maintain the Union and only became a revolution after the war had begun.

2. Revolution-era paintings often portray a romanticized point of view of the war, the most notable examples being the work of John Trumbull, Emanuel Leutze, Archibald Willard, and William Trego. All the paintings created by these men depicted the War and its circumstances as more civilized and less brutal than they actually were. By the time the Civil War began, the camera had been invented, and men like Mathew Brady used it to to truly capture the Civil War in all its morbid reality, leaving a darker and more frightening image of the Civil War in the minds of the American people.

3. The rhetoric of the Civil War era is often deemed more incisive than the speeches given by less experienced Revolution-era men. The Gettysburg Address was a prime example of Lincoln's powerful ability to influence others with his speech. In this address, Lincoln specifically mentions the Civil War and the losses suffered by the brave soldiers fighting in the war, painting a clear, horrific picture of the war for the American people. Washington was not often considered to be a stellar orator, and spoke very little of the horrors of war, so the people were left with a more idealistic image of that war.

4. The Civil War also carried with it more advanced technology in the form of weaponry. These improved firearms and artillery were capable of inflicting much heavier casualties, and did so very effectively. Despite the greater number of losses during the Civil War, combat during the Revolutionary War was undeniably bloody and difficult, due to the close range the soldiers fought at. The fighting between southern Loyalists and northern rebels was similar to, perhaps even indicative of the future conflict of the Civil War.

5. Civilians also incurred heavy losses and great suffering during the Revolutionary War. They were affected by disease spread by the troops to small towns, and the populations of those towns were often quickly infected and wiped out. The constant fighting in cities and smaller towns took the lives of many civilians as well. Tories and Whigs fought one another, especially in the south, and when the Revolution succeeded, over 100,000 Loyalist Tories were driven into exile.

Monday, September 15, 2014

LAD #3: Declaration of Independence

Writing the Declaration of Independence

Summarize the Declaration of Independence in 3 parts:

1. Democratic Principles

The Declaration of Independence opens with the idea that there were certain rights everyone possessed that no government could take away from them; specifically, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It goes on to say that if a government was attempting to take away those rights or otherwise was not working in the favor of the people, then it is the prerogative of those people to dismantle said government and form their own. This was, in essence, what the founding fathers were doing with the Declaration of Independence.

2. Grievances

The document listed many offenses incurred by the King of Great Britain, George III. A few major offenses were refusing to ratify or completely ignoring laws which would benefit the people, as well as denying governors the right to pass those laws in his absence, dissolving representative houses and preventing them from being reformed, controlling the outcomes of trials for his benefit, and imposing unfair taxes on the colonists. These and other grievances were meant to point out how the king had been restricting and removing the personal freedoms of the colonists.

3. Conclusion

To close out the Declaration, the founding fathers remind the British that they had tried to settle these matters amicably, that they had tried to come to a compromise with their British rulers that could benefit both sides, and had time and time again been rejected or ignored. This was their last resort, and in it they clearly stated that, if the British chose to deny them their freedoms, which they clearly were intent on doing, that the colonies had no choice but to sever ties from Britain and become self-governing.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

LAD #2: John Peter Zenger




 Trial of John Peter Zenger

1. Who was John Peter Zenger?

John Peter Zenger was a publisher in colonial New York, whose newspaper contained articles criticizing the actions and policies of the governor at the time, Willam Cosby. His newspaper, the New York Weekly Journal, was established by wealthy men Cosby had removed from their government. When the bad press continued, Cosby had Zenger put in jail and charged with seditious libel.


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

The trial became high profile and controversial when eminent Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton became Zenger's defendant for the case. While the New York Weekly Journal was negatively inclined in its portrayal of Cosby, everything it published was the truth, and Hamilton used this key point in his defense of Zenger. His convincing argument simply stated that the articles were all proven to be factual, and therefore could not be libel. The case ended in a not guilty verdict for Zenger.


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

The Zenger case became a model for freedom of the press in the US. Before the constitution there was no first amendment to protect freedom of speech and the press, so there was nothing preventing government officials from silencing journalists who disagreed with them or portrayed them negatively. With this case, Hamilton proved there was no basis for prosecuting newspaper writers and publishers who were only sharing the truth.


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

The views of Zenger, Hamilton, and the jury of the case were that people have a right to know and share the truth. These views were similar to the ones that would go into the US constitution, especially the First Amendment. Freedom of the press was one of the most important parts of that amendment, giving individuals in the US rights freedom to publish anything without government interference, a right citizens of many other nations did not have at the time.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

LAD #1: Mayflower Compact & Fundamental Orders of Connecticut


  Signing the Mayflower Compact 1620 by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

1) What concepts are included in the Mayflower Compact?

The Mayflower Compact included all the important views and beliefs the colonists held about their situation, including loyalty to King James and their home country of England, as well as commitment to their new home in the colony.  Despite the formation of a "civil Body Politick," it did not so much create a governing body, as it did provide an agreement between the settlers that they would all remember and live by these principles.

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

The document begins by reaffirming the colonists' loyalty to the "Old World." Specifically, the British King James, his domain of England, France, and Ireland, and the Christian faith they come from. However, it also goes on to state that the colonists "promise all due Submission and Obedience" to the good of the colony, signifying their new responsibilities and commitment to the "New World" of the colony.

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

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut created a governing body for the colony in Connecticut, as well as creating a written constitution protecting the rights of the citizens of the towns. In contrast to the Mayflower Compact, it is much more explicit in its wording and intentions, and provides a written record of the creation of an actual government, as well as the appended constitution which was omitted from the Mayflower Compact altogether.

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

By outlining their immutable rights upon creation of the government, the colonists protected themselves as citizens, and prevented any government officials from abusing their power or taking advantage of the common people.  By putting these ideas in writing, the colonists made them harder for people to misinterpret, and impossible to change after the fact.

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 Fundamental Orders of Connecticut put several safeguards against one person or a select few centralizing the power. The colonists made the decision to split power in the government between many officials, each with different duties, rather than have only one small government body make all the decisions. Since these decisions are outlines in the colony's constitution, it became impossible for officials to change how the government was structured without going against what was written in the constitution.

http://connecticuthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/FundamentalOrders-610x379.jpg 
 The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut