Paul Cooney
AP American
Mr. Decarlo
September 30, 2006



1. Interpret the cartoon. What historical event/issue is being represented?
The ratification process of the Constitution began with Delaware, when the population of that state voted in approval of the new basis of our government. Delaware was the first to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787, as indicated in the cartoon with Delaware’s pillar being the fist from left to right. Pennsylvania followed suit on December 12 of the same year, completing the link between itself and Delaware. Notice the star just beneath the tied link, resembling one of the thirteen starts on the United State’s first flag.

2. What is the message that the cartoonist is trying to convey? Which side of the issue does he support?
The cartoonist is displaying the chronological order in which each of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution. More importantly, he is displaying the lagging states, North Carolina and Rhode Island. Both of these states were perfectly happy with the Articles of Confederation, more commonly known to the rest of the states as the “Articles of Confusion.” It is depicted that North Carolina is on its way towards standing firm and tall, on its way to ratifying the Constitution. Rhode Island was indeed the last to approve the constitution, as that state did not ratify it until May 29, 1790 a little less than three years after Delaware first signified their approval. The artist added a side note next the Rhode Island, “The foundation good- it may yet be saved.” Although Rhode Island’s pillar is in horrible condition, the cartoonist is optimistic that they will eventually ratify the Constitution.

3. What effect(s) did this cartoon have on American History? What were the results of this issue being addressed?
This cartoon must have put a great deal of pressure on Rhode Island, as they were the last state to ratify the Constitution. The cartoon was published in 1788, just one year before Rhode Island finally caved in. The note below the entire cartoon, “the federal edifice,” gives great meaning to the cartoon. The artist is basically satiating that once Rhode Island joins in, the solid foundation of the United States will be a huge edifice looming over the rest of the world.

Paul Cooney
AP American History
Mr. DeCarlo
September 26, 2006

The Federalist Papers: No. 10 (LAD 4)


1. Why are factions so difficult to eliminate?
Factions are associated with the strong beliefs that are deeply rooted in the people belonging to the faction. The "mischief of factions" as James Madison points out, is responsible for the destruction of democracy according to him. The way to eliminate a faction would be to eliminate liberty, because “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.” Without liberty there would not be faction, but at the same time the absence of liberty would result in the absence of democracy, thus arriving back at the starting point. There will always be these factions attacking democracy. Madison heavily favored a republic, which has now evolved into what we know it as today, a representative democracy.

2. If factions cannot be removed then how can they be controlled?
If the republican principle is acted upon, the beliefs of a faction will not arise and take power unless it is the majority. This is the case because of regular vote, which will keep such a faction the minority. For the meantime, as the minority, it will just create a bothersome element in running the government. When, for some reason, the faction is the majority, the form of popular government “enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” To further control a faction, the common passion or interest must be prevented form reaching the majority, or the majority itself must be rendered unable to carry out its means of oppression.

Paul Cooney
Mr. Decarlo
AP American
September 16, 2006

Summary of the Declaration of Independence (LAD 3)

Jefferson was eloquent in his major contribution to the United States, the Declaration of Independence. He opens with a statement proclaiming that when a government begins to interfere with the people’s rights given to them by God, that such a government should be “dissolved.” This sends a very strong message to anyone who reads it, an opening message if you will that foreshadows what is to come later in the document.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the undeniable human rights or as Jefferson calls them the “natural” and “God-given” rights. He continues on to say that with such rights, a body of people must govern these rights, protecting them. It is the government’s job and purpose to do so, and if this goal is failed the people have the obligation to reform or abolish a government that fails them. At this point Jefferson begins to explain how the colonies have endured a violation of their rights by the crown of England, and lists the violations and injustices they have had to coupe with. On the top of the list are numerous examples of how the King has restricted local governments to make necessary laws immediately, especially those concerning the public’s well-being. The entire judicial system is in violation of the people’s rights according to Jefferson. There was limited or no trial by jury, members of the British government or military were prevented from conviction by mock trial, and important forms of local judicial government were abolished. The British government destroyed many of colonist’s lives, and because there was such a poor imperial system in the colonies the King’s appointed governors were often corrupt, creating a tyranny. Despite the colonist’s reasonable and humble requests for the repeal of British practices, their pleads were met with only harsh injury.
At the end of the list of grievances, the colonies proclaim to be United Colonies that are “Free and Independent States” that have the full rights that independent states ought to have; to declare war, to make peace, to establish alliances, and to create commerce etc. The Declaration of Independence ends with the signatures of distinguished men from the various colonies.

Cartoon 5 - The American Rattlesnake

Paul Cooney
Mr. Decarlo
AP American
September 13, 2006








1. Interpret the cartoon. What historical event/issue is being represented?
After the British defeat at Yorktown, peace talks in Paris began in April 1782 between Richard Oswarld representing Great Britain and the American Peace Commissioners Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams. The preliminary articles of peace were signed on November 30, 1782. The Treaty of Paris, formally ending the war, was not signed until September 3, 1783 and the Continental Congress in Annapolis, Maryland, did not ratify the Treaty of Paris until January 14 of the next year, in 1984.
2. What is the message that the cartoonist is trying to convey? Which side of the issue does he support?
Published in April of 1782 when peace negotiations began, James Gillray intended to convey the message that the colonists clearly had control over the British in Revolutionary War. Gillray remains a bit neutral in his political standing, as he is simply gives a view of the Revolutionary War. The British are clearly loosing, represented by the snake’s coils tightly wrapped around them, and the snake has yet another coil ready to trap any other enemies.
3. What effect(s) did this cartoon have on American History? What were the results of this issue being addressed?
Not long after this political cartoon was published, the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the war. This cartoon must have had some influence in the general public’s feelings about the war, as there was an outcry for peace. The English people eventually lost faith and motivation for the war in the colonies.

Paul Cooney
AP American
LAD 2
September 7, 2006


1) Who was John Peter Zenger?
John Peter Zenger was a newspaper publisher in 1733 called New York Weekly Journal. In it he included a section which exposed corrupt British practices of the colonial government, a serious crime at the time. In particular he voiced an opposition to the policies of the new colonial governor William Cosby. Cosby fought for a higher salary, and when he did get it he removed the state’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Lewis Morris. Morris was replaced by James Delancey of the royal party, who was more willing to grant Zenger’s requests.

2) What was the controversy over his charges? Talk about Hamilton’s defense.
Zenger was tried with publishing articles critical of the British government, and he openly admitted it in court. The irony was that the law that put him in prison was the British sedition law, and the law itself was contradicting the liberty and justice the British preached. Hamilton decided to plead Zenger’s case directly to the jury, because the Chief Justice Delancey had been appointed by the same person who had Senger arrested. Hamilton continued on to say that what was printed was only libel if it was false, which it was not. All that was printed was in fact true. All charges were eventually dropped, and a new precedent was set for future juries.

3) What influence did his case have on American governmental tradition?
All U.S juries have the right, duty, and power to nullify bad laws that may come into question during a trial such as the Zenger trial. To do so they must issue a not-guilty verdict with respect to the charges. The trial set a precedent for the government to come in the United States.

4) What is the lasting significance of his trial? Explain.
In 1787 when Congress was panning on making amendments to the Constitution, they immediately though of the Zenger trial and what it meant to the people. Congress decided that the first amendment must be one that protects the freedom of speech, assembly, warship, and freedom of the press for John Peter Zenger. Also, the Zanger New Service began in 1982 spreading the word about current news and information. The ZNS has since then expanded its news coverage to people in 35 foreign countries.

Paul Cooney
AP American History
LAD 1


1) What concepts are included in the Mayflower Compact?
The settlers at New Plymouth in 1620 came together to combine themselves into a civil “Body Politick.” The concept of uniting to better ordering and preservation is outlined here, as well as the intent to create laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers. Such governing policies would be intuited as needed for the good of the colony.

2) How des the Mayflower Compact reflect an attachment to both the “Old’ and “New” Worlds?
The combination of the settlers at Plymouth represented the “New” world ideals, but within the Mayflower Compact all such ideals were presented under the Reign of the Lord Kind James. This represents a link between the “Old” and “New” worlds.

3) What prompted the colonists of Connecticut to take this approach to government, i.e.: use of a written Constitution?
In “Connectecotte,” the people decided to join as one Public State or Commonwealth and set a precedent for successors. The successors were to be a Combination and a Confederation for the purpose of maintaining and preserving the liberty of the resident’s religion; mainly the Gospel of Lord Jesus Christ. The purpose of a written Constitution was to preserve such liberty, as well as the discipline of the Churches. Civil affairs were also to be governed and guided by Laws, Rules, Orders, and Decrees. The colonists were scared to death of being controlled by one person, and if such rules were recorded and set in place then such a tyranny would never be a problem. For example, the Governor can only govern for one year, and the position must be handed to someone else through election. Many of the intricacies took away power from some people, giving it to others who could use it for little personal benefit. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut protected the people.

4) In what significant way(s) does the Fundament Order reflect a fear of and safeguard against the usurping of power by one person or a chosen few?
As stated above, the colonists were petrified at the thought of having one person or a chosen few rule them. For example, in courts the Governor or Moderator shall have power to order the court. These sounds restricting but in truth they were required to give liberty of speech, silence unseasonable and disorderly speaking, and put all conflicts to vote. The Court was not aloud to be adjourned without the consent of the major part of the Court. Just enough power was given to the select few who were in charge to keep such control. Many of the Orders had to deal with who is given power, how much power, for what duration, and how that person may be taken out of or brought into power. This reflects a huge fear of the Order’s writers.