GOOD ANSWERS NO SOURCES READ ABOUT THE-QS CAREFULLY NO SHORT ANSWER AT LEAST 3 LINES WRITE THE Q AND THE ANSWERS

1: What were some of the leading reasons why Richard Hakluyt, in his Discourse of Western Planting, wanted Queen Elizabeth to start English colonies? Did Hakluyt argue they needed to set up colonies so oppressed people in England could go to America in search of freedom? 2: A lot of attention in colonial history has been on the Puritans, but I hope the Williams and Hutchinson readings helped you see things from outside the perspective of that dominant group in New England. On religious freedom and separation of church and state, how did Williams and Hutchinson assert their liberty and rights? 3: How did the lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, assert and protect the rights and liberty of the newspaper printer, John Peter Zenger? How was James Alexander and Alexander Hamilton significant in the development of freedom of the press in America? 4: Even though they were important in starting the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards and other “New Light” ministers were driven out of the Congregational Church. Why did the New England Puritan establishment oppose the Great Awakening “New Lights?” From reading “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” can you see why they disliked Edwards so much? 5: People can say one thing and do another. We tend to remember the Patriots and Founders for what they said. We tend to romanticize them and not see them as real people with real problems and concerns living through for them--like us today--complex and confusing times. They said they stood for freedom, for liberty, but they owned slaves. They were accused at the time of being hypocrites. Should we see them for what they were, as real humans with imperfections, or should we continue to romanticize and idealize them? 6: One of these questions is in terms of religion and the other in terms of the law. How was Anthony Benezet, as a Quaker leader and in his Observations, important for the liberty and rights of slaves? How was the opinion of Chief Justice Mansfield in the Somerset case important for liberty and rights, for Somerset and for other slaves in the British empire? 7: One of the things we deal with in history is bias. Obviously, a patriotic myth is going to have a Patriot bias when remembering the Revolution. As the story goes, Americans, calling themselves Patriots, joined together and rose up against the tyranny of King George III. Those opposed to the Patriots we remember as “Tories” who are usually described as wealthy British merchants and government officials living over here. Yet, colonists were divided. There were more Loyalists than Patriots, and there were even more in the middle. With a Patriot bias we have remembered the Patriot minority as the whole. In this way, history can be just the story of the winners. But, should we forget the Loyalists or remember them as just a few bad Tories? And should we romanticize the Patriot minority and forget about most people who lived in America at the time? 8: In his Journal, did Schoolcraft present a positive view of the people he met on the frontier in the Ozarks? 9: It may be alright to have the Betsy Ross story in explaining the American Revolution in elementary school. But, is there a point later when Americans should learn that the Betsy Ross story is mostly just myth? Also, is it important—what connects us as Americans—that we continue to remember parts of the American Revolution patriotic myth including Betsy Ross? 10: Emphasizing unity, we like to think that Americans thought the Articles of Confederation as a constitution was inadequate and needed to be replaced by the US Constitution. We prefer to remember that most Americans were for the Constitution. However, more American politicians and voters opposed than supported the ratification of the document, the Constitution, drafted at the Philadelphia Convention. Should we just dismiss the Anti-Federalists as losers or should we remember their concern that if we have a strong government and military and become wealthy and powerful we might lose some rights and liberty along the way? 11: The original document drafted at the Philadelphia Convention did not include a bill of rights. In opposing the ratification of that document, how were Anti-Federalists advocating liberty and rights? 12: John Marshall and the Federalists thought that the Supreme Court, through judicial review, could establish a rule of law that could check a potential tyranny of the majority. Think of a majority in a legislature passing an act that benefits a majority of people in society but hurts a minority, and think of that act, through judicial review, being struck down by the Supreme Court if it violates a part of the Constitution. How can the Marshall Court’s assertion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison be seen as important for liberty and rights? 13: In thinking about the history of Native Americans, Americans have been sympathetic of their desire to hold on to their land. Americans would do the same thing trying to hold on to their land against an aggressor. In reading the message of Tenskwatawa, however, were there more reasons he wanted Indians to oppose Americans? Were there other things he wanted Indians to do beyond just trying to hold on to their land? 14: How were Tecumseh, Tenskwatawa, and their Indian alliance asserting independence, liberty, and rights? 15: Can you see how Douglass, in his 4th of July speech, was important in reinterpreting the line “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence? In this speech and with his leadership in the anti-slavery movement, how was Douglass advocating liberty and rights? 16: Can you see how Stanton, in the Seneca Falls Declaration, was important in reinterpreting the line “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence? In this declaration and with her leadership in the women’s-rights movement, how was Stanton advocating liberty and rights? 17: In the account of the Hickok trial, you got to see the full arguments of both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Personally, did you find either one more persuasive? If so, why? Or, why did you find them balanced or neither one to be persuasive? (I am curious about what you think about the arguments, not which you think would have been more persuasive at the time--obviously, at the time, the defense argument was the most persuasive.) 18: George Nichols’ article, “Wild Bill,” was first and foremost entertainment for eastern readers to sell more issues of Harper’s magazine. Did you notice how Nichols changed things and even added some complete fiction about the Hickok-Tutt shootout and the Hickok trial? As writers embellished their accounts or wrote fiction about the west to entertain eastern readers, can you see how this might help develop our collective memory of the west which became known as the “Wild West?”