DOCSLIB.ORG

Historical Analysis – Student Direction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historical Analysis – Student Direction Historical Analysis – Student Direction Your Task: The Constitution is a written document that outlines the republican form of government we have today. After much compromise, 39 of the 55 delegates that attended the Constitutional Convention signed the document. Howard Chandler Christy’s painting of the signing of the United States Constitution was custom‐made in 1939 as part of the congressional celebration of the Constitution’s 150th anniversary. Finished in 1940, the scene is among the most well known images in the United States Capitol. It is on display in the east grand stairway of the House wing. Christy’s painting is highly praised as the best single picture ever created of the founding of America. However, it is not the only one that exists, and each day new artists are creating their own interpretations of historical events based on historical data. There is talk about commissioning a modern artist to create a new painting that will replace Christy’s interpretation of the signing. Critics have questioned its historical accuracy and intended message. Like all artistic pieces, one must question whether it displays the spirit of the time captured, the opinion of the author, or perhaps both. You have been selected to be part of a group to determine whether the artist’s political message displayed in the image is one that justifies its display in its Washington D.C. location. To determine this, you must critically analyze the image, determine the artists intended message, determine the author’s use of his craft to portray that message, and lastly, determine if the painting portrays the spirit of the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Essential Questions 1. How does an artist use his or her craft to reveal a political message? 2. What principles outlined in the Constitution align or are in opposition to the artist’s message? 3. How did the artist’s purpose for creating the painting impact the overall message? I will be able to: • Cite specific evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources. • Identify aspects of a text that reveals an author’s point of view or purpose. • Cite textual evidence that most strongly supports analysis of what a text explicitly states and what can be implied using context clues. How do we retrieve information? 1. Make inferences 2. Make observations 3. Ask questions How do we support our inferences? TEXT! • Painting‐‐Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States • Constitution Packets • Delegate Packets • Delegates v. Signers List Directions: • Refer to the observations you made in column 1 yesterday (What do you see?) • Begin drawing inferences based on your observations of the painting. Write these inferences in column 2 (What do you think it means?) • Support or refute your inferences using specific text evidence. Note the evidence in column 3 (What specific textual evidence helps to support or refute your interpretation?) • If you are having difficulty supporting or refuting the inferen ces, what information do you need to know? Write any questions that you h ave on the whiteboard. You will have an opportunity during this activity t o ask questions to other students. At that point, if other students c annot find specific text evidence to address your question, you will be ab le to use technology to research. Discussion Question: Should Christy’s painting remain on display in Washington, D.C. or should it be replaced? Model-William Jackson, Secretary ObseNations: What do you see? •Wearing red-stands out •Holding up a hand and has something in his other hand •Central in the image •Looking at the viewer •Same color as carpet-carpet on the "stage" Inference: Text Excerpts: What do you think it means? What specifictextual evidence supports or refutes my inference? Since he was the secretary, he probably wrote down the notes, William Jackson, yet another immigrant at the Convention, was elected Secretary of the Convention and hee recorded the propositions and amendments as well ase and his writingsare why we know the vote tabulation. what happened at the Convention. (Overview: The ConstitutionalConvention) That makes him "central" to the meeting. A secretary was hired to keep a record of the proceedings. His records were lost. Question: But Madison sat close to the front, never missed a session, and copied down all the speeches. James Madison has been calledthe Father of the Constitution. Did he object to anything in the (Overview: The ConstitutionalConvention) document, or is he raising his hand in agreement? What do you see? What do you think it means? What specific textual evidence helps to support or refute your interpretation? Goal: You have been selected to be part of a group to determine whether the artist’s political message displayed in the image is one that justifies its display in its Washington D.C. location. To determine this, you must critically analyze the image, determine the artists intended message, determine the author’s use of his craft to portray that message, and lastly, determine if the painting portrays the spirit of the Constitution and the Continental Congress of 1787. From h'p://www.createyourself.com/wp-content/uploads/ KeySceneAtTheSigningOfTheConsAtuAonOfTheUnitedStates.jpg Overview: the Constitutional Convention The Call for a Grand Convention On May 15, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, issued “A Resolve” to the thirteen colonies: “Adopt such a government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the safety and happiness of their constituents in particular and America in general.” Between 1776 and 1780 each of the thirteen colonies adopted a republican form of government. What emerged was the most extensive documentation of the powers of government and the rights of the people that the world had ever witnessed. These state constitutions displayed a remarkable uniformity. Seven attached a prefatory Declaration of Rights, and all contained the same civil and criminal rights. Four states decided not to “prefix” a Bill of Rights to their constitutions, but, instead, incorporated the very same natural and traditional rights found in the prefatory declarations. New York incorporated the entire Declaration of Independence into its constitution. The primary purpose of these declarations and bills was to outline the objectives of government: to secure the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The government that was chosen to secure these rights was declared universally to be “a republican form of government.” All of the states, except Pennsylvania, embraced a two-chamber legislature, and all, except Massachusetts, installed a weak executive and denied the Governor the power to veto bills of the legislature. All accepted the notion that the legislative branch should be preeminent, but, at the very same time, endorsed the concept that the liberty of the people was in danger from the corruption of the representatives. And this despite the fact that the representatives were installed by the election of the people. Thus, each state constitution embraced the notion of short terms of office for elected representatives along with recall, rotation, and term limits. The Second Continental Congress also created the first continental-wide system of governance. The Articles of Confederation created a nation of pre-existing states rather than a government over individuals. Thus, the very idea of a Bill of Rights was irrelevant because the Articles did not entail a government over individuals. The states were equally represented in the union regardless of size of population, only one branch was needed, normal political activity required the support of super majorities, the union was limited to the powers expressly enumerated, and amendment was required to endow the union with powers that weren’t specifically articulated. Amendments required the unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures. The Articles didn’t come into operation until the early 1780s because of territorial disputes between two states; all of the states were required to “sign on” before the Articles became operative on any one state. These two directives produced two opposite and rival situations: an early operating, robust and healthy state and local politics and a late arriving, weak and divisive continental arrangement. Several statesmen, especially George Washington, were concerned that the idea of an American mind that had emerged during the war with Britain was about to disappear and the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to foster the development of an American character. According to Washington, “we have errors to correct.” He argued that the states refused to comply with the articles of peace, the union was unable to regulate interstate commerce, and the states met, but oh so grudgingly, just the minimum interstate standards required by the Articles. Others, especially James Madison, were concerned that the state legislatures—dominated by what he saw as oppressive, unjust, and overbearing majorities—were passing laws detrimental to the rights of individual conscience and the right to private property. And there was nothing that the union government could do about it because the Articles left matters of religion and commerce to the states. The solution, concluded Madison, was to create an extended republic, in which a variety of opinions, passions, and interests would check and balance each other, supported by a governmental framework that endorsed a separation of powers between the branches of the general government. Between 1781 and 1785 attempts “to correct these errors” failed to secure the required unanimous consent of the state legislatures. Matters changed, however, in 1786. Following James Madison’s suggestion of 21 January 1786, the Virginia Legislature invited all the States to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflicts in Annapolis, Maryland. The “commissioners” in attendance at Annapolis during September 1786, chatted about these particular concerns, but suggested that the conversation be both deepened and widened.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Inventory of the Ralph Ingersoll Collection #113
    The Inventory of the Ralph Ingersoll Collection #113 Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center John Ingersoll 1625-1684 Bedfordshire, England Jonathan Ingersoll 1681-1760 Connecticut __________________________________________ Rev. Jonathan Ingersoll Jared Ingersoll 1713-1788 1722-1781 Ridgefield, Connecticut Stampmaster General for N.E Chaplain Colonial Troops Colonies under King George III French and Indian Wars, Champlain Admiralty Judge Grace Isaacs m. Jonathan Ingersoll Baron J.C. Van den Heuvel Jared Ingersoll, Jr. 1770-1823 1747-1823 1749-1822 Lt. Governor of Conn. Member Const. Convention, 1787 Judge Superior and Supreme Federalist nominee for V.P., 1812 Courts of Conn. Attorney General Presiding Judge, District Court, PA ___ _____________ Grace Ingersoll Charles Anthony Ingersoll Ralph Isaacs Ingersoll m. Margaret Jacob A. Charles Jared Ingersoll Joseph Reed Ingersoll Zadock Pratt 1806- 1796-1860 1789-1872 1790-1878 1782-1862 1786-1868 Married General Grellet State=s Attorney, Conn. State=s Attorney, Conn. Dist. Attorney, PA U.S. Minister to England, Court of Napoleon I, Judge, U.S. District Court U.S. Congress U.S. Congress 1850-1853 Dept. of Dedogne U.S. Minister to Russia nom. U.S. Minister to under Pres. Polk France Charles D. Ingersoll Charles Robert Ingersoll Colin Macrae Ingersoll m. Julia Helen Pratt George W. Pratt Judge Dist. Court 1821-1903 1819-1903 New York City Governor of Conn., Adjutant General, Conn., 1873-77 Charge d=Affaires, U.S. Legation, Russia, 1840-49 Theresa McAllister m. Colin Macrae Ingersoll, Jr. Mary E. Ingersoll George Pratt Ingersoll m. Alice Witherspoon (RI=s father) 1861-1933 1858-1948 U.S. Minister to Siam under Pres.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Intent in the First Congress
    Missouri Law Review Volume 71 Issue 3 Summer 2006 Article 3 Summer 2006 Original Intent in the First Congress Louis J. Sirico Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Louis J. Sirico Jr., Original Intent in the First Congress, 71 MO. L. REV. (2006) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol71/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sirico: Sirico: Original Intent Original Intent in the First Congress Louis J. Sirico, Jr.I I. INTRODUCTION A. Arguing OriginalIntent in Legislative Debate A significant body of literature has examined how the Framers and rati- fiers of the Constitution 2 subsequently viewed the role of original intent in construing the Constitution. The primary focus of these works is how those views should influence today's courts in deciding controversies. 3 A less de- veloped question, however, is how members of the First Congress employed originalist constitutional arguments in making and debating proposed stat- utes.4 This study seeks to contribute to that exploration, not by discussing what the Founders believed about using originalist arguments, but by examin- ing the record of the First Federalist Congress to determine what originalist 5 arguments its members actually made. 1. Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So: Ex Parte
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2000 Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789 Eric M. Freedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Eric M. Freedman, Just Because John Marshall Said it, Doesn't Make it So: Ex Parte Bollman and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 531 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MILESTONES IN HABEAS CORPUS: PART I JUST BECAUSE JOHN MARSHALL SAID IT, DOESN'T MAKE IT So: Ex PARTE BoLLMAN AND THE ILLUSORY PROHIBITION ON THE FEDERAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR STATE PRISONERS IN THE JUDIcIARY ACT OF 1789 Eric M. Freedman* * Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law ([email protected]). BA 1975, Yale University;, MA 1977, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zea- land); J.D. 1979, Yale University. This work is copyrighted by the author, who retains all rights thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia, the Indispensable City of the American Founding the FPRI Ginsburg—Satell Lecture 2020 Colonial Philadelphia
    Philadelphia, the Indispensable City of the American Founding The FPRI Ginsburg—Satell Lecture 2020 Colonial Philadelphia Though its population was only 35,000 to 40,000 around 1776 Philadelphia was the largest city in North America and the second-largest English- speaking city in the world! Its harbor and central location made it a natural crossroads for the 13 British colonies. Its population was also unusually diverse, since the original Quaker colonists had become a dwindling minority among other English, Scottish, and Welsh inhabitants, a large admixture of Germans, plus French Huguenots, Dutchmen, and Sephardic Jews. But Beware of Prolepsis! Despite the city’s key position its centrality to the American Revolution was by no means inevitable. For that matter, American independence itself was by no means inevitable. For instance, William Penn (above) and Benjamin Franklin (below) were both ardent imperial patriots. We learned of Franklin’s loyalty to King George III last time…. Benjamin Franklin … … and the Crisis of the British Empire The FPRI Ginsburg-Satell Lecture 2019 The First Continental Congress met at Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia where representatives of 12 of the colonies met to protest Parliament’s Coercive Acts, deemed “Intolerable” by Americans. But Congress (narrowly) rejected the Galloway Plan under which Americans would form their own legislature and tax themselves on behalf of the British crown. Hence, “no taxation without representation” wasn’t really the issue. WHAT IF… The Redcoats had won the Battle of Bunker Hill (left)? The Continental Army had not escaped capture on Long Island (right)? Washington had been shot at the Battle of Brandywine (left)? Or dared not undertake the risky Yorktown campaign (right)? Why did King Charles II grant William Penn a charter for a New World colony nearly as large as England itself? Nobody knows, but his intention was to found a Quaker colony dedicated to peace, religious toleration, and prosperity.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Historical Society Educator Web Guide
    Georgia Historical Society Educator Web Guide Guide to the educational resources available on the GHS website Theme driven guide to: Online exhibits Biographical Materials Primary sources Classroom activities Today in Georgia History Episodes New Georgia Encyclopedia Articles Archival Collections Historical Markers Updated: July 2014 Georgia Historical Society Educator Web Guide Table of Contents Pre-Colonial Native American Cultures 1 Early European Exploration 2-3 Colonial Establishing the Colony 3-4 Trustee Georgia 5-6 Royal Georgia 7-8 Revolutionary Georgia and the American Revolution 8-10 Early Republic 10-12 Expansion and Conflict in Georgia Creek and Cherokee Removal 12-13 Technology, Agriculture, & Expansion of Slavery 14-15 Civil War, Reconstruction, and the New South Secession 15-16 Civil War 17-19 Reconstruction 19-21 New South 21-23 Rise of Modern Georgia Great Depression and the New Deal 23-24 Culture, Society, and Politics 25-26 Global Conflict World War One 26-27 World War Two 27-28 Modern Georgia Modern Civil Rights Movement 28-30 Post-World War Two Georgia 31-32 Georgia Since 1970 33-34 Pre-Colonial Chapter by Chapter Primary Sources Chapter 2 The First Peoples of Georgia Pages from the rare book Etowah Papers: Exploration of the Etowah site in Georgia. Includes images of the site and artifacts found at the site. Native American Cultures Opening America’s Archives Primary Sources Set 1 (Early Georgia) SS8H1— The development of Native American cultures and the impact of European exploration and settlement on the Native American cultures in Georgia. Illustration based on French descriptions of Florida Na- tive Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791 David P
    The University of Chicago Law Review VOLUME 61 NUMBER 3 SUMMER 1994 of Chicago © 1994 by The University The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791 David P. Curriet Judicial review of legislative and executive action has been such a success in the United States that we tend to look exclu- sively to the courts for guidance in interpreting the Constitution. The stock of judicial precedents is rich, accessible, and familiar, but it does not exhaust the relevant materials. Members of Congress and executive officers, no less than judges, swear to uphold the Constitution, and they interpret it every day in making and applying the law.' Like judges, they often engage in t Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor and Interim Dean, The University of Chicago Law School. The author wishes to thank the Kirkland & Ellis Faculty Research Fund, the Mayer, Brown & Platt Faculty Research Fund, the Morton C. Seeley Fund, the Raymond & Nancy Goodman Feldman Fund, and the Sonnenschein Faculty Research Fund for financial support; Charlene Bangs Bickford, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Helen E. Veit of the First Federal Congress Project for access to hitherto unpublished reports of the debates; Kenneth Bowling, Gerhard Casper, Richard Posner, and Richard Ross for invalu- able advice and encouragement; and Keith Garza for exemplary research assistance. ' "M[T]he whole business of Legislation," said Representative Theodore Sedgwick in 1791, "was a practical construction of the powers of the Legislature. ." Gales & Seaton, eds, 2 Annals of Congress 1960 (1791) ("Annals"). See generally Frank H. Easterbrook, PresidentialReview, 40 Case W Res L Rev 905 (1989-90); Jefferson Powell, ed, Languages of Power: A Source Book of Early American ConstitutionalHistory xi-xii (Carolina Aca- demic Press, 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence Table of Contents
    SIGNERS OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 56 Men Who Risked It All Life, Family, Fortune, Health, Future Compiled by Bob Hampton First Edition - 2014 1 SIGNERS OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTON Page Table of Contents………………………………………………………………...………………2 Overview………………………………………………………………………………...………..5 Painting by John Trumbull……………………………………………………………………...7 Summary of Aftermath……………………………………………….………………...……….8 Independence Day Quiz…………………………………………………….……...………...…11 NEW HAMPSHIRE Josiah Bartlett………………………………………………………………………………..…12 William Whipple..........................................................................................................................15 Matthew Thornton……………………………………………………………………...…........18 MASSACHUSETTS Samuel Adams………………………………………………………………………………..…21 John Adams………………………………………………………………………………..……25 John Hancock………………………………………………………………………………..….29 Robert Treat Paine………………………………………………………………………….….32 Elbridge Gerry……………………………………………………………………....…….……35 RHODE ISLAND Stephen Hopkins………………………………………………………………………….…….38 William Ellery……………………………………………………………………………….….41 CONNECTICUT Roger Sherman…………………………………………………………………………..……...45 Samuel Huntington…………………………………………………………………….……….48 William Williams……………………………………………………………………………….51 Oliver Wolcott…………………………………………………………………………….…….54 NEW YORK William Floyd………………………………………………………………………….………..57 Philip Livingston…………………………………………………………………………….….60 Francis Lewis…………………………………………………………………………....…..…..64 Lewis Morris………………………………………………………………………………….…67
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in Maryland
    Introduction to the Ratification of the Constitution in Maryland Founding the Proprietary Colony The founding and establishment of the propriety government of Maryland was the product of competing factors—political, commercial, social, and religious. It was intertwined with the history of one family, the Calverts, who were well established among the Yorkshire gentry and whose Catholic sympathies were widely known. George Calvert had been a favorite of the Stuart king, James I. In 1625, following a noteworthy career in politics, including periods as clerk of the Privy Council, member of Parliament, special emissary abroad of the king, and a principal secretary of state, Calvert openly declared his Catholicism. This declaration closed any future possibility of public office for him. Shortly thereafter, James elevated Calvert to the Irish peerage as the baron of Baltimore. Calvert’s absence from public office afforded him an opportunity to pursue his interests in overseas colonization. Calvert appealed to Charles I, son of James, for a land grant.1 Calvert’s appeal was honored, but he did not live to see a charter issued. In 1632, Charles granted a proprietary charter to Cecil Calvert, George’s son and the second baron of Baltimore, making him Maryland’s first proprietor. Maryland’s charter was the first long-lasting one of its kind to be issued among the thirteen mainland British American colonies. Proprietorships represented a real share in the king’s authority. They extended unusual power. Maryland’s charter, which constituted Calvert and his heirs as “the true and absolute Lords and Proprietaries of the Region,” might have been “the best example of a sweeping grant of power to a proprietor.” Proprietors could award land grants, confer titles, and establish courts, which included the prerogative of hearing appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • World War I Poster and Ephemera Collection: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c86h4kqh Online items available World War I Poster and Ephemera Collection: Finding Aid Finding aid prepared by Diann Benti. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Prints and Ephemera The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2014 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. World War I Poster and Ephemera priWWI 1 Collection: Finding Aid Overview of the Collection Title: World War I Poster and Ephemera Collection Dates (inclusive): approximately 1914-1919 Collection Number: priWWI Extent: approximately 700 items Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Prints and Ephemera 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: This collection contains approximately 700 World War I propaganda posters and related ephemera dating from approximately 1914 to 1919. The posters were created primarily for government and military agencies, as well as private charities such as the American Committee for Relief in the Near East. While the majority of the collection is American, it also includes British and French posters, and a few Austro-Hungarian/German, Canadian, Belgian, Dutch, Italian, Polish, and Russian items. Language: English. Note: Finding aid last updated on July 24, 2020. Access Open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, contact Reader Services. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • 3\(Otes on the 'Pennsylvania Revolutionaries of 17J6
    3\(otes on the 'Pennsylvania Revolutionaries of 17j6 n comparing the American Revolution to similar upheavals in other societies, few persons today would doubt that the Revolu- I tionary leaders of 1776 possessed remarkable intelligence, cour- age, and effectiveness. Today, as the bicentennial of American inde- pendence approaches, their work is a self-evident monument. But below the top leadership level, there has been little systematic col- lection of biographical information about these leaders. As a result, in the confused welter of interpretations that has developed about the Revolution in Pennsylvania, purportedly these leaders sprung from or were acting against certain ill-defined groups. These sup- posedly important political and economic groups included the "east- ern establishment/' the "Quaker oligarchy/' ''propertyless mechan- ics/' "debtor farmers/' "new men in politics/' and "greedy bankers." Regrettably, historians of this period have tended to employ their own definitions, or lack of definitions, to create social groups and use them in any way they desire.1 The popular view, originating with Charles Lincoln's writings early in this century, has been that "class war between rich and poor, common people and privileged few" existed in Revolutionary Pennsylvania. A similar neo-Marxist view was stated clearly by J. Paul Selsam in his study of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:2 The struggle obviously was based on economic interests. It was a conflict between the merchants, bankers, and commercial groups of the East and the debtor agrarian population of the West; between the property holders and employers and the propertyless mechanics and artisans of Philadelphia. 1 For the purposes of brevity and readability, the footnotes in this paper have been grouped together and kept to a minimum.
    [Show full text]
  • World War I Posters from the Newark Public Library
    World War I Posters from the Newark Public Library 1 For Home and Country: World War I Posters from the Newark Public Library September 11 – December 13, 2017 University Galleries William Paterson University Inside front cover Clockwise from top left Exhibition checklist 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 2 polished publication. He was patient and diligent while Introduction offering fresh perspectives on these historical prints. Special thanks go to William Paterson University Kristen Evangelista Director, University Galleries President Dr. Kathleen Waldron, Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs Dr. Warren Sandmann, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs Dr. Sandra Hill, former Associate Provost for Academic Affairs Dr. Stephen Hahn, Dean of the College of the Arts and Communication Daryl J. Moore, Associate Dean of the College of the Arts ome of our nation’s most iconic First and foremost, I would like to thank WP Professor of and Communication Loretta McLaughlin Vignier, and Chair images were created as propaganda History George Robb for his unwavering cooperation, vision, of the Art Department Professor Lauren Razzore. during World War I. From 1917-1918, and dedication to realizing this exhibition and publication. I would like to especially thank the entire gallery staff S several hundred artists worked This significant undertaking reflects his astute judgment, for their hard work and commitment to all that we do. diligently in concert with government focused scholarship, and curatorial expertise. Emily Johnsen adeptly coordinated numerous aspects agencies to design posters that supported the nation, We received indispensable guidance from Professor of the exhibition and publication with a constant eye for upheld values of liberty, and promoted participation in Alejandro Anreus and Professor Thomas Uhlein in the re- detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Ingersoll: the ^Aristocrat As Copperhead
    Charles Ingersoll: The ^Aristocrat as Copperhead HE INGERSOLL FAMILY is one of America's oldest. The first Ingersoll came to America in 1629, just nine years after the T^Mayflower. The first Philadelphia Ingersoll was Jared Inger- soll, who came to the city in 1771 as presiding judge of the King's vice-admiralty court. Previously, he had been the King's colonial agent and stamp master in Connecticut. During the Revolution, Jared remained loyal to the Crown. He stayed in Philadelphia for the first two years of the war, but in 1777, when he and other Tories were forced to leave, he returned to Connecticut, where he lived quietly until his death in 1781.1 Jared's son, Jared, Jr., was the first prominent Philadelphia Inger- soll. He came to Philadelphia with his father in 1771, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1778. Unlike his father, Jared, Jr., wholeheartedly supported the Revolution. Subsequently, he was a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a member of the city council, city solicitor, attorney general of Pennsylvania, and United States District Attorney. Politically, he was an ardent Fed- eralist, but politics and affairs of state were never his prime interest; his real interest was the law, and most of his time and energy was devoted to his legal practice.2 Jared, Jr.'s, son, Charles Jared Ingersoll, was probably the most interesting of the Philadelphia Ingersolls. Like his father, grand- father, and most of the succeeding generations of Ingersolls, Charles Jared was a lawyer. He began a practice in Philadelphia in 1802, but devoted much of his time to politics.
    [Show full text]