OBSERVATION: Unthank notes that any man is entitled to run for public office regardless of their background, and that theft is less frequent than in his hometown, possibly due to the lower poverty rate.

INTERPRETATION: Unthank's experience living in New York was extremely pleasant, safe, and a large step up from his life in Ireland, with less discrimination, poverty, and crime taking place.

CONTEXT: The tertiary source describes the Protestants as very well-off, especially compared to their Catholic counterparts who would migrate to the US en masse in the following decade. They are described as predominantly being educated property-owners, making their transition into becoming citizens smooth and largely free of distress. This is corroborated by Unthank's account of his experience living in a safe area of the city where crime and suffering are at a minimum.

CONTEXT: The tertiary source gives context behind Unthank's experiences as a Protestant Irish immigrant to the US. Additionally, Unthank's experience gives context behind the privilege of living in the US as an educated white male at the time and why so many Protestants were drawn there from Ireland with the promise of better living.

OBSERVATION: Poinsett explains that despite the amicable relations between the US and the Latin American nations, there was no obligation on the part of the US to interfere in Latin American skirmishes such as the attempted invasion of Cuba by France.

INTERPRETATION: Poinsett is relaying clarifications on the part of the administration at the time, who were not keen on having demands made by other countries whom they had no intention of involving themselves officially with.

CONNECTION: The tertiary source notes that although the Monroe Doctrine made a strong declaration that invasion of any of the Americas by European nations will not be tolerated by the US, the people behind it (particularly Henry Clay) quickly changed their stance on US interference with other nations' affairs, choosing to take a more neutral stance and deny any obligation to help anybody beyond their borders.

CHANGE OVER TIME: The US went from boldly positioning themselves as a guiding figure for other nations and a powerful force against European invasion to recoiling and attempting to distance themselves from foreign affairs.

OBSERVATION: Upon having his authority questioned, Poinsett strongly affirms to Clay that his declaration of the US not to permit Europe to interfere with any Latin American governmental affairs was entirely in reference to declarations made by President Monroe in the Monroe Doctrine.

INTERPRETATION: Only three years after the doctrine was issued, miscommunication occurred between the Monroe administration and personnel such as Poinsett, with Poinsett being chastised simply for informing Mexican diplomats of official statements made by the President.

CONNECTION: The tertiary source stated that the authors behind the Monroe Doctrine began to have cold feet not too long after publishing it due to the unintended implication that Spanish-American territories would receive military aid as a part of efforts to keep Europe out of their hair, and that by 1824 Clay's position was that the US would not concern itself with affairs outside of its own borders. It seems that a side effect of this was a discrepancy in understanding between different levels of authority.

CHANGE OVER TIME: The Monroe administration published the Monroe Doctrine as a bold, authoritative stance on international affairs, reflective of the attitude of the War Hawks who were coming into power at the time, but by 1826, they were beginning to backpedal on their assertions due to a fear of misconception on the part of their neighbors down South.

OBSERVATION: Poinsett explains that the government of Mexico entirely understands the nature of the Monroe Doctrine, which is merely a statement made by the Executive branch and not binding in any way.

INTERPRETATION: The US administration saw Poinsett's statements to the government of Mexico as an affirmation of actions which they weren't intent on performing. As such, Poinsett felt the need to not only clarify that he had zero intent to do so, but also that Mexico was fully cognizant of the unbinding nature of the doctrine.

CONNECTION: The implication that Mexico fully understood the true implications of the Monroe Doctrine seems to contradict the tertiary sources, which state that many South American nations thought they would be receiving aid from the US in order to fend off European invasion, hence why Clay needed to clarify that South American nations would be expected to defend themselves entirely.

COMPLEXITY: This suggests that although much of South America misunderstood the implications of the Monroe Doctrine, some nations such as Mexico fully understood the non-committal nature of what was expressed. It could also suggest CHANGE OVER TIME, as perhaps these countries only came to understand this by the time Poinsett had made his statements to the Mexican plenipotentiaries.

My observation is that the author calls the King of England’s demands “more of them than what was customary”. My interpretation is that this author is in agreement with the colonists about the fact that they were being overtaxed and mistreated by the British.

CONNECTION: The events of the American Revolution didn’t take place without anybody else noticing. This shows that other nations across the globe were well-aware of what was going on to the far West– and in this case, felt that their cause was just, though perhaps some other nations sided more with the British. This provides a global CONTEXT behind the revolution.

My observation is that both parties are stated to have "interchangeably set their hands and seals". My interpretation is that this is capping off the treaty officially and declaring that both parties have formally agreed to the terms outlined above.

CONNECTION: This observation gives CONTEXT into the seriousness of the situation, with both sides of the treaty wanting to ensure that they would hold up their end of the bargain.

My observation is that the article demands for neither party to inflict any punishment on citizens of the other besides imprisonment until a fair trial is held for the offenders. My interpretation is that both sides, the US and the Delawares, were concerned about being mistreated.

CONNECTION: There was a lot of brutality going on in the US at this time, with British troops attacking the US and US troops attacking Native American settlements. Article IV gives CONTEXT into this dynamic, as it shows that both parties want to ensure fair treatment of themselves.

My observation is the proclamation that if either side of the treaty feels "hostile designs" towards the other side, they will be expected to inform that side in order to prevent "ill effect".

My interpretation is that this is a sign of tension at the time. The Delaware people were probably extremely weary about the possibility of their land being taken over; thus, it was seen as necessary to include a dedicated clause promising the Delawares the right to their land in order to overcome this mistrust.

CONNECTION: This provides good CONTEXT towards the tension between colonists and native tribes. Native Americans were worried about their land being taken over by colonists, to the point that many of them were siding with the British as loyalists. The US making a promise like this shows how concerned the Delawares would have been, as well as how serious the US was about getting all the help they could.

My observation is the statement that the United States will guarantee the Delaware nation "all their territorial rights in the fullest and most ample manner" as long as they remain allies with the US.

My interpretation is that this shows just how much the US needed and wanted assistance in the war at the time, to the point that they would guarantee a native tribe safety from being invaded (regardless of whether or not the US would hold true to this)>

CONNECTION: This gives CONTEXT behind the situation the US was in, as although they had faith in their ability to do ok after the skirmishes in Concord, they still needed as much assistance as possible in order to go up against the colossal force that was the British army.

I observe the statement that the Stamp Act put a damper on the "happy union" between Great Britain and the British colonies, but then restored when the act was repealed. My interpretation of this is that colonists at the time didn't like the oppressive nature of the act, which required documents to use government-sanctioned paper, but were appreciative of the British union for repealing it, at least initially.

CONNECTION: This shows that initially, the colonies had a desire for good will towards the British, because they were willing to forgive the British for the Stamp Act after they repealed it. This shows both CHANGE OVER TIME, in that the colonists went from wanting mutuality with Great Britain to not seeing it as a possibility, and CONTINGENCY, in that things perhaps would have turned out far differently if the British hadn't kept throwing unjust laws onto the US.

I observe that the observer is asserting the king's subjects to "be treated as enemies and rebels". My interpretation is that the colonists feel demonized by the governing powers of Britain as a result of the oppressive laws being forced upon them.

CONNECTION: This shows CAUSALITY in that the treatment of the rebels like enemies led them to eventually become enemies in the Revolutionary War.

I observe that the author is referring to the Commissioners as "disgustful to people in general" due to the "difficulty of access to them" and "supercilious behavior" in addition to behaviors explained in the prior paragraph. My interpretation is that people at the time were off-put and deeply offended by presence of the Commissioners in Boston due to them placing themselves above the common people, making themselves inaccessible to communicate with in a professional manner, and a string of unprofessional and dishonorable practices on the part of them and Governor Bernard.

CONNECTION: This very specifically outlines the corruption and disgraceful behavior being displayed by the Boston Commissioners, which led to unrest along with the string of unfair laws that were forced onto the colonies. This provides CONTEXT behind how colonists felt.

I observe the author's statement that most of the citizens being abused or assaulted by the soldiers in the town were "without so much as a stick in their hand to defend themselves". My interpretation of this is that the people being harassed were defenseless and unable to harm anybody, hence why their mistreatment from the soldiers was so heinous.

CONNECTION: This shows how needlessly cruel the British soldiers were acting towards colonists at the time, which led to unrest and eventually war. This is CONTEXT behind why colonists at the time were so dissatisfied with how they were being treated by Britain.

My observation is that William Newhall heard four British soldiers say "there were a great many that would eat their dinners on Monday next, that should not eat any on Tuesday." My interpretation is that the soldiers were stating their intention to kill several civilians on March 5th.

CONNECTION: This is a clear example of the cruelty and mistreatment on the part of the British soldiers- specifically just how intentional and uncaring it was- which led to resentment among colonists and eventually prompted war between the colonists and Great Britain. This gives CONTEXT behind the behavior of the soldiers and how abhorrently it was viewed by the people living in the colonies (especially Boston).

I observed the use of the phrase "birds about you". I am not immediately sure how to interpret this, but it stands out to me as an idiom which I've never heard before. I would presume that he's referring those present in the courtroom as "birds".

I observe that the person questioning the nurse asked her if she believes the alleged victims were suffering voluntarily or involuntarily. I interpret this as a rhetorical question, as when she states that she can't tell, the questioner states that "everyone can judge".

I observe the statement that while the contents of this document describe true occurrences, there were certain minute details that were left out ("pretermitted") due to the nature of the examination in question. My interpretation of this is that it's meant to be a disclaimer for those reading the document, perhaps for legal purposes at the time.

I observed the use of the word "Witchcraft", which sticks out as a very strong word choice. my interpretation is that it speaks to the time period, as this was a time when there was still widespread belief in witchcraft as well as witch trials going on in Europe.