Observation: The writer says bosses think workers are too dumb to notice being cheated, but the workers do know and can now speak out to the public.

Interpretation: This means workers were starting to see the truth and stand up for what’s right.

Connection: This connects to the time when workers began joining together to fight for fair pay and better treatment.

What I learned connects to my connection because both show that workers started to see the truth and stand up for themselves. The writer says workers knew they were being treated unfairly, and this connects to how they began working together for fair pay. It connects because unfair treatment made them speak up and fight for change.

Causality: Because bosses treated workers unfairly, workers began to speak up and work together to make changes.

Observation: The writer says some people might think he’s making things sound worse than they are, but if they really look closely, they’ll see he’s telling the truth.

Interpretation: This means he believes the unfair treatment of workers is real and that people just need to pay attention to see it.

Connection: This connects to the time when workers began to speak up about unfair jobs and wanted others to notice what was happening.

What I learned connects to my connection because both show that workers wanted people to see the truth about unfair treatment. The writer wanted others to notice the problem, and over time more people did. This connects because once people saw how bad things were, they started to make changes and fight for workers’ rights.

Change Over Time: Over time, more people started to see the truth about how badly workers were treated, which led to changes like new labor laws and better rights for workers.

Observation: The writer says rich people act like they’re better than others and warns that money and greed could destroy people’s freedom.

Interpretation: This means he believes that too much power in the hands of the rich is dangerous for the country.

Connection: This connects to the time when workers wanted equal rights and fair treatment because they felt the rich were taking control.

What I learned connects to my connection because both show that workers had to stand up for their freedom. The writer warns that if people don’t speak up, the rich will take control. This connects because, in the 1830s, workers started to speak out and work together to make things fair.

Contingency: The writer suggests that the future of freedom depends on what people do now if workers speak up and demand fairness, liberty can be protected, but if they stay silent, the rich could take over.

Observation: The writer tells the editor that even though people already talk about many worker problems, there’s another big one that doesn’t get enough attention.

Interpretation: This means he wants people to notice a serious problem that most have ignored.

Connection: This connects to the time when workers began using newspapers to talk about unfair pay and treatment.

What I learned connects to my connection because both show workers trying to speak up for fairness. The writer used the newspaper to tell others about unfair treatment, just like many workers did in the 1830s. This helps you see how people started using their voices to stand up for their rights and ask for better treatment.

Context: In the 1830s, factories were growing fast, and many workers were treated unfairly, so people started speaking up and trying to make things better.

Observation: Interpretation: Connection: Observation: The speaker said they didn’t try to trick the Mexican leaders.

Interpretation: This shows the speaker wanted to be honest and fair in their talks.

Connection: It connects to how the U.S. wanted to keep good and trusting relationships with other countries.

What I learned connects to my connection because both are about honesty and trust between countries. The speaker wanted to show they were telling the truth, just like how the U.S. wanted to be seen as fair. This matters because trust helped the U.S. stay peaceful with other nations.

Contingency: What happened depended on what people said and did at that time. If the speaker’s words were taken the wrong way, it could have caused problems or hurt trust between the two countries.

Observation: The speaker and Mr. Ward got letters that said the same thing, and the speaker told Mr. Alaman he didn’t like the wording.

Interpretation: This shows the speaker wanted the message to sound fair and respectful.

Connection: It connects to how the U.S. wanted to be treated equally and respected by other countries.

What I learned connects to my connection because both are about respect and fairness between countries. The speaker didn’t like the way the letter was written, just like how the U.S. wanted to be treated as equal. This matters because it shows leaders cared about how their country was seen by others.

Context: At that time, the way people wrote or spoke in politics was very important. Even small words could cause problems, so leaders had to be careful and make sure their country was respected.

Observation: The person says they will agree only if both governments are treated the same.

Interpretation: This means they want fairness and don’t want one side to have more power than the other.

Connection: It connects to how the U.S. wanted to be seen as equal to other countries after becoming independent.

What I learned connects to my connection because both talk about fairness between countries. The speaker wanted both sides treated the same, just like how the U.S. wanted to be seen as equal to others. This is important because it shows the U.S. wanted respect and to stand on its own.

Causality: Because the U.S. asked for equal treatment, it helped the country gain respect and be seen as strong and fair in world affairs.

Observation: The Secretary showed letters from Jamaica that made him think France might try to fight the U.S.

Interpretation: This shows people were worried that other countries might attack or cause trouble.

Connection: It connects to how the U.S. had to be careful with other countries, like France and Britain, during this time.

What I learned connects to my connection because both show the U.S. had to be careful with other countries. The letters showed people were worried about France, just like how the U.S. tried to stay safe and smart in its foreign relations. This matters because it helped the U.S. grow stronger and more independent.

Change over Time: Over time, the U.S. got better at protecting itself and dealing with other nations. At first, it was unsure, but later it grew stronger and more confident.

Observation: They met 3 men in a canoe who had hunted for a year and made $900 from furs. The men ran out of food and powder. It rained that night.

Interpretation: This shows how hunters worked for a long time in the wilderness and lived off trading furs.

Connection: It connects to the importance of hunting and trading in the early West.

I learned that fur trading was one of the main ways people survived and made money in the early West. This adds to my connection because it shows how important nature and animals were to the economy before cities and factories grew. It’s important because it helps me see how life and work changed over time from depending on hunting and trading to building towns and using new jobs and trades.

Change over time: Back then, selling furs was one of the main ways to earn money. Later, hunting slowed down because there were fewer animals, new towns were built, and people started finding other jobs instead of trading animal skins.

Observation: They left early, went past Big Monitu Creek, saw buffalo tracks, and Lewis checked out a salt spring with some men.

Interpretation: This shows they were looking at animals and natural things like salt while they traveled.

Connection: It links to how the trip was about learning what the land had, not just moving through it.

I learned that Lewis and his team studied everything around them, like animals and natural resources such as salt. This adds to my connection because it shows the expedition was about discovery and learning what the new land could offer. It’s important because their findings helped the U.S. understand the land’s value, resources, and how people could live there. It shows how exploration helped the country grow and use its new land wisely.

Context: In 1804, the U.S. had just bought this land in the Louisiana Purchase. People didn’t know what was there, so the expedition was sent to study the land, animals, and resources.

Observation: Lewis measured the sun, noticed traces of buffalo, said the land was pretty good, and wrote that he was sick with a sore throat and headache.

Interpretation: This shows they were still studying the land and sky, even when they felt sick.

Connection: It ties to how the trip was about learning and exploring, not just traveling.

I learned that Lewis kept studying the land and animals even when he was sick. This adds to my connection because it shows how hard he worked to help the U.S. learn about new places. It’s important because his notes and measurements taught people what the land was like and what could be found there.

Context: In 1804, the U.S. had just bought this land. The trip was meant to find out what was there like animals, land, and resources that people back east didn’t know about yet.

Observation: Lewis used a tool to measure the sun in the sky. He wrote down that the sun was 37° high.

Interpretation: This shows the group was using science and math to know where they were. They looked at the sun and moon instead of maps, because no maps were there.

Connection: This connects to how the trip was not just about travel. They were also studying the land and collecting facts to help the U.S. learn more.

I learned that Lewis and Clark’s trip was about science and discovery, not just travel. Their measurements helped the U.S. understand new lands after the Louisiana Purchase. This is important because it shows how their work helped make better maps and supported the country’s westward growth.

Causality: Because Lewis and Clark measured things like this, the U.S. could make better maps later. This helped people move west and use the new land

Observation: The Constitution is not only national or only federal, but a mix of both.

Interpretation: This means the government was made to blend two systems together.

Connection: It shows Madison’s point that the Constitution balanced power between states and the nation.

Complexity: The government was not simple it had shared powers, which made it more balanced but harder to label.

Observation: The President’s power comes from many sources, not just one.

Interpretation: This shows the system was made to balance the states and the people.

Connection: It fits Madison’s idea that the Constitution is both federal states and national people

Change over Time: Before, rulers got power from one source, like kings by birth, but now power comes from both states and people together

Observation: The President is not picked straight by the people but in an indirect way, like in many states.

Interpretation: This shows the Constitution followed what states were already used to.

Connection: It ties the national system to state traditions, proving it was still republican.

Context: Back then, leaders worried about giving too much direct power, so they thought indirect elections were safer.

Observation: In every state, some leaders are not picked directly by the people but in an indirect way.

Interpretation: This shows people still have power, even if they don’t vote for every leader.

Connection: This matches Madison’s idea that the Constitution is republican, since states also mix direct and indirect voting.

Causality: Because states already used this system, the Constitution used it too, so people would accept it more easily

Observation: Each state had one vote in Congress.

Interpretation: This means small and big states had the same power.

Connection: This shows the Articles tried to keep states equal, but big states thought it was unfair.

Contingency: If the Articles had given big states more votes, small states might not have joined the country. Making all states equal was the only way to keep them together at the start.

Observation:

Interpretation: Only Congress can decide the metal and value of coins, even if states make them.

Connection: This means states could make coins, but Congress chose how much they were worth.

Context: Back then, each state had its own money. Congress set coin values to keep things clear and united.

Observation: Congress is the only one who can decide on peace or war, except for special cases.

Interpretation: This means states cannot start wars by themselves. Only Congress can make that big choice.

Connection: This shows the Articles of Confederation let Congress handle war and peace, but the states kept most other powers.

Change over Time: First, the Articles let Congress decide on war and peace. Later, the Constitution gave the stronger U.S. government more power.

Observation: The states have to collect taxes themselves and give the money when Congress asks.

Interpretation: This means Congress could not tax people directly. They had to rely on the states, which made it hard to get money.

Connection: It shows the old plan was weak, so later the new Constitution let the U.S. government collect taxes directly.

Causality: Since states didn’t pay enough taxes, the country had money problems. This made leaders want a stronger government.

Observation: The speaker says the news is scary and not what they thought, and they want to know the truth.

Interpretation:This shows they are worried and want clear answers so they don’t get surprised.

Connection: This links to how lies and rumors made both groups afraid and could start fights.

Change over time: At first there was peace, but later fear and rumors broke trust and caused trouble.

Observation: They ask to be told the truth about any plans or dangers nearby and not be lied to.

Interpretation: This shows they are nervous and want clear news, because lies could bring big problems.

Connection: This links to how false reports often caused fear between groups, and both sides wanted honest answers to avoid fights.

Context: This happened at a time when rumors of attacks and unrest were common, so people were quick to worry and demand the truth.

Observation: They want to keep peace and hide the bad rumors and threats from the Six Nations. Interpretation:

Interpretation: This shows they are scared the Six Nations might get angry if they hear the rumors, so they want to keep it quiet.

Connection: This links to how both colonists and Native people often tried to control rumors to protect peace and avoid new fights.

Contingency: If the rumors spread, peace could break; but if they are kept quiet, peace might last.

Observation: The speaker is asking the others to tell what they know about the rumors and not lie.

Interpretation: This shows they feel worried and don’t fully trust the news. They want the truth so no problems come from lies.

Connection: How colonists and Native people often worried about false reports, because lies could cause fights or harm peace.

Causality: If the “Brothers” share the truth, peace can stay. But if they lie or hide news, it could cause danger and conflict.