D2.His.12.9-12: Pursuing an Inquiry Through New Sources
In plain English: D2.His.12.9-12 is the C3 Framework history indicator for grades 9-12 that asks students to use the questions they generate about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources. Students turn questions into a research path, read the new sources, revise their answer, and identify what to investigate next.
Use questions generated about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources.
C3 Framework for Social Studies (NCSS) · Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools · Discipline: History · Historical Sources and Evidence · Official standard
Students carry out a two-round inquiry into the 1735 trial of the printer John Peter Zenger. In Round 1 they read the Council's order to burn Zenger's newspaper and the published Narrative of the trial, and generate questions the two sources raise but cannot answer: who the "Faction" was, why the jury decided a question the judge reserved for the court, who wrote the Narrative, and whether the verdict changed the law.
They then pursue those questions by investigating additional sources: Rutherfurd's 1904 account of how the Narrative was edited and spread, Governor Cosby's 1734 letter to the Lords of Trade, Rutherfurd's judgment on the trial's effects, and, for homework, a 1736 letter from Cosby's successor. After each round students revise their answer and write the next question, practicing the full cycle the indicator describes.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Generate researchable questions from what several sources say, assume or leave out
Choose a research path for a question and identify the kind of additional source it requires
Investigate additional sources and explain what each answers, complicates or leaves unsettled
Revise a working answer to a compelling question and identify the next step of the inquiry
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Identifying further areas of inquiry and additional sources from questions about sources D2.His.12.6-8
Critiquing a source's usefulness by its maker, date, audience and purpose D2.His.11.9-12
The basic structure of colonial government: a royal governor, an appointed council and an elected assembly
"A school newspaper prints an article criticizing the principal. The principal orders the issue removed from the library. Later a student panel decides the article was fair. List three questions you would need answered to explain the panel's decision, and for each, name the source you would want to read next."
Collect questions and sort them on the board: questions about the people (who wrote the article, who sat on the panel), about the rules (what the school's policy said), and about the record (who wrote the account of the panel's meeting). Point out that each question leads somewhere specific. Today's indicator asks students to do exactly that with historical sources: generate questions from several sources, pursue them by choosing a research path, and investigate the additional sources the path leads to, then decide what the new sources change.
Direct Instruction20 minutes
Background. John Peter Zenger printed the New-York Weekly Journal, a newspaper that attacked Governor William Cosby. In 1735 Zenger was tried for seditious libel, publishing words that bring the government into contempt. The compelling question for the lesson: Why did a New York jury find John Peter Zenger not guilty in 1735, and what did the verdict change?
Round 1. Students read two sources. Source A is the Governor's Council's November 1734 order to burn four issues of the Journal, as printed by the historian Livingston Rutherfurd in 1904. Source B is from A Brief Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zenger (1736), also as printed by Rutherfurd: the Chief Justice and Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, arguing over whether the truth of the papers could be shown, part of Hamilton's closing speech, the Chief Justice's instruction to the jury, and the verdict. An information here is the formal charge filed by the prosecutor.
1On November 2, the papers and request were returned to Council, and on the fifth the Sheriff delivered the following order of Council to the court of Quarter Sessions directed "To Robert Lurting, Esq; Mayor of the City of New-York, and the Rest of the Magistrates for said City and County."
2"Whereas by an Order of this Board, of this Day, some of John Peter Zenger's Journals, entitled, The New-York weekly Journal containing the freshest Advices, foreign and domestick, No. 7, 47, 48, 49, were ordered to be burnt by the Hands of the common Hangman, or Whipper, near the Pillory in this City, on Wednesday, the 6th Instant, between the Hours of Eleven and Twelve in the Forenoon, as containing in them many Things tending to Sedition and Faction, to bring His Majesty's Government into Contempt, and to disturb the Peace thereof, and containing in them likewise, not only Reflections upon His Excellency the Governour in particular, the Legislature in general, but also upon the most considerable Persons in the most distinguished Stations in the Province. It is therefore ordered, That the Mayor, and Magistrates of this City, do attend at the Burning of the several Papers or Journals aforesaid, Numbered as above mentioned."
3Upon reading the order, the court forbade its entry in the records at that time, and some of the members declared that if it was entered they would at the same time enter their protest against it.
4On the sixth of November Governor Cosby issued two proclamations, one offering a reward of fifty pounds for the conviction of the author of the articles in the "Journal;" the other offering a reward of twelve pounds for the conviction of the author of the scandalous songs.
The Governor's Council of New York (order of November 2, 1734), quoted by Livingston Rutherfurd, Source A: The Governor's Council orders four issues of Zenger's Journal burned, November 1734 (as printed by Rutherfurd) (1734; this edition 1904). Public domain (published 1904). Source text.
1Mr. Ch. Justice. You cannot be admitted, Mr. Hamilton, to give the Truth of a Libel in Evidence. A Libel is not to be justified; for it is nevertheless a Libel that it is true.
2Mr. Hamilton. I am sorry the Court has so soon resolved upon that Piece of Law; I expected first to have been heard to that Point. I have not in all my Reading met with an Authority that says, we cannot be admitted to give the Truth in Evidence, upon an information for a Libel.
3Mr. Ch. Justice. The Law is clear, That you cannot justify a Libel.
[...]
4[...] But to conclude; the Question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, is not of small nor private Concern, it is not the Cause of a poor Printer, nor of New-York alone, which you are now trying: No! It may in its Consequence, affect every Freeman that lives under a British Government on the main of America. It is the best Cause. It is the Cause of Liberty; and I make no Doubt but your upright Conduct, this Day, will not only entitle you to the Love and Esteem of your Fellow-Citizens; but every Man who prefers Freedom to a Life of Slavery will bless and honour You, as Men who have baffled the Attempt of Tyranny; [...]
[...]
5Mr. Ch. Just. Gentlemen of the Jury. The great pains Mr. Hamilton has taken, to shew how little Regard Juries are to Pay to the Opinion of the Judges; and his insisting so much upon the Conduct of some Judges in Tryals of this kind; is done, no doubt, with a Design that you should take but very little Notice, of what I might say upon this Occasion. I shall therefore only observe to you that, as the Facts or Words in the Information are confessed: The only Thing that can come in Question before you is, whether the Words as set forth in the Information, make a Lybel. And that is a Matter of Law, no Doubt, and which you may leave to the Court. [...]
[...]
6The Jury withdrew and in a small Time returned and being asked by the Clerk whether they were agreed of their Verdict, and whether John Peter Zenger was guilty of Printing and Publishing the Libels in the Information mentioned? They answered by Thomas Hunt, their Foreman, Not Guilty, Upon which there were three Huzzas in the Hall which was crowded with People, and the next Day I was discharged from my Imprisonment.
John Peter Zenger, publisher (the narrative speaks in his voice: "I was discharged"); text as quoted by Rutherfurd, Source B: A Brief Narrative of the Case and Tryal of John Peter Zenger (1736): the court on truth, the Chief Justice's charge, and the verdict (1736; this edition 1904). Public domain (published 1904). Source text.
From a question to a research path
Step
What students do
Example
Generate
Write questions the sources raise but do not answer
Whom did the Council's order call a faction?
Pursue
Choose the most promising question and decide what kind of source could answer it
A letter by the governor himself, written before the trial
Investigate
Read the additional source and record what it answers and what it does not
What did the governor tell London about the Journal?
Revise and repeat
Change the working answer and write the next question
Do other records support the governor's account?
Generate and pursue: who was the "Faction"? (Source A, paragraph 2)
The Council says the papers contain "many Things tending to Sedition and Faction" and reflect on "the most considerable Persons in the most distinguished Stations in the Province." What question does this raise, and where should the inquiry go next?
Result: Question: Who did the governor's side believe was behind the Journal, and why were they opposed to him? The order names no one, so the inquiry turns to the political conflict in the colony. Research path: the governor's own reports to his superiors in London, written while the conflict was going on. That points to Source D.
Generate and pursue: why did the jury ignore the court? (Source B, paragraphs 1-3 and 5)
The Chief Justice ruled that "it is nevertheless a Libel that it is true" and told the jurors that whether the words "make a Lybel" was "a Matter of Law" they could "leave to the Court." The jury answered "Not Guilty." What question follows?
Result: Question: Why did the jurors return this verdict after the judge's instruction, and on what grounds? Research path: Hamilton's full argument about the rights of juries, the names and backgrounds of the jurors, and the law books both sides cited. Each is an additional source a researcher could investigate next.
Generate and pursue: whose account is this? (Source B, paragraph 6)
Source B ends, "the next Day I was discharged from my Imprisonment." What does this tell us about the source, and what question should we pursue?
Result: The narrator is Zenger himself, the defendant, so the account comes from one side of the case. Question: Who prepared the Narrative, when, and for which readers? Research path: the publishing history of the Narrative and any letters among Zenger's lawyers and supporters about writing it.
Generate and pursue: what did the verdict change? (Source B, paragraph 4)
Hamilton tells the jurors the case is "not the Cause of a poor Printer" but may "affect every Freeman" in British America. Was he right?
Result: Question: Did the verdict change the law of libel, or only free one printer? Research path: later histories of the case and the law of libel, and later court decisions. The first of these is Source E; the second is a next step beyond this lesson.
Guided Practice20 minutes
Round 2: investigating the additional sources. Groups investigate the two sources that the first three examples pointed to. Source C is Rutherfurd's account of how the Narrative was written and spread, including a letter from Hamilton to James Alexander, one of the opponents Cosby names in Source D. Source D is a letter from Governor Cosby to the Lords of Trade, the board in London that oversaw the colonies, written in June 1734.
For each source, groups record (1) which Round 1 question it helps answer, (2) what it adds, quoted, (3) what it does not settle, and (4) one new question it raises. Then each group rewrites its working answer to the compelling question in one sentence.
1There was great interest taken in the trial throughout the country and the papers in Boston and Philadelphia published full accounts of the proceedings. The first edition entitled "A brief Narrative of the Caſe and Tryal of John Peter Zenger, Printer of the New-York weekly Journal," was published by Zenger in 1736. It was scattered broadcast and many copies were sent to London. It is a folio of forty pages and now very rare. It was edited by James Alexander, as appears by the following letter from Andrew Hamilton:
2"I have at last Sent you my Draught of Mr. Zenger's tryall. When I first wrote you I intended to revise it by my Notes but being interrupted with Business I neglected and at last being in hopes that you was not like to obtain Mr. Chambers's and Mr. Atty.'s Argument, your design of publication was over and so it lay over until our Assembly broke up ye last of February. Since then we have had Court every day and rather than give you ye trouble of writing again I have Sent it ill done as it is. I have had no time to read it over but once since it was finished. I wrote it by half sheets and copied it as fast as I wrote. The meaning of all this is to beg of you to alter and Correct it agreeable to your own Mind."
3There were four editions of the trial published in London in 1738, one edition in Boston, one in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and it was republished in 1770 in New York when McDougal was tried.
Livingston Rutherfurd, quoting a letter from Andrew Hamilton to James Alexander, Source C: How the Narrative was written and spread (Rutherfurd, 1904) (1904). Public domain (published 1904). Source text.
1Late in the fall last year the Govʳ of Louisbourg at Cape Breton sent two Officers of that Garrison in a Sloop hither desireing leave to supply themselves with provisions, especially flour to make bread which they stood in great need of having been disappointed of their usual supplys; I granted the Governor's request with the advice of the Council, entertained the Officers kindly and gave them what assistance they wanted to furnish themselves with provisions; this tho' it was no more than I ought to do both, in humanity and by the treaties subsisting between the two Crowns; yet Morris complained of it in Zenger's papers, possessing the people with a belief that they were spies sent to discover our weakness and that I was in their interest; the common people were presently alarmed and the terror grew so great and so general, that little less than an Insurrection was apprehended; and truly, My Lords, it is but too evident that, that was what Morris, van Dam and Alexander aimed at; [...] there is nothing more common with writers of sedicious libels than for them to tell the world they speak the sentiments of the people, thereby endevouring to perswade them that it is their interest alone which they labour, and this has been Morris's method, but all his falsehoods, all his calumnies and letter invectives against me, have not gained the end he sought, the best Men saw through his design at first, and the eyes of these who willfully shut them are now open to discern his malice and his own selfish views, and this he effectually brought on himself; [...]
2To conclude My Lords, this man with the two others I have mentioned vizᵗ van Dam and Alexander, for their followers are now very few, and very insignificant, are the only Men from whom I am to look for any opposition in the Administration of the Governᵗ and they are so implacable in their malice, that I am to look for all the insolent, false and scandalous aspersions, that such bold and profligate wretches can invent.
William Cosby, Governor of New York, Source D: Governor William Cosby to the Lords of Trade, New-York, 19 June 1734 (excerpt) (1734; this edition 1855). Public domain (published 1855). Source text.
Independent Practice15 minutes
Source E is Rutherfurd's own judgment, written in 1904, about what the trial changed; it follows the fourth example's research path. Students work alone:
State Rutherfurd's main claim in your own words and quote it.
Decide which parts of the claim Sources A-D can and cannot test.
Write two new questions the claim raises, and for each, name an additional source you would investigate next and why.
Remind students that a historian writing 169 years after the trial (1904 - 1735) has hindsight and also a point of view; Rutherfurd's book is dedicated to telling Zenger's story.
1After the censorship was thus done away with, the only restraints upon the right to freedom of discussion were those imposed by the law of libel, which became enforceable by the judgments of courts founded on the verdict of juries, but these restraints were practically as despotic as the edicts of the Star Chamber, since the rights and duties of judges and juries remained unsettled. For, though the law of the country entitled a defendant to a trial by jury, yet as the judges were allowed to pass upon both the facts and the law, the result was a practical denial of the right of trial. This state of affairs continued until 1791, when the Libel Act of Fox passed the Commons, establishing the principle that in cases of libel the jury were to be the judges of both the law and the fact, and by this means the judicial tyranny which succeeded the censorship was done away with forever.
2The trial of Zenger first established in North America the principle that in prosecution for libel the jury were the judges of both the law and the facts. The liberty of the press was secure from assault and the people became equipped with the most powerful weapon for successfully combating arbitrary power, the right of freely criticizing the conduct of public men, more than fifty years before the celebrated trial of "Junius" gave the same privilege to the people of England.
3By degrees the Province of New York resumed its state of former quiet. Cosby died in March, 1736, and was succeeded by George Clarke, a man of more liberal mind. But the old conditions were changed, the result of the trial had imbued the people with a new spirit; henceforth they were united in the struggle against governmental oppression, and as Gouverneur Morris has well said: "The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America."
Livingston Rutherfurd, Source E: What the trial changed, in Rutherfurd's view (1904) (1904). Public domain (published 1904). Source text.
Closure10 minutes
Exit ticket: "After Round 1, I thought the jury acquitted Zenger because ___. After investigating Sources C, D and E, I think ___. The next source I would investigate is ___, because ___."
Teacher notes. The sources come from both sides: the governor and Council (Sources A, D and F) and Zenger's supporters and later admirers (Sources B, C and E). Keep the inquiry on what each source can show and what to investigate next; students may reach different answers, and the rubrics score the research path and the reasoning. Source D calls Cosby's opponents "bold and profligate wretches"; Source F, by Cosby's successor George Clarke, has almost no punctuation and is printed as it appears in the 1855 edition. Source F, for homework, is printed below. The Lords of Trade (Source D) are the board described in Guided Practice.
1[...] this is certain that they have in their weekly journal published by their Printer, Zenger endeavored to persude the People that every man has a right to judge to whom the administration of the Government belongs that if a Governor misbehave himself they may depose him and set up an other in consequence whereof they prepared a paper and on the 29ᵗʰ of September in two of their wards got the people when they were voting for aldermen to sign it, the other five wards did not nor would not sign it—I despair of getting it or a copy of it and all the account I can get of it is that they declared Mʳ Van Dam has the Right to the administration of the Government in some of the wards the aldermen refused to offer it to the People and tho it was notwithstanding spoke of to them by others yet the people would not sign it, [...]
2[...] I am forbid by His Matys 45ᵗʰ Instruction to send home any prisoners without sufficient proof of their crimes to be so transmitted with them and I have no regular proof but Zengers papers & Van Dams appointment of the City Officers If James Alexander, William Smith and Lewis Morris Jʳ the authors of those papers with their Printer Zenger were sent home it would put an [en]d to the Faction & Zenger on promise of Pardon might be a strong witness & direct us to others
George Clarke, president of the Council, acting governor after Cosby's death, Source F: President George Clarke to the Lords of Trade, New York, October 1736 (excerpts) (1736; this edition 1855). Public domain (published 1855). Source text.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Provide a research log with four columns (question, source to investigate, what it added, next question) and one row completed as a model
Assign Sources A, B, C and D only, and read Source D aloud in two parts, pausing to paraphrase each long sentence
Pre-teach: seditious libel, information (a formal charge), faction, Lords of Trade, hangman, acquittal
For Advanced Students
Read Hamilton's full closing argument in Rutherfurd's reprint (archive.org) and trace how he argues that juries may judge the law
Investigate the 1770 New York case Rutherfurd mentions (Source C, paragraph 3) and explain why the Narrative was republished then
Find Rutherfurd's sources for the claim in Source E and judge whether they support it
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
Strong work traces a clear path from a question raised by the first sources to a specific additional source, quotes what that source adds, says honestly what it does not settle, and revises the working answer. Watch for questions that the existing sources already answer, for additional sources chosen without a reason, and for revised answers that ignore evidence from the government's side.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
Question Funnel
15 minPairs
After Round 1, pairs write eight questions about Sources A and B. They cross out any question the two sources already answer, star the three that matter most for the compelling question, and for each starred question write the kind of additional source that could answer it and who would have made it.
Sample Starred Questions for the Teacher
Why did the Council call the papers seditious, and who in the colony agreed? (a letter from the governor or Council to London)
Who prepared the Narrative, and did they change what was said in court? (letters among Zenger's lawyers and supporters)
Who were the jurors, and did any of them have ties to either side? (court records, tax lists, histories of the families)
Variation
Give each pair a different starting question card, so that the class covers several research paths at once.
2
Source Stations
20 minGroups of 3-4
Three stations hold Sources C, D and E. At each station the group fills a research log: the Round 1 question the source helps with, one quotation that adds something new, one thing it does not settle, and one next question. Groups rotate every six minutes.
Possible Log Entries
Station C: helps with who prepared the Narrative; adds the publishing history and Hamilton's letter (paragraphs 1-2); does not settle what the editing changed; next question: does a draft survive?
Station D: helps with who the governor saw as his opponents; adds his account that "Morris complained of it in Zenger's papers" when he helped the French officers; does not settle whether his charges were true; next question: what did his opponents say about him?
Station E: helps with what the verdict changed; adds Rutherfurd's claim about juries; does not settle whether later courts agreed; next question: what did later New York courts do?
3
Claim Tracker
10 minIndividual, then whole class
Each student writes a one-sentence answer to the compelling question after Round 1, revises it after Round 2, and writes one sentence explaining what changed and which source changed it. The class then lists the next investigations that would most change the answer.
What Revisions Often Look Like
A first claim such as "The jury acquitted Zenger because his papers were true" often becomes more careful: "Zenger's lawyer won over the jury despite the Chief Justice's rulings, in a colony divided over Governor Cosby, though our main account of the trial was prepared by Zenger's own allies." The second claim names its evidence and its limits.
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
1 diagrams
Diagram 1: The Zenger Case and Its Sources, 1733-1739
A timeline drawn to scale (1 year = 106.7 units). Dots mark documents dated by month: Cosby's letter to London (June 1734, Source D), the Council's burning order (November 1734, Source A) and Clarke's letter (October 1736, Source F). Bands mark events the sources date only by year: the trial (1735, Source B), the first printing of the Narrative (1736, Source C) and the four London editions (1738, Source C). Later events from Sources C and E are listed under the line.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
D2.His.12.9-12 Homework: After the Verdict
Directions: Use Source F (printed in the Closure phase) for Part 1 and Sources A-F for Part 2. Source F is a letter written about a year after the trial by George Clarke, who governed New York after Cosby's death. Quote and cite paragraphs for every claim.
Part 1: Investigating Source F (Problems 1-3)
According to paragraph 1, what did Clarke say the Journal tried to persuade people of? Quote him, and explain why this would worry a governor.
In paragraph 2, what does Clarke think should be done with "the authors of those papers with their Printer Zenger"? What stops him from doing it?
Rutherfurd writes that the province "resumed its state of former quiet" and that Clarke was "a man of more liberal mind" (Source E, paragraph 3). Does Source F support, complicate or contradict these claims? Explain with quotations.
Part 2: Continuing the Inquiry (Problems 4-6)
Write the research log for your inquiry so far: two questions from Round 1, the additional source you investigated for each, what it added, and what remains unsettled.
Write a revised answer (4-5 sentences) to the compelling question, using at least one source from each side of the conflict.
Propose the next round of the inquiry: two questions and, for each, a specific additional source with a reason. At least one question should come from Source F.
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Questions
Researchable questions that grow out of specific sources
Questions that are vague or already answered
No questions
Research path
Names a specific additional source and explains why it fits the question
Names a source without a reason
No additional source
Investigation
Quotes what the new source adds and states what it does not settle
Summarizes the new source without linking it to the question
Does not use the new source
Revision
Revises the answer and uses evidence from both sides
Revises without new evidence or uses only one side
No revision
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
Questions 2-6 use Sources A and B (Direct Instruction), Questions 7-10 and 13 use Sources C and D (Guided Practice), and Questions 11-12 use Source E (Independent Practice). Questions 1, 14 and 15-20 ask you to trace and continue the inquiry. Choose the best answer, or write a short answer with quotations.
Multiple choice: pick an option to check it. Short answer: write your answer, then reveal the model answer.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice
After reading Source B, a student concludes, "The jury freed Zenger because his papers were true." Under D2.His.12.9-12, what is the best next step?
Answer: D
Source B records the verdict but not why the jurors reached it, so the claim is a question to pursue, and the next step is to investigate sources that could show their reasons. Choice A treats a verdict as an explanation; choice B looks only for agreement instead of testing the claim.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
According to Source A, paragraph 3, how did the court of Quarter Sessions respond to the Council's order?
Answer: A
Rutherfurd writes that "the court forbade its entry in the records at that time," and that some members would "enter their protest against it." That local resistance is itself a lead: it suggests the governor's opponents were not only in the newspaper. Choice B is what the order demanded, not what the court did.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
On November 6, Cosby offered "a reward of fifty pounds for the conviction of the author of the articles in the 'Journal'" (Source A, paragraph 4). Which question does this raise most directly?
Answer: B
Offering a reward for the author shows that the government did not know, or could not prove, who wrote the articles, so authorship becomes a question to pursue. Choice D is already answered in paragraph 2 ("No. 7, 47, 48, 49"); choice C is a detail that does not bear on the inquiry.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
In Source B, paragraph 1, the Chief Justice says, "it is nevertheless a Libel that it is true." What does he mean?
Answer: A
He rules that Hamilton may not prove the papers true, because in his view truth does not excuse a libel. Choice B is Hamilton's position, not the judge's; choice C reverses the ruling, which keeps the question from the jury.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
The Chief Justice told the jurors that whether the words "make a Lybel" was "a Matter of Law" they could "leave to the Court" (Source B, paragraph 5). What does the verdict suggest?
Answer: C
By answering "Not Guilty" when the printing was "confessed," the jurors in effect decided that the words were not a libel, the very question the judge reserved for the court. Choice A contradicts the verdict; choice B has no support, since the judge repeats the ruling in his charge.
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source A reaches us through Rutherfurd's 1904 book. If a researcher pursued Source A further, why would the Council's own minutes from 1734 be worth investigating?
Answer: D
Rutherfurd copied the order into his book, so the original minutes would confirm the wording and date and might show who voted for it. Choices A and C concern the trial, which the Council minutes of 1734 could not record; choice B looks for Zenger's side in a government record.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
In Source C, Hamilton asks James Alexander "to alter and Correct it agreeable to your own Mind." How does this affect the use of Source B?
Answer: A
Hamilton sent his draft and invited Alexander, one of Cosby's opponents, to change it, so the printed Narrative may reflect editing by Zenger's side. It is still useful, especially for the arguments made, but it needs checking. Choice D overreacts: an edited account is still evidence of what its makers wanted readers to believe.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source C reports "four editions of the trial published in London in 1738." Which new line of inquiry does this open best?
Answer: B
Four London editions show that the case reached readers far beyond New York, which opens an inquiry into the Narrative's audience and influence in England. Choice C is a question about the trial itself that this detail does not touch; choice A concerns Cosby's term, not the editions.
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
According to Source D, what does Cosby say "writers of sedicious libels" commonly claim?
Answer: A
Cosby writes that "there is nothing more common with writers of sedicious libels than for them to tell the world they speak the sentiments of the people." Reading his opponents' own papers would show how they described their aims. Choice C confuses the French officers in the first paragraph with the writers.
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source D was written to the Lords of Trade in London in June 1734. How might its audience shape what Cosby wrote?
Answer: B
The Lords of Trade oversaw the colonies, so Cosby had reason to present his opponents as a danger and himself as defending the King's government; the letter is strong evidence of his view and weaker evidence of his opponents' motives. Choice D has no support in the letter.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Rutherfurd writes that the trial "first established in North America the principle that in prosecution for libel the jury were the judges of both the law and the facts" (Source E, paragraph 2). What kind of statement is this?
Answer: D
It is a historian's judgment written in 1904 about long-term effects, so a researcher would test it against later court decisions and laws. For the teacher: many historians argue that the acquittal freed Zenger without setting a binding legal precedent. New York courts did not then accept truth as a defense or the jury's right to decide whether words were libelous; New York adopted both by statute in 1805, after the case of People v. Croswell (1804). Records like these are the additional sources that would test Rutherfurd's claim. Choice B reverses the Chief Justice's actual position in Source B; choice A has no basis, since the jury's reasons are not recorded.
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Rutherfurd dates Fox's Libel Act to 1791 (Source E, paragraph 1). How many years after the Zenger trial (1735) was that?
Answer: C
1791 - 1735 = 56 years. Choice A counts from the London editions of 1738 (1791 - 1738 = 53); choice B counts from the first printing of the Narrative in 1736 (55); choice D counts from the burning order of 1734 (57). For the teacher: 1791 is the year Fox's bill passed the House of Commons, as Rutherfurd says; it became law in 1792. His claim that the Zenger verdict came "more than fifty years before the celebrated trial of 'Junius'" (paragraph 2) does not fit the dates: the Junius libel trials, such as that of the printer Henry Sampson Woodfall, took place in 1770, 35 years after the Zenger trial. Checking a historian's dates like this is part of investigating a source.
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source D is dated 19 June 1734, months before the Council's order in Source A (November 1734). Why is it worth investigating for this inquiry?
Answer: C
Written before the burning and the trial, the letter shows how Cosby already saw his opponents and their newspaper, background for the government's case. Choice B is impossible because the trial came in 1735; choice A is wrong because Cosby blames Morris, van Dam and Alexander, not Zenger alone.
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
After investigating Sources C, D and E, which question best continues the inquiry?
Answer: B
None of the sources records the jurors' own reasons, and every account of the verdict comes from Zenger's side or a later admirer (Sources B, C and E), so a juror's own account would test those accounts directly. Choices C and D are already answered by the sources on this page.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Trace one research path from this lesson: name a question raised by Source A or B, the additional source you investigated to pursue it, and what that source added and left unsettled.
Model answer: Source B is told by Zenger himself ("I was discharged," paragraph 6), so I asked who prepared it. Investigating Source C showed that it "was edited by James Alexander" and that Hamilton asked Alexander "to alter and Correct it agreeable to your own Mind" (paragraph 2). It left unsettled what, if anything, Alexander changed, so the next source to look for is Hamilton's draft or notes. Rubric: 1 point for the question with a citation, 1 point for the additional source, 2 points for what it added (quoted), 1 point for what remains unsettled.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
Compare Source A and Source D as evidence of the government's case against Zenger's newspaper. What does each show that the other does not?
Model answer: Source A is an official order: it states the charge against the papers, "many Things tending to Sedition and Faction" (paragraph 2), and shows local magistrates refusing to record it (paragraph 3). Source D is the governor's private report to London months earlier; it names the men he blamed, "Morris, van Dam and Alexander," and explains his fear that the papers could cause "an Insurrection" (paragraph 1). A shows the public action; D shows the reasons and the people behind it, from Cosby's side only. Rubric: 2 points per source with a quotation (4), 1 point for the comparison.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
How should Source C change the way a historian uses Source B? Name one thing Source B can still show well.
Model answer: Source C shows that the Narrative was published by Zenger and "edited by James Alexander," one of the governor's opponents, after Hamilton invited him to "alter and Correct it" (paragraphs 1-2). So Source B should be read as an account prepared by Zenger's side, and its wording of speeches may not be exact. It can still show well what arguments the defense wanted the public to read, such as Hamilton's claim that the case was "the Cause of Liberty" (Source B, paragraph 4). Rubric: 3 points for the change with evidence, 2 points for a remaining strength.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
Evaluate Rutherfurd's claim in Source E that after the trial "the Province of New York resumed its state of former quiet." Use at least two other sources, and name the next source you would investigate.
Model answer: Source B supports part of the claim: the jury did acquit, and Zenger was "discharged." But Source F complicates it: in October 1736 Clarke reports that the Journal was still urging people that "if a Governor misbehave himself they may depose him" and that he wanted "the authors of those papers" to be "sent home" (paragraphs 1-2). The conflict seems to have continued for at least a year. Next, I would investigate the Journal's issues from 1736 to see what it actually printed. Rubric: 2 points per source used correctly (4), 1 point for a fitting next source.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
Write a revised answer to the compelling question, "Why did a New York jury find Zenger not guilty in 1735, and what did the verdict change?", using at least three sources.
Model answer: The jury acquitted Zenger after his lawyer argued that it was "the Cause of Liberty" (Source B, paragraph 4), even though the Chief Justice ruled that truth was no defense and left the question of libel to the court (paragraphs 1 and 5). The verdict came in a colony bitterly divided over Governor Cosby, who blamed powerful opponents for the Journal (Source D). What it changed is less certain: Rutherfurd says it established the jury's right to judge law and facts (Source E), but our main account of the trial was edited by Zenger's ally (Source C), and the conflict continued afterward (Source F). Rubric: 1 point per source used accurately (3), 2 points for a claim that addresses both parts of the question.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
Identify two further inquiries the Zenger case opens, and for each, name an additional source to investigate and explain your choice.
Model answer: (1) Who wrote the articles that got Zenger charged? Investigate James Alexander's surviving papers or drafts, since Source C shows he edited the Narrative and Source F names him as an author. (2) Why was the Narrative reprinted in New York in 1770 "when McDougal was tried" (Source C, paragraph 3)? Investigate the records or newspaper reports of that later case to see how people used Zenger's story. Rubric: 1 point per inquiry, 1 point per source with a reason (4).
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does D2.His.12.9-12 mean?
D2.His.12.9-12 asks high school students to use the questions they generate about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and to investigate additional sources. It is a history indicator in Dimension 2 of the C3 Framework, in the group on historical sources and evidence.
How is D2.His.12.9-12 different from D2.His.12.6-8?
In grades 6-8, students identify further areas of inquiry and additional sources. In grades 9-12, they go on to pursue the inquiry and actually investigate the additional sources, then revise their answer.
Why use the Zenger trial for D2.His.12.9-12?
The case left sources from both sides: the governor's letters and the Council's order, and the Narrative published by Zenger's supporters. Questions raised by the first sources lead naturally to the others, so students can carry out a full research cycle in one class.
What is seditious libel?
In the sources' time, it meant publishing words that brought the government or its officers into contempt. The Council's order describes the Journal as "tending to Sedition and Faction" and bringing "His Majesty's Government into Contempt."
Does the lesson treat the Narrative as an accurate transcript?
No. Students learn from Rutherfurd's account that it was edited by James Alexander, one of Zenger's allies, after Hamilton invited him to change the draft. It is still valuable evidence of the arguments made and of how Zenger's side wanted the trial remembered.
Is the lesson on one side of the case?
No. Students read the governor's own reports and the Council's order alongside the Narrative and a historian who admired Zenger. The rubrics score the research path and the use of evidence from both sides, not a verdict on who was right.
What counts as investigating an additional source?
Reading it closely to see which question it answers, quoting what it adds, stating what it leaves unsettled, and writing the next question it raises. Simply listing more sources is the 6-8 skill; this indicator asks students to use them.
How do I assess D2.His.12.9-12?
Ask for a research log: a question from the first sources, the additional source investigated, what it added and left open, and a revised claim. The homework rubric on this page scores those four parts.
Can this lesson connect to a government course?
Yes. The case raises questions about juries and freedom of the press in colonial America. Keep the inquiry historical: students study what the sources show about 1734-1736, not current debates.
Which standards pair with D2.His.12.9-12?
D1.5.9-12, on determining the kinds of sources that will help answer questions, and RH.11-12.9, on integrating information from diverse primary and secondary sources, pair naturally with this indicator.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to D2.His.12.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
D2.His.12.6-8Prerequisite
Use questions about multiple sources to identify further inquiry and more sources
Integrate evidence from multiple sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument
Lesson coming soon
Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.
