My Portfolio has been put together in a way that will demonstrate how I've progressed through Writing 101. It consists of my first and last essay papers. My first essay is about Bacon's rebellion and my last essay is a group assesment outline toward our class debate between the federalists and anti-federalists. The weaknesses in my first essay were not putting enough of my opinions in and that my essay sounded like a document instead of an essay. My strengths in that essay were staying on topic and providing evidence to back up my details. As for my last essay outline, our group had way more strengths than weaknesses. The only weakness in that essay was our lack of multiple effective main points. But the strengths were length, details, presentation, and counter arguments. For both of those essays I was really trying to follow my writing philosophy.
My original writing philosophy was just doing my best in whatever tasks I'm given. Now I feel that my original philosophy lacked detail. I've changed my philosophy more toward following standards and looking for what my teachers want out of my work. When I write I write for myself, and I write to impress. The way I wrote the first essay was very well detailed but I never wrote essays that way. This PSEC writing process was different, but it worked. In a way I'm still following my original philosophy but now I'm expanding that philosophy.
The way I wrote the first essay was very different from what I was used to. The writing process was somewhat similar to my highschool's but this process involved more details such as templates, more quotes, more paragraphs, and most importantly more steps before the final draft. In that essay I stayed on topic and my thesis was very well supported. But during my evaluation my instructor came to the conclusion that my essay sounded like a document which made my entire essay sound too factual. He told me to work on adding my own views along with the facts next time. One quote that stood out for my instructor was the introductory quote. “In January 1667, The Susquehannahs (Natives) had, in a most inhumane maner, murthered no less then 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any actual injury don on these ill disarming, brutish heathen." This quote suppoted my point that the Native attacks in Virginia were on the rise. My overall experience for this essay was pretty confortable. I didn't stress much about how my outline or rough drafts looked and I came up with a decent final draft that I felt was my best work.
My last essay experience was a lot better than my first. What made thos essay experience better was the fact that it was assigned as a group assesment. I work a lot better in groups than by myself because when I'm in a group I get more feedback on my research, seeing if it's effective or not. Also when I"m in a group I feel more comfortable presenting. During the presentation and debate I had much information to contribute. All my points were well supported with facts and opinions and our group also supported eachother with plenty of back up facts. After completing those essays I realized that my writing style changed and that I felt that I could've put more effort into both essays, but after you complete an assesment, if you prepared for it, you always feel like you could've done better.
What I had hoped to accomplish from Writing 101 was to improve my writing in general, and now that this class is coming to a close I can say that I improved dramatically. I still have the same weaknesses but I intend to better myself so my weaknesses can soon become my strengths. I don't believe that I'll change my writing philosophy again because it has proven to be very effective. I have much to work on but I know that if I put my mind to it I could actually become a very good writer.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
ESSAY #1 Final Draft
Essay #1 Final Draft
“In January 1667, The Susquehannahs (Natives) had, in a most inhumane maner, murthered no less then 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any actual injury don on these ill disarming, brutish heathen...(Quote from document #5)." In the 1670’s, these attacks were on the rise in Virginia. As the Natives continued to attack the Virginians, Sir William Berkeley, who was the governor of Virginia, took very little action toward this issue and failed to defend them. The Virginians wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them because they believed that he was on their side. Nathaniel Bacon confronted Berkeley and demanded a military commission so he could take care of this problem, but Berkeley turned Bacon down. Bacon went along with what he thought needed to be done even if it was against Berkeley. That's when the uprising of the rebellion began. While many believe that bacon was a rebel and a horrible man for starting this rebellion, in reality, the Virginians should also take part of the blame because if it wasn't for their support, Bacon's Rebellion really wouldn't of even happen.
Many Virginians, including unemployed former indentured servants, assumed that Berkeley stood on the wrong side of this issue. That's when they looked elsewhere for help and found Nathaniel Bacon who shared their frustration toward the Natives.“When Bacon threatened to act without authorization, Berkeley declared him a rebel. The response was a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses. Bacon was elected, and Berkeley let him take his seat on the Council briefly (Quote from://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html).” That support from the Virginians led Bacon to his original plan, which was to attack the Natives. Bacon was then charged, by Berkeley, with treason since he acted without commission from the government. You would think that Berkeley arresting Bacon would be the end of Bacon's attempts to attack the Natives, but there is still more surprises to come.
www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
Still obviously without commission, Bacon returned to Jamestown later that same month,“rallied a mob, and attacked innocent Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi Indians (Quote from www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html).”Soon after that Berkeley was confronted (at gunpoint) by Bacon and his men. Berkeley was then forced to give Bacon commission and immediately fled with some of his supporters to the eastern shores of Virginia. In September of 1676, Bacon and his supporters set Jamestown on fire. Berkeley didn't return before this happened because the support for Bacon was still high. I believe that the Virginians only wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them through this revolt because they believed that he could solve their problems, and they acted so quickly toward this issue because they claimed that the government was corrupt. They only assumed this because Berkeley was trying to establish peace with the Natives. What the Virginians could of tried to do was look at this issue through Berkeley's view.
According to Berkeley, he was not opposed of fighting the Indians at all. It was the demand from the Virginians for all the Natives to be driven out or killed which was the problem. From the beginning of the Native attacks, Berkeley was doing what he could to handle the attacks without upsetting the Native tribes. He wanted to establish peace with them. Berkeley knew that if he did what the Virginians wanted him to do it might start a war, which was what he wanted to avoid in the first place. The Virginians didn't take the time to understand why Berkeley refused to give Bacon permission to lead troops to fight the Natives. When Berkeley arrested Bacon for attempting to attack Native tribes without permission, he knew of Bacon's further intentions and was trying to protect the Virginians, but they didn't listen.
When Bacon came back with greater support, Berkeley fled from Jamestown with his supporters. As the Rebellion was coming to a close Bacon declared Berkeley and the government was corrupt because they “supposedly”protected the Natives for their own selfish reasons. Berkeley could not take this and decided to secretly infiltrate Bacon's fleet. Berkeley was successful and was once again strong enough to retake Jamestown. That is when Bacon Burned Jamestown to the ground. On October 26,1676 Bacon died of blood flux. Shortly after that Berkeley quickly regained complete control and hanged the other leaders of the Rebellion. After the investigations of the rebellion from English officials, Berkeley was relieved from his Governorship and returned to England. He later died in July 1677.
The economy today is on a road to failure and destruction. Because of the wars that the United States are dealing with, we have been loosing money that could benefit our society. This has already angered us because we aren't used to living in a depression like society. You could compare the anger the we have toward the American government to the anger the Virginians had toward their government. The only difference is that our society today have not attempted to overthrow our government.
Bacon’s Rebellion was the first revolt in America against the political system. It was also the first revolt where frontiersman and the poor society took part. I’ve noticed that many people have assumed that Bacon was the complete bad guy through this event,which he was,but what they don’t notice though is that the Virginians tried to take matters into their own hands, and failed. The Rebellion really wouldn’t have happened if the Virginians didn’t support Bacon in the first place. He would’ve just been some regular guy who has his negative opinions about the Native race, but couldn't do anything about it. Even though this all somewhat came together in the end, to me this whole situation should have been handled the way Berkeley wanted it to. The Virginians are to blame for supporting a man who started the uprising of an event that killed very many innocent people. What did they even know about this man? Obviously not enough. They probably realized in the end that what they were supporting was wrong even if though they hated the Native race. I believe that this event could have been avoided but hey, that's just my opinion.
“In January 1667, The Susquehannahs (Natives) had, in a most inhumane maner, murthered no less then 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any actual injury don on these ill disarming, brutish heathen...(Quote from document #5)." In the 1670’s, these attacks were on the rise in Virginia. As the Natives continued to attack the Virginians, Sir William Berkeley, who was the governor of Virginia, took very little action toward this issue and failed to defend them. The Virginians wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them because they believed that he was on their side. Nathaniel Bacon confronted Berkeley and demanded a military commission so he could take care of this problem, but Berkeley turned Bacon down. Bacon went along with what he thought needed to be done even if it was against Berkeley. That's when the uprising of the rebellion began. While many believe that bacon was a rebel and a horrible man for starting this rebellion, in reality, the Virginians should also take part of the blame because if it wasn't for their support, Bacon's Rebellion really wouldn't of even happen.
Many Virginians, including unemployed former indentured servants, assumed that Berkeley stood on the wrong side of this issue. That's when they looked elsewhere for help and found Nathaniel Bacon who shared their frustration toward the Natives.“When Bacon threatened to act without authorization, Berkeley declared him a rebel. The response was a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses. Bacon was elected, and Berkeley let him take his seat on the Council briefly (Quote from://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html).” That support from the Virginians led Bacon to his original plan, which was to attack the Natives. Bacon was then charged, by Berkeley, with treason since he acted without commission from the government. You would think that Berkeley arresting Bacon would be the end of Bacon's attempts to attack the Natives, but there is still more surprises to come.
www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
Still obviously without commission, Bacon returned to Jamestown later that same month,“rallied a mob, and attacked innocent Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi Indians (Quote from www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html).”Soon after that Berkeley was confronted (at gunpoint) by Bacon and his men. Berkeley was then forced to give Bacon commission and immediately fled with some of his supporters to the eastern shores of Virginia. In September of 1676, Bacon and his supporters set Jamestown on fire. Berkeley didn't return before this happened because the support for Bacon was still high. I believe that the Virginians only wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them through this revolt because they believed that he could solve their problems, and they acted so quickly toward this issue because they claimed that the government was corrupt. They only assumed this because Berkeley was trying to establish peace with the Natives. What the Virginians could of tried to do was look at this issue through Berkeley's view.
According to Berkeley, he was not opposed of fighting the Indians at all. It was the demand from the Virginians for all the Natives to be driven out or killed which was the problem. From the beginning of the Native attacks, Berkeley was doing what he could to handle the attacks without upsetting the Native tribes. He wanted to establish peace with them. Berkeley knew that if he did what the Virginians wanted him to do it might start a war, which was what he wanted to avoid in the first place. The Virginians didn't take the time to understand why Berkeley refused to give Bacon permission to lead troops to fight the Natives. When Berkeley arrested Bacon for attempting to attack Native tribes without permission, he knew of Bacon's further intentions and was trying to protect the Virginians, but they didn't listen.
When Bacon came back with greater support, Berkeley fled from Jamestown with his supporters. As the Rebellion was coming to a close Bacon declared Berkeley and the government was corrupt because they “supposedly”protected the Natives for their own selfish reasons. Berkeley could not take this and decided to secretly infiltrate Bacon's fleet. Berkeley was successful and was once again strong enough to retake Jamestown. That is when Bacon Burned Jamestown to the ground. On October 26,1676 Bacon died of blood flux. Shortly after that Berkeley quickly regained complete control and hanged the other leaders of the Rebellion. After the investigations of the rebellion from English officials, Berkeley was relieved from his Governorship and returned to England. He later died in July 1677.
The economy today is on a road to failure and destruction. Because of the wars that the United States are dealing with, we have been loosing money that could benefit our society. This has already angered us because we aren't used to living in a depression like society. You could compare the anger the we have toward the American government to the anger the Virginians had toward their government. The only difference is that our society today have not attempted to overthrow our government.
Bacon’s Rebellion was the first revolt in America against the political system. It was also the first revolt where frontiersman and the poor society took part. I’ve noticed that many people have assumed that Bacon was the complete bad guy through this event,which he was,but what they don’t notice though is that the Virginians tried to take matters into their own hands, and failed. The Rebellion really wouldn’t have happened if the Virginians didn’t support Bacon in the first place. He would’ve just been some regular guy who has his negative opinions about the Native race, but couldn't do anything about it. Even though this all somewhat came together in the end, to me this whole situation should have been handled the way Berkeley wanted it to. The Virginians are to blame for supporting a man who started the uprising of an event that killed very many innocent people. What did they even know about this man? Obviously not enough. They probably realized in the end that what they were supporting was wrong even if though they hated the Native race. I believe that this event could have been avoided but hey, that's just my opinion.
Essay #3 Final Draft
Delaware: Anti-Federalists
MY fellow Delawareans, the state Delaware has become the first state to Ratify the constitution. We as the few people who are still anti-federalists want you all to realize what you're really doing for America. You all should keep in mind that now that you have chosen to ratify the constitution your rights will be minimized. The U.S. constitution will give too much power to the new national government and will threaten the popular government we have established here in Delaware. You can tie this exact situation to when the British imperial government ruled over us in the previous decades. They abused their power and their decisions led to chaos. The national government will be in the same situation if the constitution is ratified. How can you think that one government would know what is best for the entire United states?
You all know that the state of Delaware has its own Bill of Rights and it's own state government. The U.S. constitution does not even protect our fundamental rights. Freedom of speech, religious liberty, jury trials, and the other rigths that are included in our Bill of Rights. What is wrong with how we're living now? We are becoming strong, building a foundation, and prospering as a sovereign state. The United States is unorganized and isn't united as a country. We are flourishing as a state, not as a whole country, thus we should keep things the way they are.
I know the positives of the national government but when the Delaware deputies went to philidelphia to announce the ratifiaction they presented little detail on what they believed were the positives of the ratification.“We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware state, in Convention met, having taken in our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the city of Philadelphia, on the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm, the said Constitution." I know there is nothing I can do now about this but we should have taken even more time to even consider ratifying this constitution. We were the first, we could have waited longer to see if ratifying was such a good idea.
We don’t want to risk giving up the power we have to a government that at this point isn't really established. Our state government would know what's better for Delaware rather than a national government would. In Delaware we get a chance to represent out state and and our government. Having a national government would minimize the word of the people. Only a set amount of people would represent decisions for the entire United States. Now that's not the word of the people. Even if in the end the Constitution is fully ratified, my opnion won't change. I'm antifederalist for life. I believe you all should be too but I know my words won't change all of your minds. I also believe that in the end, the words from the antifederalists will go down in history.
MY fellow Delawareans, the state Delaware has become the first state to Ratify the constitution. We as the few people who are still anti-federalists want you all to realize what you're really doing for America. You all should keep in mind that now that you have chosen to ratify the constitution your rights will be minimized. The U.S. constitution will give too much power to the new national government and will threaten the popular government we have established here in Delaware. You can tie this exact situation to when the British imperial government ruled over us in the previous decades. They abused their power and their decisions led to chaos. The national government will be in the same situation if the constitution is ratified. How can you think that one government would know what is best for the entire United states?
You all know that the state of Delaware has its own Bill of Rights and it's own state government. The U.S. constitution does not even protect our fundamental rights. Freedom of speech, religious liberty, jury trials, and the other rigths that are included in our Bill of Rights. What is wrong with how we're living now? We are becoming strong, building a foundation, and prospering as a sovereign state. The United States is unorganized and isn't united as a country. We are flourishing as a state, not as a whole country, thus we should keep things the way they are.
I know the positives of the national government but when the Delaware deputies went to philidelphia to announce the ratifiaction they presented little detail on what they believed were the positives of the ratification.“We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware state, in Convention met, having taken in our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the city of Philadelphia, on the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm, the said Constitution." I know there is nothing I can do now about this but we should have taken even more time to even consider ratifying this constitution. We were the first, we could have waited longer to see if ratifying was such a good idea.
We don’t want to risk giving up the power we have to a government that at this point isn't really established. Our state government would know what's better for Delaware rather than a national government would. In Delaware we get a chance to represent out state and and our government. Having a national government would minimize the word of the people. Only a set amount of people would represent decisions for the entire United States. Now that's not the word of the people. Even if in the end the Constitution is fully ratified, my opnion won't change. I'm antifederalist for life. I believe you all should be too but I know my words won't change all of your minds. I also believe that in the end, the words from the antifederalists will go down in history.
Potfolio: Final Exam Frame #2
Portfolio: Final Exam #2
Tre’ Kelly
12/11/08
The writer’s view on the writing process is that it is easier to write if you have others to go to for feedback and/or ideas. If you’re writing on your own it is possible to be misled or stumped in certain situations. If you have someone to go to for help you’ll have a broader amount of views and opinions on whatever you’re writing. I agree with this writer completely because my writing philosophy supports the writer’s opinion about the writing process. When I’m writing I want as many views as possible because I’ll have more points to support what I’m writing. The writer says that “Group work not only privileges student-centered, democratic practices, but it highlights the interactive nature of creativity.” The point the writer is making is that when you have other ideas along with your own you’ll have more to play with in a sense. More ideas equal more possibilities which is being creative.
This view of the writing process supports my writing process in the following ways: the writer and I both believe that group help improves the writing process, and that group help heightens creativity. In writing 101 our class was assigned a group essay. In this essay we were supposed to take a side on whether the constitution should have been ratified or not. Without the help of my group I wouldn’t have had as many main points as I did. Things in life are easier to accomplish if you’re not on your own. I know for a fact that if I didn’t get the help that I got from my group members during that essay I wouldn’t have had as much to contribute toward the assignment as I did. The writer’s view of group help supports exactly what I believe, but it lacks one thing.
What the writer doesn’t elaborate on are the disadvantages of getting help from others on the helper’s side. When you get help others you still need to have your own points and ideas. The writer says that “the writing process can be greatly improved if students have a group of peers with whom they can share their writing.” I still support the writer but I realize that some people use this as a chance to take advantage of others. I did notice this during the group essay for other groups. Students did ask for help but the feedback and ideas they received were used as their own to sound like they knew what they were talking about. This brings me to the fact that although group help privileges the student, in some cases not receiving help can also be effective. I also include this in my writing process and writing philosophy. My original writing philosophy is to follow what I believe the teacher wants out of my work and to do my best. With group help I’d get the chance to hear others views on what the teacher is asking for but I also need to have an opinion of my own so I’m not following the instruction of someone else’s work. Help is good but some things you need to figure out yourself, which proves to be the difference between my view and the writers view on the writing process.
What the writer shows me from this frame is what makes group help effective, but the writer overlooks what makes help from others ineffective. I consider this to be very important because if you present your views on the advantages of something but leave out the disadvantages then you’re not getting the full take on the situation. But don’t get me wrong, I still believe that the writer’s view on the writing process can definitely help somebody. One final point I’d like to make about the similarities between my view on the writing process and the writer’s view is that creativity does build when you have more ideas to work with. If you’re using this as an effective way to improve your writing process then their really isn’t a disadvantage. What you writing should come from your own view but if someone else gives you an idea then you can use that to support your original view.
Tre’ Kelly
12/11/08
The writer’s view on the writing process is that it is easier to write if you have others to go to for feedback and/or ideas. If you’re writing on your own it is possible to be misled or stumped in certain situations. If you have someone to go to for help you’ll have a broader amount of views and opinions on whatever you’re writing. I agree with this writer completely because my writing philosophy supports the writer’s opinion about the writing process. When I’m writing I want as many views as possible because I’ll have more points to support what I’m writing. The writer says that “Group work not only privileges student-centered, democratic practices, but it highlights the interactive nature of creativity.” The point the writer is making is that when you have other ideas along with your own you’ll have more to play with in a sense. More ideas equal more possibilities which is being creative.
This view of the writing process supports my writing process in the following ways: the writer and I both believe that group help improves the writing process, and that group help heightens creativity. In writing 101 our class was assigned a group essay. In this essay we were supposed to take a side on whether the constitution should have been ratified or not. Without the help of my group I wouldn’t have had as many main points as I did. Things in life are easier to accomplish if you’re not on your own. I know for a fact that if I didn’t get the help that I got from my group members during that essay I wouldn’t have had as much to contribute toward the assignment as I did. The writer’s view of group help supports exactly what I believe, but it lacks one thing.
What the writer doesn’t elaborate on are the disadvantages of getting help from others on the helper’s side. When you get help others you still need to have your own points and ideas. The writer says that “the writing process can be greatly improved if students have a group of peers with whom they can share their writing.” I still support the writer but I realize that some people use this as a chance to take advantage of others. I did notice this during the group essay for other groups. Students did ask for help but the feedback and ideas they received were used as their own to sound like they knew what they were talking about. This brings me to the fact that although group help privileges the student, in some cases not receiving help can also be effective. I also include this in my writing process and writing philosophy. My original writing philosophy is to follow what I believe the teacher wants out of my work and to do my best. With group help I’d get the chance to hear others views on what the teacher is asking for but I also need to have an opinion of my own so I’m not following the instruction of someone else’s work. Help is good but some things you need to figure out yourself, which proves to be the difference between my view and the writers view on the writing process.
What the writer shows me from this frame is what makes group help effective, but the writer overlooks what makes help from others ineffective. I consider this to be very important because if you present your views on the advantages of something but leave out the disadvantages then you’re not getting the full take on the situation. But don’t get me wrong, I still believe that the writer’s view on the writing process can definitely help somebody. One final point I’d like to make about the similarities between my view on the writing process and the writer’s view is that creativity does build when you have more ideas to work with. If you’re using this as an effective way to improve your writing process then their really isn’t a disadvantage. What you writing should come from your own view but if someone else gives you an idea then you can use that to support your original view.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Portfolio Reflective Letter
My Portfolio has been put together in a way that will demonstrate how I've progressed through Writing 101 on my essay writing.It consists of my first and last essay papers, each with their Rough drafts so my progress can easily be seen.My first essay is about Bacon's rebellion and includes the facts, causes, and events that led to it. My last essay is an outline of my class debate between the federalists and anti-federalists in America, and I take the anti-federalist side. My weaknesses in my essays were not putting enough of my opinions in and that my essay length was too short. My strengths were staying on topic throughout the essays and providing evidence to back up my details.
In my first essay I stayed on topic and my thesis was very well supported. But during my evaluation my instructor came to the conclusion that the five paragraphs my essay consisted of were not enough and the entire essay was too factual.My last essay experience was a lot better than my first essay experience. I felt a whole lot more comfortable during the last essay than the first. I had much to contribute during the debate and all my points were well supported with facts and opinions.After completing those essays I realized that my writing style changed and that I still had much more in me.
What I had hoped to accomplish from Writing 101 was to improve my writing in general, and now that this class is coming to a close I can say that I improved dramatically. I still have the same weaknesses but I intend to better myself so my weaknesses can soon become my strengths. I have much to work on but I know that if I put my mind to it I could actually become a good writer.
In my first essay I stayed on topic and my thesis was very well supported. But during my evaluation my instructor came to the conclusion that the five paragraphs my essay consisted of were not enough and the entire essay was too factual.My last essay experience was a lot better than my first essay experience. I felt a whole lot more comfortable during the last essay than the first. I had much to contribute during the debate and all my points were well supported with facts and opinions.After completing those essays I realized that my writing style changed and that I still had much more in me.
What I had hoped to accomplish from Writing 101 was to improve my writing in general, and now that this class is coming to a close I can say that I improved dramatically. I still have the same weaknesses but I intend to better myself so my weaknesses can soon become my strengths. I have much to work on but I know that if I put my mind to it I could actually become a good writer.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Essay 3 Final outline
1. The US constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments:
a. Many Americans feared that this recentralization of power would threaten the popular governments established in the states, just as the British imperial government had threatened them in the previous decades. The Ant federalists by David j. Siemers
b. Once senators were elected into office, it brought major concern they would stay in the senate for life.
c. Although Delaware was first to ratify, there were many anti-federalists that believed to remain with the bill of rights we have.
i. Nearly impossible to form one common government among many states of variety (pg 69)
ii. America is unorganized, we feel that its impossible for one government to form from the states.
d. Tyranny could just as easily be imposed from an American capital as it had been from London. The Anti federalists by David j. Siemers
e. In objecting to the constitution, the anti federalists hoped to preserve state autonomy against another external assault. They literally thought that they were conserving the result of the American Revolution.
i. The Anti federalists by David j. Siemers
f.Antifederalists found a good deal more evidence that Federalists hoped to consolidate the thirteen states into a single political entity, thus threatening popular government.
i. The Anti federalists by David j. Siemers
2. There was a Bill of Rights:
a. People claimed during the ratification debates in 1787 and 1788, protections for fundamental rights like free speech, religious liberty, jury trials, and due process.
b. Delaware created their own Bill of Rights. They were becoming strong, building a foundation, and becoming independent as a state. The United States was unorganized and did not even have unity as a country. We are flourishing as a state, not as a whole country, thus we want to stay independent.
c. Religion-Practicing religion however we wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England so why wouldn't that be included.
3. The Bill of Rights In Delaware:
a. Congress, because of the necessary and proper clause, wielded too much power:
b. The executive branch held too much power.
c. The fact that the Government has the ability and power to reform an old government to please themselves as the leaders can be very harmful to the people.
"That persons entrusted with the Legislative and Executive powers are the trustees and servants of the publick, and as such accountable for their conduct; wherefore, whenever the ends of the Government are perverted and public liberty manifestly endangered by the Legislative singly, or a treacherous combination of both, the people may, and the right ought to, establish a new or reform the old Government."
(The Delaware Bill of Rights of 1776, by Max Farrand The American Historical Review © 1898 American Historical Association.)
4. Other
a. Unfortunately majority ruled for Delaware to ratify the US constitution.
i.“We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware state, in Convention met, having taken in our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the city of Philadelphia, on the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm, the said Constitution."
b.This way, there would be no risk of tyranny (a form of government in which a single person or organization holds complete power).
c. The Anti-Federalists had members such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
d. Anti-Federalists publicly debated the many elements contained in it. In the end, their words became some of history’s most authoritative texts on what the United States is about and what principles it holds most dear.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qDNsLCmIChkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA8&dq=delaware+anti+federalist&ots=EhZynwqGRc&sig=1qUltSYM2xfBjyB_c8aYCYUW3FI#PPA7,M1
5. We don’t want to risk giving up the power we have to the government that at this point doesn’t even know what they are doing right now with our country. Our state government would know what's better for Delaware rather than a national government.
a. Many Americans feared that this recentralization of power would threaten the popular governments established in the states, just as the British imperial government had threatened them in the previous decades. The Ant federalists by David j. Siemers
b. Once senators were elected into office, it brought major concern they would stay in the senate for life.
c. Although Delaware was first to ratify, there were many anti-federalists that believed to remain with the bill of rights we have.
i. Nearly impossible to form one common government among many states of variety (pg 69)
ii. America is unorganized, we feel that its impossible for one government to form from the states.
d. Tyranny could just as easily be imposed from an American capital as it had been from London. The Anti federalists by David j. Siemers
e. In objecting to the constitution, the anti federalists hoped to preserve state autonomy against another external assault. They literally thought that they were conserving the result of the American Revolution.
i. The Anti federalists by David j. Siemers
f.Antifederalists found a good deal more evidence that Federalists hoped to consolidate the thirteen states into a single political entity, thus threatening popular government.
i. The Anti federalists by David j. Siemers
2. There was a Bill of Rights:
a. People claimed during the ratification debates in 1787 and 1788, protections for fundamental rights like free speech, religious liberty, jury trials, and due process.
b. Delaware created their own Bill of Rights. They were becoming strong, building a foundation, and becoming independent as a state. The United States was unorganized and did not even have unity as a country. We are flourishing as a state, not as a whole country, thus we want to stay independent.
c. Religion-Practicing religion however we wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England so why wouldn't that be included.
3. The Bill of Rights In Delaware:
a. Congress, because of the necessary and proper clause, wielded too much power:
b. The executive branch held too much power.
c. The fact that the Government has the ability and power to reform an old government to please themselves as the leaders can be very harmful to the people.
"That persons entrusted with the Legislative and Executive powers are the trustees and servants of the publick, and as such accountable for their conduct; wherefore, whenever the ends of the Government are perverted and public liberty manifestly endangered by the Legislative singly, or a treacherous combination of both, the people may, and the right ought to, establish a new or reform the old Government."
(The Delaware Bill of Rights of 1776, by Max Farrand The American Historical Review © 1898 American Historical Association.)
4. Other
a. Unfortunately majority ruled for Delaware to ratify the US constitution.
i.“We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware state, in Convention met, having taken in our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the city of Philadelphia, on the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm, the said Constitution."
b.This way, there would be no risk of tyranny (a form of government in which a single person or organization holds complete power).
c. The Anti-Federalists had members such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
d. Anti-Federalists publicly debated the many elements contained in it. In the end, their words became some of history’s most authoritative texts on what the United States is about and what principles it holds most dear.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qDNsLCmIChkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA8&dq=delaware+anti+federalist&ots=EhZynwqGRc&sig=1qUltSYM2xfBjyB_c8aYCYUW3FI#PPA7,M1
5. We don’t want to risk giving up the power we have to the government that at this point doesn’t even know what they are doing right now with our country. Our state government would know what's better for Delaware rather than a national government.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Kentucky Resolution
WHO IS THE WRITER?
The good people of the Commonwealth wrote this.
WHO IS THE AUDIENCE?
This was submitted to the other states of America including the Union.
WHO DO THE WRITERS REPRESENT?
They represent the commonwealth.
WHAT IS BEING SAID AND/OR ARGUED?
The commonwealth respect the Union's last resolution's, the alien and sedition laws, but they believe that the laws are violations of the constitution. They will obey the laws but will not violate the that compact.
HOW IS IT BEING SAID AND/OR ARGUED?
Respectfully but they make sure their opinion is heard.
WHAT PROOF AND/OR JUSTIFICATION IS BEING USED TO LEGITIMIZE THE REQUEST?
"That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the union, yet at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:"
The good people of the Commonwealth wrote this.
WHO IS THE AUDIENCE?
This was submitted to the other states of America including the Union.
WHO DO THE WRITERS REPRESENT?
They represent the commonwealth.
WHAT IS BEING SAID AND/OR ARGUED?
The commonwealth respect the Union's last resolution's, the alien and sedition laws, but they believe that the laws are violations of the constitution. They will obey the laws but will not violate the that compact.
HOW IS IT BEING SAID AND/OR ARGUED?
Respectfully but they make sure their opinion is heard.
WHAT PROOF AND/OR JUSTIFICATION IS BEING USED TO LEGITIMIZE THE REQUEST?
"That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the union, yet at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:"
Essay#2 Reflection
This Essay was somewhat more difficult to write than the first one,nut I liked this one better. This essay gave me the chance to be more creative. One thing that made this Essay harder than the first was the fact that all of our sources had been from websites. I'm pretty sure I did a fine job on the Final draft because I followed the directions, expressed my opinions, and supported my research.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Essay #2 Final Draft
-Written during 1774-
Tre’ Kelly
11/20/08
Writ. 101
"Who was the old mother? Why, England of course! We were the colonists. Ben Franklin was right. King George III and his ministers didn't believe the colonists were grown up and capable of ruling themselves" (Hakim, pg.50). When Ben Franklin said this it showed how little the English knew about Americans. England was our mother country but in the beginning we strived without her. At least in New Hampshire we did. The average lifestyle in New Hampshire wasn’t very exciting but no one complained. Everybody minded their one business and lived positive lives. I was born and raised here in New Hampshire and I’ve been a poor farmer all of my life, but life was still peaceful. The English were wrong for trying to rule over us and strip us of our independence. As a poor farmer, I feel that rejection of the British government’s rule will best serve me and others of the poor society in New Hampshire because we would live an unstressful life with our independence. I had nothing against our mother country but after their decision to not give us any representation in their Parliament, and their unfair taxation on us, I had no choice but to support my colony.
What I didn’t understand was that the British thought that we’d be fine with giving them money just like that. When the British Parliament started putting taxes on the supplies we imported from them I was outraged not only by the tax act but by fact that this act was passed without the recognition of the New Hampshire colonists. In fact, none of the colonies' colonists knew about the taxes till it happened. I mean some of us rely on these resources and now we're being taxed to receive them just. Now that is completely messed up. This was only such a problem for me because I was pretty poor and I relied on some of those resources from the English. I couldn’t afford to pay more money to receive those resources.
I can see if I was a wealthy merchant at the time, then I'd feel comfortable with British rule because the taxes wouldn't have felt like much and I would have known that my fellow wealthy colonial people and most importantly, my trade ships, were protected by the Royal British Fleet. But I wasn’t a wealthy merchant; I was a man with nowhere to go. This isn't' fair to me or to others who were in my shoes or worse. I had to fight for those who were hurting from this because I knew how they felt. I didn’t do anything right away though because I was just a poor farmer and no one would have listened me even if they shared my same opinion. But the merchants couldn’t take it and took action in 1768. They boycotted British goods in attempt to get Great Britain to repeal the acts.
One other important thing that happened that year was the circular letter which was sent to each governor in America from the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay. Our governor spoke upon the people of New Hampshire and stated that the Parliament’s tax acts needed to be repealed. That was when the merchants started boycotting. A while after, their boycotts finally took effect toward British shipments. The British repealed their tax acts in 1770. The British should have known that their act wouldn’t have lasted. Most of the British leaders, including the King, had never even been to New Hampshire. It seemed as if the King didn’t care much about our problems; he just blamed the Parliament and denied having authority over them. That's when I figured that being part of the Parliament was where the real power was at.
As the years passed more and more Americans came together to grow above British rule. There were very many Patriots all over the American colonies, and to see all of us come together at the peak of the revolution and fight for our rights was a beautiful thing. I saw many who shared my same dream for America. I didn't hate the British and I didn't want any harm put on the British people, but what I was fighting for was pure and should have been unquestionable. Great Britain abused their power in many ways but one way that stood out for me was when they claimed that they had the "so called" right to bind us under their control which to me seemed almost like slavery. Thomas Paine, who was a Patriot although he was English, stated this exact thing in is document, "Common Sense." “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” The British Parliament was wrong. What they were trying to do for us was not good at all. Until this event passes I will keep on fighting and keep on praying for America. My Lord God is the only one who knows how this will end, so I can only wish for the best.
Title: A History of Taxation in New Hampshire
Author(s): Maurice H. Robinson
Source: Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 3, No 3 (Aug., 1902), pp 1-226
Publisher(s): American Economic Associations table
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2485865?
Books-
A History of U.S
Hakim, Joy. : From colonies to Country. New York, Third Edition: Published by Oxford University Press, inc., third edition copyright 2003
Author(s): Maurice H. Robinson
Source: Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 3, No 3 (Aug., 1902), pp 1-226
Publisher(s): American Economic Associations table
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2485865?
Books-
A History of U.S
Hakim, Joy. : From colonies to Country. New York, Third Edition: Published by Oxford University Press, inc., third edition copyright 2003
Friday, November 14, 2008
Essay #2 Rough Draft
-Written during 1684-
"Who was the old mother? Why, England of course! We were the colonists. Ben Franklin was right. King George III and his ministers didn't believe the colonists were grown up and capable of ruling themselves (Hakim, pg.50)." When Ben Franklin said this it how little the English knew about us Americans. I'm a patriot colonist born and raised here in New Hampshire and I, to this day, still believe that the English were wrong for trying to rule over the American colonies and strip us of our independence. While many believe that the English having control over the American colonies was a good way of life, in reality, you have to realize that there was peace between the American colonies and the English when they left us alone. In New Hampshire, we strived while having independent spirits, but when the British Parliament abused their power and took control we started to have problems. The unfair taxation on us and having no representation in the British Parliament were two reasons why I supported my colony, the Declaration of Independence, and the American Revolution.
The British did help the colonies grow but they somewhat assumed that since they were helping us, we all would be fine with giving back something in return. But that wasn't the case was it. When the British Parliament started putting taxes on the supplies we imported from them I was outraged not only by the tax act but by fact that this act was passed without the recognition of the New Hampshire colonists. In fact, none of the colonies' colonists knew about the taxes till it happened. I mean some of us rely on these resources and now we're being taxed to receive them just like that. Now that is completely messed up. This is only such a problem for me because I'm not a very wealthy colonist and I do rely on some of these resources from the English. I can't afford to pay more money to receive these resources. I can see if I was a wealthy merchant at the time, then I'd feel comfortable with British rule because the taxes wouldn't felt like much and I would have known that my fellow colonial people and most importantly, my trade ships, were protected by the Royal British Fleet. But I'm not a wealthy merchant; I'm just a man with nowhere to go. This isn't' fair to me or to others who are in my shoes or worse. I had to fight for those who were hurting from this because I knew how they felt. That act was part of the townshend acts that the British Parliament passed. I remember when theses acts took effect the merchants in New Hampshire boycotted British goods.
Back in 68, after the taxes were put into action, a circular letter was sent to each governor of the American colonies from the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay. Our governor spoke upon the people of New Hampshire and said that his Majesty wants us to take no notice of the Parliaments actions. I didn't understand why the King would say something like that but I knew that none of us were going to let this go. The merchants certainly didn't. Their boycotts took effect toward British shipments. The British repealed the tax acts in 1770. The truth is, the King doesn't really know anything about us. He has never even been here to New Hampshire. Along with most of the other English leaders, it seemed as if the King care much about our problems; he just blamed the Parliament and denied having authority over them. That's when I figured that being part of the Parliament was where the real power was at.
The New Hampshire Congress took action in 1776. The members of the Congress voted to take up civil government for New Hampshire in a constitution going against the British Parliament's abuse of power. We “Have taken into our serious consideration the unhappy circumstances, into which this colony is involved by means of many grievous and oppressive acts of the British Parliament, depriving us of our natural and constitutional rights and privileges; to enforce obedience to which acts a powerful fleet and army have been sent to this country by the ministry of Great Britain, who have exercised a wanton and cruel abuse of their power, in destroying the lives and properties of the colonists in many places with fire and sword, taking the ships and lading from many of the honest and industrious inhabitants of this colony employed in commerce, agreeable to the laws and customs a long time used here(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nh09.asp).”They were right. It is time to do something. We've waited to long I, now is the time to do something. I would have been happy to be under the Britain's protection if I got to keep my rights including constitutional rights and the right for my colony's independence. But now the British have just pushed us to that point where it is plain and obvious what we should do next.
There were very many Patriots all over the American colonies, and to see all of us come together and fight for our rights was a beautiful thing. I saw many who shared my same dream and my same opinions toward the actions of the British Parliament. To me this war seemed to bring the Americans together almost as if we were an independent country, instead of individual colonies, fighting for the right we all deserved to share. I didn't hate the British and I didn't want any harm put on the British people, but what I was fighting for was pure and should have been unquestionable. Great Britain abused their power in many ways but one way that stood out for me was when they claimed that they had the "so called" right to bind us under their control which to me seemed almost like slavery. Thomas Paine, who was a Patriot although he was English, said something like this in is document, "Common Sense." “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” The American Revolution was painful and discouraging, but I wouldn't of have changed a thing that happened during this historical event because in the end I got what I was praying for, an independent country.
Citations:
Title: A History of Taxation in New Hampshire
Author(s): Maurice H. Robinson
Source: Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 3, No 3 (Aug., 1902), pp 1-226
Publisher(s): American Economic Associations table
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2485865?
Primary documents-
Constitution of New Hampshire
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nh09.asp
Circular Letter to the Governors in America
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/circ_let_gov_1768.asp
Books-
A History of U.S
Hakim, Joy. .: From colonies to Country. New York, Third Edition: Published by Oxford University Press, inc., third edition copyright 2003
"Who was the old mother? Why, England of course! We were the colonists. Ben Franklin was right. King George III and his ministers didn't believe the colonists were grown up and capable of ruling themselves (Hakim, pg.50)." When Ben Franklin said this it how little the English knew about us Americans. I'm a patriot colonist born and raised here in New Hampshire and I, to this day, still believe that the English were wrong for trying to rule over the American colonies and strip us of our independence. While many believe that the English having control over the American colonies was a good way of life, in reality, you have to realize that there was peace between the American colonies and the English when they left us alone. In New Hampshire, we strived while having independent spirits, but when the British Parliament abused their power and took control we started to have problems. The unfair taxation on us and having no representation in the British Parliament were two reasons why I supported my colony, the Declaration of Independence, and the American Revolution.
The British did help the colonies grow but they somewhat assumed that since they were helping us, we all would be fine with giving back something in return. But that wasn't the case was it. When the British Parliament started putting taxes on the supplies we imported from them I was outraged not only by the tax act but by fact that this act was passed without the recognition of the New Hampshire colonists. In fact, none of the colonies' colonists knew about the taxes till it happened. I mean some of us rely on these resources and now we're being taxed to receive them just like that. Now that is completely messed up. This is only such a problem for me because I'm not a very wealthy colonist and I do rely on some of these resources from the English. I can't afford to pay more money to receive these resources. I can see if I was a wealthy merchant at the time, then I'd feel comfortable with British rule because the taxes wouldn't felt like much and I would have known that my fellow colonial people and most importantly, my trade ships, were protected by the Royal British Fleet. But I'm not a wealthy merchant; I'm just a man with nowhere to go. This isn't' fair to me or to others who are in my shoes or worse. I had to fight for those who were hurting from this because I knew how they felt. That act was part of the townshend acts that the British Parliament passed. I remember when theses acts took effect the merchants in New Hampshire boycotted British goods.
Back in 68, after the taxes were put into action, a circular letter was sent to each governor of the American colonies from the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay. Our governor spoke upon the people of New Hampshire and said that his Majesty wants us to take no notice of the Parliaments actions. I didn't understand why the King would say something like that but I knew that none of us were going to let this go. The merchants certainly didn't. Their boycotts took effect toward British shipments. The British repealed the tax acts in 1770. The truth is, the King doesn't really know anything about us. He has never even been here to New Hampshire. Along with most of the other English leaders, it seemed as if the King care much about our problems; he just blamed the Parliament and denied having authority over them. That's when I figured that being part of the Parliament was where the real power was at.
The New Hampshire Congress took action in 1776. The members of the Congress voted to take up civil government for New Hampshire in a constitution going against the British Parliament's abuse of power. We “Have taken into our serious consideration the unhappy circumstances, into which this colony is involved by means of many grievous and oppressive acts of the British Parliament, depriving us of our natural and constitutional rights and privileges; to enforce obedience to which acts a powerful fleet and army have been sent to this country by the ministry of Great Britain, who have exercised a wanton and cruel abuse of their power, in destroying the lives and properties of the colonists in many places with fire and sword, taking the ships and lading from many of the honest and industrious inhabitants of this colony employed in commerce, agreeable to the laws and customs a long time used here(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nh09.asp).”They were right. It is time to do something. We've waited to long I, now is the time to do something. I would have been happy to be under the Britain's protection if I got to keep my rights including constitutional rights and the right for my colony's independence. But now the British have just pushed us to that point where it is plain and obvious what we should do next.
There were very many Patriots all over the American colonies, and to see all of us come together and fight for our rights was a beautiful thing. I saw many who shared my same dream and my same opinions toward the actions of the British Parliament. To me this war seemed to bring the Americans together almost as if we were an independent country, instead of individual colonies, fighting for the right we all deserved to share. I didn't hate the British and I didn't want any harm put on the British people, but what I was fighting for was pure and should have been unquestionable. Great Britain abused their power in many ways but one way that stood out for me was when they claimed that they had the "so called" right to bind us under their control which to me seemed almost like slavery. Thomas Paine, who was a Patriot although he was English, said something like this in is document, "Common Sense." “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” The American Revolution was painful and discouraging, but I wouldn't of have changed a thing that happened during this historical event because in the end I got what I was praying for, an independent country.
Citations:
Title: A History of Taxation in New Hampshire
Author(s): Maurice H. Robinson
Source: Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 3, No 3 (Aug., 1902), pp 1-226
Publisher(s): American Economic Associations table
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2485865?
Primary documents-
Constitution of New Hampshire
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nh09.asp
Circular Letter to the Governors in America
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/circ_let_gov_1768.asp
Books-
A History of U.S
Hakim, Joy. .: From colonies to Country. New York, Third Edition: Published by Oxford University Press, inc., third edition copyright 2003
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Essay 2 outline
Tre’s Outline for Essay #2
Thesis: While many believe that the British having control over the American colonies was a good thing, in reality, you have to recognize that there was peace between the American colonies and Great Britain as long as Britain left the colonies alone. The colonies strived while having independent spirits, but when Britain abused their power and took control conflict arose between the two places.
I. The British Parliament has taken it upon themselves to impose taxes on the American colonies and strip them of their Independence.
-What has influenced me to be Patriot?- It would depend on my economical status at the time. I'm a colonist: If I was wealthy I probably would have supported Britain since taxes wouldn't have effected me as much and I was being protected by Britain. But I'm a patriot so in this case I'm part of the poorer society. Taxes effect me because I can't afford the resources that I need and I'm against the fact that Britain passed these tax acts without giving the colonies any heads up.http://msfrancisushistoryablock.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog3-would-you-support-american.html
1. Part of “Constitution of New Hampshire” stating British abuse of power
a. “Have taken into our serious consideration the unhappy circumstances, into which this colony is involved by means of many grievous and oppressive acts of the British Parliament, depriving us of our natural and constitutional rights and privileges; to enforce obedience to which acts a powerful fleet and army have been sent to this country by the ministry of Great Britain, who have exercised a wanton and cruel abuse of their power, in destroying the lives and properties of the colonists in many places with fire and sword, taking the ships and lading from many of the honest and industrious inhabitants of this colony employed in commerce, agreeable to the laws and customs a long time used here.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nh09.asp
b. The British Parliament Have abused their power and have deprived the colony of their natural and constitutional rights and privileges. Questions to answer: What rights exactly? Could this be considered as a form of slavery? Thomas said something about that in “The Crisis.” “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”
2. Colonies need to act NOW!!! “Circular Letter to the Governors in America”
a. ”I have his Majesty's commands to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter from the speaker of the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, addressed by order of that House to the speaker of the assembly of each colony upon the continent of North America. As his Majesty considers this measure to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution; it is his Majesty's pleasure that you should immediately upon the receipt hereof exert your utmost influence to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace by prevailing upon the Assembly of your province to take no notice of it, which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves. ”
b. The colonies are asked to get together and take action. “there should appear in the Assembly of your province a disposition to receive or give any countenance to this seditious paper; it will be your duty to prevent any proceeding upon it by an immediate prorogation or dissolution. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/circ_let_gov_1768.asp)
II. Economic, Social, and Political Issues in New Hampshire
1. 2. 3. An Economical factor that also counts as a Political factor and a Social Factor: Great Britian shipped supplies to the American colonies, but ever since their products, like peper during the stamp act, were taxed the American colonists were outraged and believed that the British had no right to pass taxes without the consent of the colonists.
History of Taxtion in New Hampshire
a. b. c. Parenthetic Citation
Title: A History of Taxation in New Hampshire
Author(s): Maurice H. Robinson
Source: Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 3, No 3 (Aug., 1902), pp 1-226
Publisher(s): American Economic Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2485865?
III. Outcome of American colonies without British rule
1. Peace between America and Great Britain
a. Values of independence were in the colonies almost from the beginning. Each colony considered itself independent of the other colonies, and preferred a loose bond with Britain.
Thesis: While many believe that the British having control over the American colonies was a good thing, in reality, you have to recognize that there was peace between the American colonies and Great Britain as long as Britain left the colonies alone. The colonies strived while having independent spirits, but when Britain abused their power and took control conflict arose between the two places.
I. The British Parliament has taken it upon themselves to impose taxes on the American colonies and strip them of their Independence.
-What has influenced me to be Patriot?- It would depend on my economical status at the time. I'm a colonist: If I was wealthy I probably would have supported Britain since taxes wouldn't have effected me as much and I was being protected by Britain. But I'm a patriot so in this case I'm part of the poorer society. Taxes effect me because I can't afford the resources that I need and I'm against the fact that Britain passed these tax acts without giving the colonies any heads up.http://msfrancisushistoryablock.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog3-would-you-support-american.html
1. Part of “Constitution of New Hampshire” stating British abuse of power
a. “Have taken into our serious consideration the unhappy circumstances, into which this colony is involved by means of many grievous and oppressive acts of the British Parliament, depriving us of our natural and constitutional rights and privileges; to enforce obedience to which acts a powerful fleet and army have been sent to this country by the ministry of Great Britain, who have exercised a wanton and cruel abuse of their power, in destroying the lives and properties of the colonists in many places with fire and sword, taking the ships and lading from many of the honest and industrious inhabitants of this colony employed in commerce, agreeable to the laws and customs a long time used here.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nh09.asp
b. The British Parliament Have abused their power and have deprived the colony of their natural and constitutional rights and privileges. Questions to answer: What rights exactly? Could this be considered as a form of slavery? Thomas said something about that in “The Crisis.” “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”
2. Colonies need to act NOW!!! “Circular Letter to the Governors in America”
a. ”I have his Majesty's commands to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter from the speaker of the House of Representatives of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, addressed by order of that House to the speaker of the assembly of each colony upon the continent of North America. As his Majesty considers this measure to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to inflame the minds of his good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to and denial of the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution; it is his Majesty's pleasure that you should immediately upon the receipt hereof exert your utmost influence to defeat this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace by prevailing upon the Assembly of your province to take no notice of it, which will be treating it with the contempt it deserves. ”
b. The colonies are asked to get together and take action. “there should appear in the Assembly of your province a disposition to receive or give any countenance to this seditious paper; it will be your duty to prevent any proceeding upon it by an immediate prorogation or dissolution. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/circ_let_gov_1768.asp)
II. Economic, Social, and Political Issues in New Hampshire
1. 2. 3. An Economical factor that also counts as a Political factor and a Social Factor: Great Britian shipped supplies to the American colonies, but ever since their products, like peper during the stamp act, were taxed the American colonists were outraged and believed that the British had no right to pass taxes without the consent of the colonists.
History of Taxtion in New Hampshire
a. b. c. Parenthetic Citation
Title: A History of Taxation in New Hampshire
Author(s): Maurice H. Robinson
Source: Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 3, No 3 (Aug., 1902), pp 1-226
Publisher(s): American Economic Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2485865?
III. Outcome of American colonies without British rule
1. Peace between America and Great Britain
a. Values of independence were in the colonies almost from the beginning. Each colony considered itself independent of the other colonies, and preferred a loose bond with Britain.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Text Analysis "The Crisis by Thomas Paine"
Who is writing?
The writer of this article is Thomas Paine.
Who is the audience?
The colonists are audience of this article.
Who do the writers represent?
Thomas Paine represents the colonists. He states his own opinion on the need of Independence in America.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
What was being said was the that Americans could of broken free from British control if they acted sooner rather than later.
How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
Thomas Paine said what he said in confident, straightforward type of way. He wasn't afraid to state his opinions. Throughout this article Paine's tone didn't change and his firm opinion stayed very well supported.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof was Paine's experience with the colonists during "the crisis" between the Americans and the British. He states also that Britain had declared that they had a right to bind America but not consider it slavery. "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but 'to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER' and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."
The writer of this article is Thomas Paine.
Who is the audience?
The colonists are audience of this article.
Who do the writers represent?
Thomas Paine represents the colonists. He states his own opinion on the need of Independence in America.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
What was being said was the that Americans could of broken free from British control if they acted sooner rather than later.
How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
Thomas Paine said what he said in confident, straightforward type of way. He wasn't afraid to state his opinions. Throughout this article Paine's tone didn't change and his firm opinion stayed very well supported.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof was Paine's experience with the colonists during "the crisis" between the Americans and the British. He states also that Britain had declared that they had a right to bind America but not consider it slavery. "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but 'to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER' and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
A Declaration by the Representatives... Text Analysis
Who is the writer?
The Representatives of the united states Colonies of America
Who is the audience?
The Reps are the audience also, because they are having a meeting with eachother
Who do the writers represtent?
They new congress that has gotten together so they can set forth their right to bear arms against Great Britain.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
This Congress states the many wrongs of Great Britain and the Acts that Britain past. They wish to take action and regain their liberty. They wish to bear arms against Great Britian.
How is it being said, argued and/or reguested?
It's being said in a way that sounds determined or serious. The Colonies plans are being requested in a demanding way.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
"Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, if necassary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable---" "We fight not for glory or for request. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence.
The Representatives of the united states Colonies of America
Who is the audience?
The Reps are the audience also, because they are having a meeting with eachother
Who do the writers represtent?
They new congress that has gotten together so they can set forth their right to bear arms against Great Britain.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
This Congress states the many wrongs of Great Britain and the Acts that Britain past. They wish to take action and regain their liberty. They wish to bear arms against Great Britian.
How is it being said, argued and/or reguested?
It's being said in a way that sounds determined or serious. The Colonies plans are being requested in a demanding way.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
"Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, if necassary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable---" "We fight not for glory or for request. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Synthesis Response
One thing that the video, and the 3 documents had in common was that they both were about the Act of the British Parliament toward the American Colonies, the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act allowed the British Parliament to tax items that were stamped. At this time many goods in America were from England, and the Americans weren't happy that they were being taxed for all of their shipped items. The Americans were already independently governed, and the thought of being ruled by another governing body was just out of the question. The Stamp Act was one of the worst political decisions made in history. My own view is with the American's opinion toward this act. When it comes to this topic, most of us will agree that the British were wrong for attempting to pass this act, but on the other hand the Americans didn't have a say in the matter so the British might have thought that passing this act wouldn't have been all that difficult. Another possibilty could have been that the British thought that since they protected the American colonies, the Americans could give back. In John Adams' quote, he speaks of this act not as a Revolution, but as "an effect and consequence of it." Or in other words, an effect leading toward the American Revolution.
Text Analysis paragraphs
Circular Letter of Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 13, 1774
The countrymen have received a copy of the Act of the British Parliament. The Town of Boston has been treated in an unjust manner. The countrymen want to unite to fight this violation of liberties. This act's main objective is to divide the colonies. The countrymen want to maintain the rights of America and want to fight for their freedom from British control.
Letter from the New York of fifty-one to the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 23, 1774
The citizens have appointed a large committee of 51 people because of the British parliament. The citizens of New york have taken the vote of the town of Boston under consideration. They condole with Boston and have nothing to add on the matter.They can't explain why though. They want Boston's opinion of British congress.
Declaration of Resolves of the First Continental Congress
British power has claimed the right to bind the people of America by statutes in all classes. The people of several colonies have appointed deputies to meet and sit in general congress in Philadelphia. The inhabitants of the English colonies in North America have resolved their rights in this matter.
The countrymen have received a copy of the Act of the British Parliament. The Town of Boston has been treated in an unjust manner. The countrymen want to unite to fight this violation of liberties. This act's main objective is to divide the colonies. The countrymen want to maintain the rights of America and want to fight for their freedom from British control.
Letter from the New York of fifty-one to the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 23, 1774
The citizens have appointed a large committee of 51 people because of the British parliament. The citizens of New york have taken the vote of the town of Boston under consideration. They condole with Boston and have nothing to add on the matter.They can't explain why though. They want Boston's opinion of British congress.
Declaration of Resolves of the First Continental Congress
British power has claimed the right to bind the people of America by statutes in all classes. The people of several colonies have appointed deputies to meet and sit in general congress in Philadelphia. The inhabitants of the English colonies in North America have resolved their rights in this matter.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Essay #1 Reflection
Revised writing philosophy
My original writing philosophy was about me just doing my best in whatever task I am given. Now I feel that that philosophy lacked detail. I've changed my philosophy more toward following standards and looking for what the teacher wants out of my work. When I write I write for myself, and I write to impress. In my opinion the way I wrote that first assigned Final Draft Essay was very well detailed. I never wrote essays this way. This writing process is new to me but works a lot better toward the proffesionalism of my writing. In a way I'm still following my original philosophy but now I'm expanding that philosophy while including the writing process.
Essay #1 Reflection
The way I wrote this essay was very different from what I'm used to. The writing process is somewhat similar but this process involves more details, such as templates, more quotes, more paragraphs and most importantly, more steps before the final draft. My overall experience was pretty alright. I didn't stress much about how my outline or rough drafts looked and I came up with a decent final draft that I felt was my best work . Once I get my results I'll find out if my for if my best was good enough.
My original writing philosophy was about me just doing my best in whatever task I am given. Now I feel that that philosophy lacked detail. I've changed my philosophy more toward following standards and looking for what the teacher wants out of my work. When I write I write for myself, and I write to impress. In my opinion the way I wrote that first assigned Final Draft Essay was very well detailed. I never wrote essays this way. This writing process is new to me but works a lot better toward the proffesionalism of my writing. In a way I'm still following my original philosophy but now I'm expanding that philosophy while including the writing process.
Essay #1 Reflection
The way I wrote this essay was very different from what I'm used to. The writing process is somewhat similar but this process involves more details, such as templates, more quotes, more paragraphs and most importantly, more steps before the final draft. My overall experience was pretty alright. I didn't stress much about how my outline or rough drafts looked and I came up with a decent final draft that I felt was my best work . Once I get my results I'll find out if my for if my best was good enough.
Virginia Resolves Rhetorical Analysis
Who is the writer?
The Virginia House of Burgesses.
Who is the audience?
The Citizens,colinists, and the the House of Commons.
Who do the writers represtent?
The writers represent the positions of the colonists.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
Recognizing the rights of the Virginia governor and legistature to tax Virginians (Stamp Act). Also the Resolutions made by the House of Burgesses.
How is it being said, argued and/or reguested?
It is being said in a firm manner, seems demanding. Is an informative document.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof being given is the idea of making demands without the say of the people.
The Virginia House of Burgesses.
Who is the audience?
The Citizens,colinists, and the the House of Commons.
Who do the writers represtent?
The writers represent the positions of the colonists.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
Recognizing the rights of the Virginia governor and legistature to tax Virginians (Stamp Act). Also the Resolutions made by the House of Burgesses.
How is it being said, argued and/or reguested?
It is being said in a firm manner, seems demanding. Is an informative document.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof being given is the idea of making demands without the say of the people.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Lengthened Rough Draft
“After the thrilling scenes through which the Colony of Virginia passed during its earliest days, the most portentous, the most dramatic, the most picturesque event of its seventeenth century history was the insurrection known as "Bacon's Rebellion (quote found at www.newrivernotes.com/va/bacon.html)." Bacon’s Rebellion was the first revolt in America against the political system. Bacon’s Rebellion was not only the first revolt in America, but also the first revolt that frontiersman and the poor society took part. I’ve noticed that many people assume that Bacon was the complete bad guy through this event. What they don’t notice though is that the Virginians tried to take matters into their own hands, and failed (They say Template).The Rebellion really wouldn’t have happened if the Virginians didn’t support Bacon. He would’ve just been some regular guy who has his negative opinions about the Native race. What I can’t understand though is why they chose Bacon. This man was a stranger to them. He just happened to be their when this issue occurred. So whose fault is it really for Bacon’s Rebellion? Nathaniel Bacon, or the Virginians?
“In January 1667, The Susquehannahs (Natives) had, in a most inhumane maner, murthered no less then 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any actual injury don on these ill disarming, brutish heathen...(Quote from document #5)." In the 1670’s, these attacks were on the rise in Virginia. As the Natives continued to attack the Virginians, Sir William Berkeley (governor of Virginia) took very little action and failed to defend the Virginians against the Natives. Many Virginians, including unemployed former indentured servants, thought Berkeley stood on the wrong side of this issue. The Virginians wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them because they believed that he was on their side. The Virginians wanted to make sure they were safe. They didn’t care how their issue was being handled; they just wanted this problem to be solved. Nathaniel Bacon demanded Berkeley to supply him with a military commission so he could take care of this problem, but Berkeley turned Bacon down because he wanted to establish peace with the native tribes. Since Berkeley’s plan to make peace with the Natives wasn’t working, Nathaniel Bacon went along with what he thought needed to be done even if it was against Berkeley.
Many Virginians, including unemployed former indentured servants, thought Berkeley stood on the wrong side of this issue. What the Virginians thought was important was their safety, not making peace with the Natives. The Virginians wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them since he was supposedly on their side for this issue. “When Bacon threatened to act without authorization, Berkeley declared him a rebel. The response was a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses. Bacon was elected, and Berkeley let him take his seat on the Council briefly (Quote from://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html.” After that Bacon went along with his plans. “Bacon quickly left Jamestown rallied a mob, and attacked innocent Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi Indians (Quote from www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html).” Then after all that Bacon's forces captured Berkeley’s and then Bacon burned the town.
Bacon’s rebellion started because Native tribes were attacking the Virginians and they weren’t happy that the government didn’t take care of the problem. Since the government wouldn’t protect the Virginians well enough they came to Bacon because he did want to take care of this problem, but not for the reason the Virginians thought why he would want to take out the Natives. The confusing thing is that if Bacon’s Rebellion didn’t happen, the attacks would’ve continued and Jamestown would have been destroyed. But the rebellion did happen and the town was still destroyed. The outcome would’ve have been the same either way: While the Virginians believed that Berkeley was wrong and Bacon was the cure for their problems, in reality, the Virginians should have been more aware of the situation before letting a “stranger” take care of their issues. The guy that they believed would help them burned their town. They wanted Bacon to help them so their town wouldn’t be destroyed, but in the end it was anyway. So in a way, the Virginians got what they deserved. Berkeley was doing what he believed was right for his people but they didn’t want to hear it. So I’m making the blame on the Virginians because they put someone else in charge before noticing who they were putting in charge.
Essay #1 Rough Draft
“In January 1667, The Susquehannahs (Natives) had, in a most inhumane maner, murthered no less then 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any actual injury don on these ill disarming, brutish heathen... In the 1670’s, these attacks were on the rise in Virginia. As the Natives continued to attack the Virginians, Sir William Berkeley took very little action and failed to defend the Virginians. Nathaniel Bacon demanded Berkeley to supply him with a military commission so he could take care of this problem, but Berkeley turned Bacon down because he wanted to establish peace with the native tribes. Since Berkeley’s plan to make peace with the Natives wasn’t working, Nathaniel Bacon went along with what he thought needed to be done even if it was against Berkeley. While Berkeley believed that Nathaniel bacon was wrong for attacking the natives without permission from the government, in reality, Bacon should have been seen as a hero for being on the right side of this issue.
Many Virginians, including unemployed former indentured servants, thought Berkeley stood on the wrong side of this issue. What the Virginians thought was important was their safety, not making peace with the Natives. The Virginians wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them since he was supposedly on their side for this issue. “When Bacon threatened to act without authorization, Berkeley declared him a rebel. The response was a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses. Bacon was elected, and Berkeley let him take his seat on the Council briefly.” After that Bacon went along with his plans. “Bacon quickly left Jamestown rallied a mob, and attacked innocent Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi Indians.” Then after all that Bacon's forces captured Berkeley’s and then Bacon burned the town.
Bacon’s rebellion started because Native tribes were attacking the Virginians. Since the government wouldn’t protect them they came to Bacon because he wanted to take out the Natives. Bacon stopped the Natives attacking the Virginians but the Virginians still died because of Bacon burned Jamestown. The confusing thing is that if Bacon’s Rebellion didn’t happen, the killing of the innocent Virginians would’ve continued and Jamestown would have been destroyed because no one would’ve protected them. But the rebellion did happen and innocent Virginians still died because they came to someone they believed could solve their problem. The outcome would’ve have been the same either way.
Many Virginians, including unemployed former indentured servants, thought Berkeley stood on the wrong side of this issue. What the Virginians thought was important was their safety, not making peace with the Natives. The Virginians wanted Nathaniel Bacon to lead them since he was supposedly on their side for this issue. “When Bacon threatened to act without authorization, Berkeley declared him a rebel. The response was a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses. Bacon was elected, and Berkeley let him take his seat on the Council briefly.” After that Bacon went along with his plans. “Bacon quickly left Jamestown rallied a mob, and attacked innocent Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi Indians.” Then after all that Bacon's forces captured Berkeley’s and then Bacon burned the town.
Bacon’s rebellion started because Native tribes were attacking the Virginians. Since the government wouldn’t protect them they came to Bacon because he wanted to take out the Natives. Bacon stopped the Natives attacking the Virginians but the Virginians still died because of Bacon burned Jamestown. The confusing thing is that if Bacon’s Rebellion didn’t happen, the killing of the innocent Virginians would’ve continued and Jamestown would have been destroyed because no one would’ve protected them. But the rebellion did happen and innocent Virginians still died because they came to someone they believed could solve their problem. The outcome would’ve have been the same either way.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Description Response
.Euiano was captured by the white men
.The white men captured many other African Americans and had them all crammed in boats
.Equiano witnessed his people being mistreated and some of the white men mistreated some of their own kind
.Many of the Africans died throughout the journey and were either thrown off the boat or left where they died.
.The white men captured many other African Americans and had them all crammed in boats
.Equiano witnessed his people being mistreated and some of the white men mistreated some of their own kind
.Many of the Africans died throughout the journey and were either thrown off the boat or left where they died.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thesis
THESIS: Virginians wanted Nathaniel Bacon to leader them.
I. Why Bacon? – What makes him so special?
1. Virginians saw a leader in Nathaniel Bacon?
a. source - I found this info on http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/7647/colonial.htm
b. explain - William Berkeley failed to take quick action to repel an Indian attack so the they choose Bacon to lead a force against the Indians.
2. Bacon was already on his own agenda
a. source - I found this info on http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
b. explain – Bacon went to governor Berkeley and demanded a military commission that would authorize him to attack the Susquehannock Indians. “Bacon quickly left Jamestown, rallied a mob, and attacked innocent Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi Indians.” Bacon's forces captured Berkeley’s and then Bacon burned the town. He was going to do whatever it took to solve this problem.
II. Bacon a rebel – Was Bacon the Hero or the villain?
1. Quote from Berkeley
a. Source – I found this info on http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
b. Explain. Berkeley declared Bacon a rebel. The response was “a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses.” Bacon was elected. According to the people he was a hero, and to the government he was a villain.
1. House of Burgesses
a. Explain - “When Bacon threatened to act without authorization, Berkeley declared him a rebel. The response was a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses. Bacon was elected, and Berkeley let him take his seat on the Council briefly.” “The House of Burgesses, intimidated by the mob, passed legislation demanded by Bacon.”
III. How B.R. relates to today. (How is B.R. relevant to today?)
a. 2008
. (Sources and explain need to be full complete sentences)
I. Why Bacon? – What makes him so special?
1. Virginians saw a leader in Nathaniel Bacon?
a. source - I found this info on http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/7647/colonial.htm
b. explain - William Berkeley failed to take quick action to repel an Indian attack so the they choose Bacon to lead a force against the Indians.
2. Bacon was already on his own agenda
a. source - I found this info on http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
b. explain – Bacon went to governor Berkeley and demanded a military commission that would authorize him to attack the Susquehannock Indians. “Bacon quickly left Jamestown, rallied a mob, and attacked innocent Occaneechi, Tutelo, and Saponi Indians.” Bacon's forces captured Berkeley’s and then Bacon burned the town. He was going to do whatever it took to solve this problem.
II. Bacon a rebel – Was Bacon the Hero or the villain?
1. Quote from Berkeley
a. Source – I found this info on http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
b. Explain. Berkeley declared Bacon a rebel. The response was “a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses.” Bacon was elected. According to the people he was a hero, and to the government he was a villain.
1. House of Burgesses
a. Explain - “When Bacon threatened to act without authorization, Berkeley declared him a rebel. The response was a public wave of support for Bacon, frightening Berkeley enough to trigger him to finally schedule an election for a new House of Burgesses. Bacon was elected, and Berkeley let him take his seat on the Council briefly.” “The House of Burgesses, intimidated by the mob, passed legislation demanded by Bacon.”
III. How B.R. relates to today. (How is B.R. relevant to today?)
a. 2008
. (Sources and explain need to be full complete sentences)
Monday, October 13, 2008
Essay 1 thesis and outline
My Question: Why did Virginia land owners ask Bacon to lead them?
Thesis: The Virginians saw a leader in Nathaniel Bacon.
1.a. Why did Virginia land owners ask Bacon to lead them?
I.
II.
III.
b. Sources on which to focus
I. History Book
II. JSTOR
III.Wiki article
IV. Article from internet
IIV. Article from database
c. Templates
I. Paraphrase (ch. 1)
II. Summary (ch. 2)
III. Quote (ch 3)
2.a. "I say"
I. Analysis
II. I say meaning I think/argue
3.a. Conclusion/ Summary statement
I. How is B.R. relevent to today?
II. Reputable news sources...?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
John Winthrop’s Arbella Sermon, 1630 Quotes
(Quote 1)
“The definition which the scripture gives us of love is this: ‘Love is the bond of perfection.’ [I]t is a bond or ligament. . . . There is no body but consists of parts and that which each part so contiguous to others as thereby they do mutually participate with each other, both in strength and infirmity, in pleasure and pain. . . . Christ and his church make one body. The several parts of this body, considered apart before they were united, were disproportionate and as much disordering as so many contrary qualities or elements, [however, when united], it is become the most perfect and best proportioned body in the world[.]”
. The people that beleive in God are instantly connected him. That connection creates a bond of perfection between the body (people) and the Lord
(Quote 2)
“Whatsoever we did or ought to have done when we lived in England, the same must we do, and more also, where we go.”
. All of the ideas that they had to improve old England will be used in their new way of life in New England. New England will be just like Old England but improved.
(Quote 3)
“Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with him for this work. We have taken out a commission, the Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these actions . . . . Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath he ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, [and] will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it.”
. I believe this quote is explaining some sort transition between the original English Church way and a new beginning. If the lord has blessed them to move to New England then they must become strongly religious.
(Quote 4)
“[W]hen he shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding [colonies], ‘the Lord make it like that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us[.]”
. They believed God saw their new colony as a role model for other/future colonies to look up to. They are showing how much stronger they have become religiously, and believe that everyone else should follow their way.
“The definition which the scripture gives us of love is this: ‘Love is the bond of perfection.’ [I]t is a bond or ligament. . . . There is no body but consists of parts and that which each part so contiguous to others as thereby they do mutually participate with each other, both in strength and infirmity, in pleasure and pain. . . . Christ and his church make one body. The several parts of this body, considered apart before they were united, were disproportionate and as much disordering as so many contrary qualities or elements, [however, when united], it is become the most perfect and best proportioned body in the world[.]”
. The people that beleive in God are instantly connected him. That connection creates a bond of perfection between the body (people) and the Lord
(Quote 2)
“Whatsoever we did or ought to have done when we lived in England, the same must we do, and more also, where we go.”
. All of the ideas that they had to improve old England will be used in their new way of life in New England. New England will be just like Old England but improved.
(Quote 3)
“Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with him for this work. We have taken out a commission, the Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these actions . . . . Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath he ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, [and] will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it.”
. I believe this quote is explaining some sort transition between the original English Church way and a new beginning. If the lord has blessed them to move to New England then they must become strongly religious.
(Quote 4)
“[W]hen he shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding [colonies], ‘the Lord make it like that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us[.]”
. They believed God saw their new colony as a role model for other/future colonies to look up to. They are showing how much stronger they have become religiously, and believe that everyone else should follow their way.
JSTOR Searching Experience
I didn't really like it. I could of found the same or more useful info from google or something. It confused me at points but I got through it. At first I was trying to find some document that was about Bacon's Rebellion, the Natives, the government, and had info on Nathaniel Bacon's death. I could only find info those topics one at a time. I tried to save the citations but it didn't work when I put my Username and password in. I should of asked more questions about this process after school but I was worried about other homework. The next time I search I will understand how this works first. That's my next priority when we look back into JSTOR.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"They Say" Bacons Rebellion #2
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event that changed the opinions of many about the Native race and the Virginia government. Nathaniel Bacon wanted permission to raid the Natives because he wanted them out of the way and believed they were a threat to his plans for power. He was turned down by William Berkeley who was a lead member of the government, and Berkeley wanted to keep peace with the Natives. The settlers had problems with the Natives. The settlers wanted the politicians and the colonies leaders to fight the Natives, but they wouldn't fight. The frontiersmen and the settlers felt that the colonial government had let them down. "They were angry, and they weren't the only ones (found on pg#36 "Howard Zinn" document)." "In 1667 these unhappy Virginians found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon (also on pg#36 of Zinn's document)." Bacon accused Berkeley and the government of wrong doing, including not protecting the western farmers from the Indians, and unfair taxes. The common people elected Bacon to be in the colonial government, which was called the House of Burgesses, because "the common people of Virginia felt that he was on their side"(also on pg. #36 of Zinn's document).
There was a lot of oppression towards the lower classes of people in Virginia.“Bacon’s Rebellion brought together groups from the lower classes.” White frontiersmen started the uprising because they were angry about the way the colony was being run. "Then white servants and black slaves joined the rebellion (Zinn document pg.#35)." They were mainly angry because the government set a huge economical gap between the rich and the poor and they wanted to share the wealth of the rich. Bacon was ready to send his armed forces to fight the Indians, outside of government control. Bacon's rebellion was influenced by Nathaniel Bacon's eagerness to wipe out the Natives for the angry Vrginians, for power, and for wealth. This soon alarmed Berekely. "Berkeley called Bacon a rebel and had him captured ( on pg.#36 of Zinn document." As soon as Bacon was released he gathered his militia and raided the Indians anyway. The rebellion was then "under way."
"Bacon gave his reasons for the rebellion in a paper called the Declaration of the People (pg. #38 of Zinn document." It contained the info on the frontiermen's hatred of the Natives and the common people's anger toward the rich. A few months after that, Bacon got very sick and died. "The rebellion didn't last long after that ( pg. #38 of Zinn's document)."
There was a lot of oppression towards the lower classes of people in Virginia.“Bacon’s Rebellion brought together groups from the lower classes.” White frontiersmen started the uprising because they were angry about the way the colony was being run. "Then white servants and black slaves joined the rebellion (Zinn document pg.#35)." They were mainly angry because the government set a huge economical gap between the rich and the poor and they wanted to share the wealth of the rich. Bacon was ready to send his armed forces to fight the Indians, outside of government control. Bacon's rebellion was influenced by Nathaniel Bacon's eagerness to wipe out the Natives for the angry Vrginians, for power, and for wealth. This soon alarmed Berekely. "Berkeley called Bacon a rebel and had him captured ( on pg.#36 of Zinn document." As soon as Bacon was released he gathered his militia and raided the Indians anyway. The rebellion was then "under way."
"Bacon gave his reasons for the rebellion in a paper called the Declaration of the People (pg. #38 of Zinn document." It contained the info on the frontiermen's hatred of the Natives and the common people's anger toward the rich. A few months after that, Bacon got very sick and died. "The rebellion didn't last long after that ( pg. #38 of Zinn's document)."
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
They Say: Bacon's Rebellion
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event that changed the opinions of many about the Native race. Nathaniel Bacon wanted permission to raid the Natives because he thought they were a threat to his plans to conquer more land. He was turned down by William Berkeley who was a lead member of the government, and Berkeley wanted to keep peace with the Natives. “Bacon accused Berkeley and the government of wrong doing, including not protecting the western farmers from the Indians, and unfair taxes.” Bacon was elected to be a part of the colonial government called the House of Burgesses because "the common people of Virginia felt that he was on their side" on this issue. There was a lot of oppression towards the lower classes of people in Virginia.“Bacon’s Rebellion brought together groups from the lower classes,” including the servants and slaves. Bacon was ready to send his armed forces to fight the Indians, outside of government control. Bacon's rebellion was influenced by Nathaniel Bacon's eagerness to wipe out the Natives for more land and wealth. The lower classes only went along with the rebellion so they could share some of the wealth of the rich.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
(Quote 3) "Political Economy' of the Body"
"In the darkest region of the political field the condemned man represents the symmetrical, inverted figure of the king..."
- The condemned man and the king are both two human beings that happen to be polar oppostites of eachother. They are both two people on different sides of the social ladder. I believe that when the quote states that " the condemed man represents the symmetrical, inverted figure of the king..." it is saying that the condemed man represents the people who are on the opposite side of the king and that the king is just a man like them. He just has a higher position then they do. Even if the condemed man switched places with the king his opinions toward the king would be no different and the king's opinions toward him would also be the same.
- The condemned man and the king are both two human beings that happen to be polar oppostites of eachother. They are both two people on different sides of the social ladder. I believe that when the quote states that " the condemed man represents the symmetrical, inverted figure of the king..." it is saying that the condemed man represents the people who are on the opposite side of the king and that the king is just a man like them. He just has a higher position then they do. Even if the condemed man switched places with the king his opinions toward the king would be no different and the king's opinions toward him would also be the same.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
(Quotes 1 & 2)"Political Economy' of the Body"
- To me the quote is referring to our mind set. Our minds control our actions. The quote is saying that we are involved in a political state of mind. In politics we desire power and we do what we can no matter what the consiquence to have power in politics.
- The mind and the body want to dominate. The labor system has become subjected only bacause the thirst for power has become so great. Bodies can work, so the more bodies forced toward labor, the more power.
- The mind and the body want to dominate. The labor system has become subjected only bacause the thirst for power has become so great. Bodies can work, so the more bodies forced toward labor, the more power.
American Tobacco and European Consumers
By Tre’ Kelly
( SUMMARY )
The English colonies in the Chesapeake prospered by growing “ever-increasing crops of tobacco.” People from the eastern side of the Atlantic bought a lot of this tobacco so they could smoke, chew, sniff, and drink it. The only reason why the tobacco had commercial value was because the Europeans had such a desire for it. King James I. on the other hand disliked tobacco. He believed that smoking wasn’t honorable and acting this way toward tobacco is like imitating the “slavish Indians.” Since so many people used tobacco James decided to “supposedly” use it toward a good cause. “ Clearly, James championed a lost cause.”
By Tre’ Kelly
( SUMMARY )
The English colonies in the Chesapeake prospered by growing “ever-increasing crops of tobacco.” People from the eastern side of the Atlantic bought a lot of this tobacco so they could smoke, chew, sniff, and drink it. The only reason why the tobacco had commercial value was because the Europeans had such a desire for it. King James I. on the other hand disliked tobacco. He believed that smoking wasn’t honorable and acting this way toward tobacco is like imitating the “slavish Indians.” Since so many people used tobacco James decided to “supposedly” use it toward a good cause. “ Clearly, James championed a lost cause.”
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Rhetorical Analysis (REVISED)
Who is the Author?
There isn't a clear clarification of who the author is in this article but King James and the other leaders of the nine and thirteenth years could play as the authors of this document
Who is the audience?
The audience would be the people who will live in the new colonies and the Virginia colonists.
What is the Tone?
The tone of this peace would be a professional or official tone.
What is the Purpose?
The purpose of this document is to issue to the people how the colonies will be run (that are coming from King James), in Virginia. Also the the rules and privileges the people will have in each colony.
How is this Persuasive?
ETHOS (emotions)- The speakers are trying to persuade the people of England to live in the new world. The audiences safety under English control in the colonies is the emotion. This legal document doesn't have such a strong emotional appeal.
PATHOS (credibility/character)- The respect, in this case, isn't gained from the people because King James especially, and the other leaders are already strong authoritative figures. Most of the audience would automatically give respect toward the speakers.
LOGOS (logic)- The heart of an argument is reasoning. The speakers give word to the people that all of this land is "unclaimed" and will become a land under new rule and new opportunities for the people to have different lifestyles. King James and the other leaders laid down the rules of how the colonies will be run but wanted this act to result into striving colonies and a well rounded government.
There isn't a clear clarification of who the author is in this article but King James and the other leaders of the nine and thirteenth years could play as the authors of this document
Who is the audience?
The audience would be the people who will live in the new colonies and the Virginia colonists.
What is the Tone?
The tone of this peace would be a professional or official tone.
What is the Purpose?
The purpose of this document is to issue to the people how the colonies will be run (that are coming from King James), in Virginia. Also the the rules and privileges the people will have in each colony.
How is this Persuasive?
ETHOS (emotions)- The speakers are trying to persuade the people of England to live in the new world. The audiences safety under English control in the colonies is the emotion. This legal document doesn't have such a strong emotional appeal.
PATHOS (credibility/character)- The respect, in this case, isn't gained from the people because King James especially, and the other leaders are already strong authoritative figures. Most of the audience would automatically give respect toward the speakers.
LOGOS (logic)- The heart of an argument is reasoning. The speakers give word to the people that all of this land is "unclaimed" and will become a land under new rule and new opportunities for the people to have different lifestyles. King James and the other leaders laid down the rules of how the colonies will be run but wanted this act to result into striving colonies and a well rounded government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
