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:"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
