This quarter in writing 101, I have gained a great deal of knowledge in terms of the writing process, and the writing styles that work well in different situations. I definately think I have progressed throughout the quarter. Compared to my way of writing at the beginning of the course, I believe I have improved in many aspects of my writing. Early on in the course, I never payed a lot of attention to detail and language usage. I also began by never writing with my own point of view, and never arguing another point of view. It was difficult to move away from this because I had only learned these types of writing in my past english classes. After a couple of different writing assignments, I saw my skills improving in terms of making progress towards these new writing styles. Overall, this course has greatly helped me improve my writing skills, and I am so glad I got the opportunity to learn many more of the styles that writing has to offer.
In our first essay assignment, written about the influence of tobacco on todays society, my essay was extremely short. It did not have as much information as I could have added, and everything was very jumbled together into one big paragraph. It was also very much like a list. For example in this sentence; "...ingredients such as tar, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and higher amounts of nicotine than in previous years are now additives and some of the main components of cigarettes." All I really did was list information and ingredients, whcih was somewhat useless information, and could have been shortened to a degree. Although this essay definately could have been greatly improved, in some aspects of the essay, I felt it had nice detail.
I believe the second essay I wrote on the topic of Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 showed slightly more progression in terms of length and detail. A lot of it, as I was soon to find out, was the wrong kind of detail. When I first began working on this essay and doing research, I found a lot of information that I believed would be great to add into my paper. Instead, it ended up being mostly informative. Such as the part when I say; "Around 1675-1676 the colonists started to expand further west. They began to fight with the Indians for the land that they both believed was theirs. I think this was unfair for the Indians. They were there first, therefore should be entitled to this land. The government tried to erase tensions between both groups." A lot of this was just unnecessary information that could easily have been overlooked or taken out. The feedback I got was that I should have had more of my opinion put into it. Overall, this assignment was somewhat rushed, and I ended up doing final revisions very last minute. This resulted in a loss of points. I definately could have made this essay a great deal better if I had spent more time editing.
In a writing assignment about loyalism and patriotism, I believe I did very well when it came to improving my research skills, and adding a lot of my own perspective. I spent a long time researching so I could gain the knowledge I believe I needed in order to make this essay better than all the rest. This definately payed off because I felt more confident about what I was writing about. Doing this also assisted me when it came to adding my own persepective and opinion because I had my own character to let those opinions flow through. This was one of the assignments that were more fun in my opinion, because we got to make up a historical character and portray them in terms of what side they were on; patriots or loyalists. A quote from my character, Nicholas Addy that I particulary loved in this essay was; "I found my son Isaac's journal this very morning. He only confirms my opinion of him being a complete fool by his writings. He says we who uphold the british government are greedy. He is the one who is greedy. Fighting against the british, who made our colonies what they are today. The patriots will never get away with this!" It was really enhoyable being able to express emotions through another character, making this piece one of my favorites to write.
When it comes to my final writing assessment, I believe I did very well. It shows a great deal of improvment when compared to our very first real assignment. For example, I feel that my language usage showed improvement. For example, in the sentence; "A major reason they did not wish to ratify was because they believed that the nation could experience a downfall due to the fear of the proposed centralized government becoming in a sense, a tyranny." I just feel as if this language compared to what I shared in my example of the first essay language definately shows great improvement. "It's amazing how tobacco was once (and still is) thought of as quite a trendy thing to do, while tobacco users never knew fully the dangers of smoking until many years later." This introduction sentence in my first essay was definately not my idea of brilliant.
All of this being said, I do believe my skills have greatly improved since the beginning of writing 101 this quarter. All of these are specific examples that show my work in terms of progression. These were all chosen for specific reasons and to show my improvement over this course. That being said, I, once again am very glad to have had the opportunity to learn from my mistakes, and improve in many aspects of my writing style.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
PORTFOLIO; patrots vs. loyalists
For future reference aimed at anyone who should read this journal in years to come, let me tell you who I am. My name is Nicholas Addy. I am the governer of Massachusetts.*1 I have a son named Isaac Addy. I have a very strong bond with the british government, and I am able to obtain almost anything I might need from them. It seems as if there are going to be some problems with the british by way of how citizens of America are acting in the present. I shall see what happens, and document it further along in this journal.
February 04, 1775
Dear Diary,
Today was a very interesting day for me. I have firmly decided that I am completely against the Patriot act. It is repulsive that some of the citizens of America would dare think they could try and rebel against the British government. What do they think they are getting at?! I for one am all for being a British-American. Since I am a wealthy government official, I have splendid benefits given to me by the British government that I would rather not part with.*2 I dare say, all of those patriot fools are only rebelling because they cannot seem to come about such great stature as I and other political leaders of America have gained over time. That is not the British government's fault. The whigs should learn to deal with the fact that they are not superior to us officials. Is that my fault? Of course it isn't. But do I care about them anyhow? Of course not. Regardless of this, I strongly believe that only a stable sovereign government can bring the colonies of America together in theory that this will help defend us from outside attack.*2 Enough for today. I must go eat dinner. Goodbye, and may tomorrow be a wonderful day.
-Governor of Massachusetts Nicholas Addy
March 07, 1775
Dear diary,
My son has taken side of the patriots. I am completely and utterly shocked. He confronted me this morning, telling me that on March 04, he heard me talking with a friend in the parlor about my loyalist views. He says that he completely disagrees with me. He is a fool and a traitor. But I feel as if he thinks more lowly of me now that I have officially established my position of a loyalist. I stand firm in my beliefs of loyalism and will stand firm for the British government, as it secures my position as a governor. I do not understand these patriot's views. I mean, being loyal means all the benefits for me. I most definately am a defender of the constitutional order of Britain.*3 If we change our ways in America, it will be complete chaos. The prosperity of America depends on the British! I don't know what my son is thinking. Fool fool fool! In further news, I have heard that those loyal to the british have begun getting publicly humiliated. A friend of mine got tarred and feathered. The highest level of embarassment I do say.*4 Aside from that, I feel something more coming. Something powerful, that will determine our future as a country. I can only hope those loyal to the British government will prevail if we should have to go to war with the patriots.
-Nicholas Addy
April 19, 1775
Dear Diary,
The war has begun. I guess we all knew it would happen eventually. The british did some searching and discovered preparations being made by the patriots hinting at attack. If we change the way of the colonies now, it will be in such complete chaos! We need order here and the british help us maintain that order.*1 The patriots need to accept the colonies the way they are, and not try to change things. I guess it is too late for that now, as I hear a battle is beginning in the near future. We must fight for what we believe in, and shall the loyalists prevail!
-Nicholas Addy
April 21, 1775
Dear Diary,
I found my son Isaac's journal this very morning. He only confirms my opinion of him being a complete fool by his writings. He says we who uphold the british government are greedy. He is the one who is greedy. Fighting against the british, who made our colonies what they are today. The patriots will never get away with this! Now I must return Isaac's journal to its original resting place, or he shall know something was up.
-Nicholas Addy
Sources:
1- Jstor. Article review of a book written by Robert Mccluer Calhoon; published 1973. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197408%2940%3A3%3C462%3ATLIRA1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
2- Article titled: The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial New York and Massachusetts; by Janice Potter. Reviewed by John W. Tyler. Published 1973.http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28198312%2956%3A4%3C622%3ATLWSLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
3- Article:Loyalism and constitutionalism by Daniel Larison, 2004http://larison.org/2004/08/08/loyalism-and-constitutionalism/
4- Source: Wikipedia. I know I know, but it had some really good information.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)#Loyalists_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies
PORTFOLIO; revised paper of my choice: tobaccos influence on society
It's uncanny how tobacco was once (and still is) thought of as quite a trendy thing to do. In earlier times, tobacco users never knew fully the dangers of smoking. Tobacco first originated in Virginia in the 1600's. It soon became the cash crop of the state, and many were eager to cultivate it for the wealth it brought. Unfortunately, in those times, many people did not associate smoking with being as deadly as it really was. This was because a lot of people did not get the education needed to know of these dangers. And because a person's lifespan was somewhat shorter in the 1600's than modern times, nobody really knew that the tobacco was indeed shortening their lifespan a good amount.
Tobacco in the early years was made into more cigars than cigarettes, and what cigarettes were made were mainly just pure tobacco. That however, is not so much how they are developed today. As stated on "www.whadafxup.com" ingredients such as tar, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and higher amounts of nicotine than in previous years are now additives and some of the main components of cigarettes. I feel that this is much worse than even just straight tobacco.
Both in the 1600's and today, cigarettes and other tobacco products have often been subliminaly aimed at a younger generation. In the 1600's, postwar cigarette ads were geared towards women and children. And now, advertisments are put into movies such as "The Muppet Movie." Also reported on "http://www.whadafxup.com/" was the fact that in 2006, an estimated 75% of youth rated movies (G, PG), and 90% of R rated movies gave reference to tobacco products. Also stated was a quote from a 1984 tobacco company that simply declares younger adult smokers "replacement smokers." I think this is absurd, and should cause people to start thinking of what these toabcco companies real motives are.
From the 1600's on, a large portion of the nation were fans of cigarettes and cigars. It was not until the 1960's that researchers discovered the many health defects associated with the usage of tobacco. Today most of society is well informed of the dangers of tobacco, yet many continue to use the products of the tobacco companies. One of the reasons why people are so hooked is because the nicotine levels are double the amount than in previous years in order to keep people addicted. This in turn, equals more money for tobacco companies, who seem to not care even remotely about the health risks of the use of their products. A quote relayed by "http://www.whadafxup.com/" is said by the CEO of a major tobacco company in 1997. He states; he would "instantly shut his doors, to get a better hold on things," if it were proved to his satisfaction that smoking causes cancer. That same company now admits on their website that smoking does indeed cause cancer, yet they continue to manufacture these lethal products. I find this completely foul and repulsive.
Tobacco in the early years was made into more cigars than cigarettes, and what cigarettes were made were mainly just pure tobacco. That however, is not so much how they are developed today. As stated on "www.whadafxup.com" ingredients such as tar, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and higher amounts of nicotine than in previous years are now additives and some of the main components of cigarettes. I feel that this is much worse than even just straight tobacco.
Both in the 1600's and today, cigarettes and other tobacco products have often been subliminaly aimed at a younger generation. In the 1600's, postwar cigarette ads were geared towards women and children. And now, advertisments are put into movies such as "The Muppet Movie." Also reported on "http://www.whadafxup.com/" was the fact that in 2006, an estimated 75% of youth rated movies (G, PG), and 90% of R rated movies gave reference to tobacco products. Also stated was a quote from a 1984 tobacco company that simply declares younger adult smokers "replacement smokers." I think this is absurd, and should cause people to start thinking of what these toabcco companies real motives are.
From the 1600's on, a large portion of the nation were fans of cigarettes and cigars. It was not until the 1960's that researchers discovered the many health defects associated with the usage of tobacco. Today most of society is well informed of the dangers of tobacco, yet many continue to use the products of the tobacco companies. One of the reasons why people are so hooked is because the nicotine levels are double the amount than in previous years in order to keep people addicted. This in turn, equals more money for tobacco companies, who seem to not care even remotely about the health risks of the use of their products. A quote relayed by "http://www.whadafxup.com/" is said by the CEO of a major tobacco company in 1997. He states; he would "instantly shut his doors, to get a better hold on things," if it were proved to his satisfaction that smoking causes cancer. That same company now admits on their website that smoking does indeed cause cancer, yet they continue to manufacture these lethal products. I find this completely foul and repulsive.
Monday, December 10, 2007
PORTFOLIO; Final Exam
"Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that[...] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means the history of the present." This theory written by Michel Foucault relates to my history and writing courses this quarter. In simpler terms, I believe Foucault is saying this; We do not focus on past history because we are interested in it, we only focus on the conflicts of the past, because of the ways in which it it is currently influencing our world. We should not focus so much on the earlier times, considering we can not change the past. Instead, we should do is concentrate on the present, and take a look at the choices we are making now, for those choices will greatly affect our future.
This theory relates well to my own observation of history throughout the course this year. I have learned so much about the ways in which history repeats itself, and how, rather than focusing on the present, a lot of times in history, society focused more on the fact that things could end up the way they used to be. A demonstration of this type of behavior comes from the state of Rhode Island during the time of the debate over the ratification of the constitution. The majority of the population in Rhode Island sided with the antifederalist point of view. A major reason they did not wish to ratify was because they believed that the nation could experience a downfall due to the fear of the proposed centralized government becoming in a sense, a tyranny. The antifederalists thought of the possibility of this happening only because of what had occured in the past, when the British had almost complete control over the colonies. And although they had an idea of what the constitution would present to America, it would have been wise for Rhode Island to hear opposing points of view from the federalist side. Considering the fact that Rhode Island sent no delegates to the first constitutional convention, I expect that this would have given them, as well as other antifederalist states a different perspective on the matter.
When it comes to Foucault's opening question ("Why consider history?"), I feel as if there are many reasons to be schooled on the topic of historical development. I do agree with Foucault and how he is saying that we should focus on the present, in order to assist in creating a finer future. If we focus on doing things correctly in our generation, and not on what the people of past generations did incorrectly, we can begin to create a more positive future for ourselves, and generations to come.
In my opinion, this way of thinking helped me in history this quarter. When I think about happenings in the past, I see how things that went on back then affect us greatly now. I feel the need to focus deeper on today's society, and how what we are doing in my lifetime will affect people hundreds of years from now.
When it comes to the answering of Foucault's main question, I don't think my learning would have been the same with a different answer other than my own opinion. Considering, I had never read his theory before now, I don't really see how the question could be answered any differently than what I have written today. I guess there are different opinions on the matter, but I have always known to concentrate on how and in what ways the past affected the future, therefore, yes, my personal answer to the question did affect my learning in class.
This theory relates well to my own observation of history throughout the course this year. I have learned so much about the ways in which history repeats itself, and how, rather than focusing on the present, a lot of times in history, society focused more on the fact that things could end up the way they used to be. A demonstration of this type of behavior comes from the state of Rhode Island during the time of the debate over the ratification of the constitution. The majority of the population in Rhode Island sided with the antifederalist point of view. A major reason they did not wish to ratify was because they believed that the nation could experience a downfall due to the fear of the proposed centralized government becoming in a sense, a tyranny. The antifederalists thought of the possibility of this happening only because of what had occured in the past, when the British had almost complete control over the colonies. And although they had an idea of what the constitution would present to America, it would have been wise for Rhode Island to hear opposing points of view from the federalist side. Considering the fact that Rhode Island sent no delegates to the first constitutional convention, I expect that this would have given them, as well as other antifederalist states a different perspective on the matter.
When it comes to Foucault's opening question ("Why consider history?"), I feel as if there are many reasons to be schooled on the topic of historical development. I do agree with Foucault and how he is saying that we should focus on the present, in order to assist in creating a finer future. If we focus on doing things correctly in our generation, and not on what the people of past generations did incorrectly, we can begin to create a more positive future for ourselves, and generations to come.
In my opinion, this way of thinking helped me in history this quarter. When I think about happenings in the past, I see how things that went on back then affect us greatly now. I feel the need to focus deeper on today's society, and how what we are doing in my lifetime will affect people hundreds of years from now.
When it comes to the answering of Foucault's main question, I don't think my learning would have been the same with a different answer other than my own opinion. Considering, I had never read his theory before now, I don't really see how the question could be answered any differently than what I have written today. I guess there are different opinions on the matter, but I have always known to concentrate on how and in what ways the past affected the future, therefore, yes, my personal answer to the question did affect my learning in class.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Reflection letter: rough draft
This quarter in writing 101, I have gained a great deal of knowledge in terms of the writing process, and the writing styles that work well in different situations. I definately think I have progressed throughout the quarter. Compared to my way of writing at the beginning of the course, I believe I have improved in many aspects of my writing. Early on in the course, I never payed a lot of attention to detail and language usage. I also began by never writing with my own point of view, and never arguing another point of view. It was difficult to move away from this because I had only learned these types of writing in my past english classes. After a couple of different writing assignments, I saw my skills improving in terms of making progress towards these new writing styles. Overall, this course has greatly helped me improve my writing skills, and I am so glad I got the opportunity to learn many more of the styles that writing has to offer.
In our first essay assignment, written about the influence of tobacco on todays society, my essay was extremely short. It did not have as much information as I could have added, and everything was very jumbled together into one big paragraph. It was also very much like a list. For example in this sentence; "...ingredients such as tar, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and higher amounts of nicotine than in previous years are now additives and some of the main components of cigarettes." All I really did was list information and ingredients, whcih was somewhat useless information, and could have been shortened to a degree. Although this essay definately could have been greatly improved, in some aspects of the essay, I felt it had nice detail.
I believe the second essay I wrote on the topic of Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 showed slightly more progression in terms of length and detail. A lot of it, as I was soon to find out, was the wrong kind of detail. When I first began working on this essay and doing research, I found a lot of information that I believed would be great to add into my paper. Instead, it ended up being mostly informative. The feedback I got was that I should have had more of my opinion put into it. Overall, this assignment was rushed, and I ended up doing final revisions very last minute. This resulted in a loss of points. I definately could have made this essay a great deal better if I had spent more time editing.
In a writing assignment about loyalism and patriotism, I believe I did very well when it came to improving my research skills, and adding a lot of my own perspective. I spent a long time researching so I could gain the knowledge I believe I needed in order to make this essay better than all the rest. This definately payed off because I felt more confident about what I was writing about. This was one of the assignments that were more fun in my opinion, because we got to make up a historical character and portray them in terms of what side they were on; patriots or loyalists. Doing this also assisted me when it came to adding my own persepective and opinion because I had my own character to let those opinions flow through.
When it comes to my final writing assessment, I believe I did very well. It shows a great deal of improvment when compared to our very first real assignment. For example, I feel that my language usage showed improvement. For example, in the sentence; "A major reason they did not wish to ratify was because they believed that the nation could experience a downfall due to the fear of the proposed centralized government becoming in a sense, a tyranny." I just feel as if this language compared to what I shared in my example of the first essay language definately shows great improvement. "It's amazing how tobacco was once (and still is) thought of as quite a trendy thing to do, while tobacco users never knew fully the dangers of smoking until many years later." This introduction sentence in my first essay was definately not my idea of brilliant.
All of this being said, I do believe my skills have greatly improved since the beginning of writing 101 this quarter. All of these are specific examples that show my work in terms of progression. These were all chosen for specific reasons and to show my improvement over this course. That being said, I, once again am very glad to have had the opportunity to learn from my mistakes, and improve in many aspects of my writing style.
In our first essay assignment, written about the influence of tobacco on todays society, my essay was extremely short. It did not have as much information as I could have added, and everything was very jumbled together into one big paragraph. It was also very much like a list. For example in this sentence; "...ingredients such as tar, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and higher amounts of nicotine than in previous years are now additives and some of the main components of cigarettes." All I really did was list information and ingredients, whcih was somewhat useless information, and could have been shortened to a degree. Although this essay definately could have been greatly improved, in some aspects of the essay, I felt it had nice detail.
I believe the second essay I wrote on the topic of Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 showed slightly more progression in terms of length and detail. A lot of it, as I was soon to find out, was the wrong kind of detail. When I first began working on this essay and doing research, I found a lot of information that I believed would be great to add into my paper. Instead, it ended up being mostly informative. The feedback I got was that I should have had more of my opinion put into it. Overall, this assignment was rushed, and I ended up doing final revisions very last minute. This resulted in a loss of points. I definately could have made this essay a great deal better if I had spent more time editing.
In a writing assignment about loyalism and patriotism, I believe I did very well when it came to improving my research skills, and adding a lot of my own perspective. I spent a long time researching so I could gain the knowledge I believe I needed in order to make this essay better than all the rest. This definately payed off because I felt more confident about what I was writing about. This was one of the assignments that were more fun in my opinion, because we got to make up a historical character and portray them in terms of what side they were on; patriots or loyalists. Doing this also assisted me when it came to adding my own persepective and opinion because I had my own character to let those opinions flow through.
When it comes to my final writing assessment, I believe I did very well. It shows a great deal of improvment when compared to our very first real assignment. For example, I feel that my language usage showed improvement. For example, in the sentence; "A major reason they did not wish to ratify was because they believed that the nation could experience a downfall due to the fear of the proposed centralized government becoming in a sense, a tyranny." I just feel as if this language compared to what I shared in my example of the first essay language definately shows great improvement. "It's amazing how tobacco was once (and still is) thought of as quite a trendy thing to do, while tobacco users never knew fully the dangers of smoking until many years later." This introduction sentence in my first essay was definately not my idea of brilliant.
All of this being said, I do believe my skills have greatly improved since the beginning of writing 101 this quarter. All of these are specific examples that show my work in terms of progression. These were all chosen for specific reasons and to show my improvement over this course. That being said, I, once again am very glad to have had the opportunity to learn from my mistakes, and improve in many aspects of my writing style.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Reflection Essay #3
When it comes to the third essay of the quarter, I believe that working in groups was very useful. For the most part, our group worked nicely together. Since a few of us were absent on various days, it was somewhat difficult to communicate, but eventually we ended up getting together and finishing everything up.
My group stuck to our contract pretty well. It states that if someone is absent, that as long as they get the work they are assigned done on time, we aren't ging to dock points. Even when some of our group members were absent (including myself,) we all tried our best to get in the work that we said we would do, so that we could complete our essay effeciently and on time.
I believe that the wiki was very helpful in this essay. We created a seperate section where everyone could put their sources and annotations. This proved to be useful because each of us could feed off of each others sources, therefore allowing everyone to kind of be on the same page since we all knew the same information.
On this essay, I believe it shows the improvment of my writing. I believe that I applied the techniques that we have been learning about more so in this essay than others.
My group stuck to our contract pretty well. It states that if someone is absent, that as long as they get the work they are assigned done on time, we aren't ging to dock points. Even when some of our group members were absent (including myself,) we all tried our best to get in the work that we said we would do, so that we could complete our essay effeciently and on time.
I believe that the wiki was very helpful in this essay. We created a seperate section where everyone could put their sources and annotations. This proved to be useful because each of us could feed off of each others sources, therefore allowing everyone to kind of be on the same page since we all knew the same information.
On this essay, I believe it shows the improvment of my writing. I believe that I applied the techniques that we have been learning about more so in this essay than others.
Final essay #3
Vince Coppola
Junalyn Dela Cruz
Sioned Fearon and
Cymone Lee-Johnson
11/27/07
Ratification of Constitution Essay
Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution
Anti-federalism held a much safer outcome for the maintenance of sovereignty in each individual state as opposed to the ideology of the federalists.
Anti-federalists mainly populated the state of Rhode Island at the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. A significant reason they were opposed to the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny many of the rights and powers of individual states. Reasons behind this strong disapproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island, which contained the rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more efficient. There was also a great deal of concern about the Land Ordinance of 1785, where each state boundary extended well beyond the boundaries originally assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay off the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been paid off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.
How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalist Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian part, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason in refusing to their ‘'urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention was that Rhode Island is concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island was content with the liberty and the independence based on their stated constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, or the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Rhode Island was satisfied of their organization of their political group, Country Party. The Country Party was known for issuing paper currency to pay off Revolutionary War debts (Doherty 96). Rhode Island believed that running democracy in their state government would be more sufficient than running democracy as one whole nation. In Shay’s Rebellion, the confederation wanted to tax every state for the debts but with democracy, the right for their voice, people oppressed against them. Affected by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, Rhode Island knew that the state can be controlled than one nation controlling every state. Anti-federalists understand that the federalists proposed republicanism, which was to give voice to the people through the senators. Though Rhode Island’s concern was giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would run under a "king."
An issue that played a major role in Rhode Island being an anti-federalist state was the probable outcome that a central government would overpower the individual states. Rhode Island had just fought passionately to steer away from a monarchical rule, and was now being pressured to go back in that direction. Plenty of colonies having claims to land westward didn’t help Rhode Island become in favor of the Constitution any faster. Rhode Island was one of the few colonies that didn’t have any land claims. Other colonies having land claims, with the expectations of expanding, in the event of a central government, would have superiority. Other colonies, such as Virginia, who had land claims from Kentucky to Wisconsin, would easily overpower such a small colony as Rhode Island in a central government. Those fortunate colonies that held more land had the advantage over others that didn’t, such as economically and military wise. Loss of independence was greatly feared, thus explains why no delegates were sent to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Rhode Island was perfectly content with the previous laws set forth, which enabled them to have more freedom than most other colonies. A central government would take away so many of the advantages they have, in order to make them equal with every other colony. The residents of Rhode Island worked too hard to gain their independence and liberties, and were too grateful to risk that for an unsure idea.
Since Rhode Island was the last and final state to ratify the Constitution, it must have been severely anti-federalist. One of the primary reasons why the majority of Rhode Island chose not to be governed by a central government was because of the issue of taxation. Unlike the federalists, who were okay with the idea of a broader government taxing at their will, the anti-federalists in Rhode Island feared that there would also be horrible side effects of a more powerful government. The officials feared that since the citizens would have to pay taxes to both the state and the federal government, they would become too burdened with all of the costs. If a citizen became too burdened by taxes, they could simply refuse to pay any taxes. The anti-federalists believed that in this situation, the federal government would simply alleviate the state taxes and only collect their own taxes from citizens. Located in a primary document by Brutus, a writer of one of the numerous anti-federalists letters, he offers his view very plainly, “Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected. — The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by the permission of the Congress.” The federalists in Rhode Island must have seen this sort of thinking as a crazy tangent. They thought that this sort of undermining would never happen, but despite their beliefs, the issue of taxation remained one of the most important and pressing topics to the anti-federalists in Rhode Island.
For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.
Individual Responses
Vince: For me to choose a side of the federalism vs. anti-federalism debate, I would simply weigh the historical reasons for both alongside the present information of how everything worked out. Essentially, America today WORKS. Our country has a thriving economy and a very strong military. I believe that the federalists had the best idea with creating a sturdy union between all of the states. The anti-federalists had some legitimate concerns about taxation and their security as states, but ultimately, federalism clearly prevailed. If one were to imagine the current situation of our states if the constitution hadn’t been ratified, it would probably be filled with much internal
conflict and civil wars. Therefore, federalism held the best possible outcome for America.
Junalyn: The debate between the federalists and anti-federalist were rickety because some individual states took longer in ratifying the Constitution. I agree with the individual states that took their time in ratifying the Constitution. The states were concerned about their rights and taxation. They wanted to take care of their war debts before accepting the Constitution. Concerned about the state rights, the Congress incorporated most of the states’ rights into the Bill of Rights, which was then used in the Constitution. This helped the anti-federalists’ satisfaction into rectifying the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted to take care of their state governments before going into a federal government.
Sioned: If there was to be something like the constitutional debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller individual governments with their own different laws. Anti-federalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Cymone: To choose to be a federalist or anti-federalist is not something easily done. They both had key points, and depending on how they were effectively integrated, would determine the status and success of America today. I am personally torn between the two. I agree with the federalists that there should be a central government. In order for America to prosper, there needs to be some sort of unification amongst all the states. A central government aids states in the fact that the individual states won’t have to feel that they have to deal with their issues on there own and will have support from other states. I agree with the anti-federalists that the individual states come before the central government. I personally would deal with the concerns of my own state before national concerns because it is closer to home. While some can easily decide between the two, I can be satisfied with agreeing on certain ideas from each party.
Sources
1.Doherty, Craig A., and Katherine M. Doherty. Rhode Island. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005.
2.Moehn, Heather. The U.S. Constitution: a Primary Source Investigation Into the Fundamental Law of the United States. 1st ed. New York: The Rosen Group, Inc., 2003.
3.Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
4.http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhode-Island-History.html
5.http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976634/97p0326q/2?frame=noframe&userID=a89c4f45@highline.edu/01c0a848740050157f7&dpi=3&config=jstor
6.http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
AOD blog #7
Evaluation and Reflection.
On the topic of arguing with my mom again, I think a lot of it ties into evaluation and reflection. If I was to say something wrong or not do something she asked, right after we had both negotiated something for me to do, there would be consequences. She took my phone, computer, and tv away. After a lot of hard work on my part, I learned my lesson and got my phone back. I now know what to expect when I do something wrong, and I need to look out for that in the future and learn from my mistakes.
On the topic of arguing with my mom again, I think a lot of it ties into evaluation and reflection. If I was to say something wrong or not do something she asked, right after we had both negotiated something for me to do, there would be consequences. She took my phone, computer, and tv away. After a lot of hard work on my part, I learned my lesson and got my phone back. I now know what to expect when I do something wrong, and I need to look out for that in the future and learn from my mistakes.
AOD blog #6
Mediation:
My mom and I have been arguing a LOT lately. I wont go into detail, but I would like to say that when I do get a chance to speak, we get to mediate and negotiate. She stated some things that I need to do in order to make her feel better, and the same goes from her to me. In the process of all this arguing, we have managed to at least get a few things straight, and we now understand each other a bit better.
My mom and I have been arguing a LOT lately. I wont go into detail, but I would like to say that when I do get a chance to speak, we get to mediate and negotiate. She stated some things that I need to do in order to make her feel better, and the same goes from her to me. In the process of all this arguing, we have managed to at least get a few things straight, and we now understand each other a bit better.
AOD blog #5
Active listening:
I recently was hired at Jack in the Box, and today is my first day of work, yay! Anyways... it took a lot of cooperation on my part to get the job. ?I had to do what my manager asked, and she was very scatterbrained, so it was difficult to get everything done. I'm still not sure what I'm even supposed to be doing today. But, the chances I did get to speak to her, I asked a lot of questions which helped me understand what I was to be doing a little better.
I recently was hired at Jack in the Box, and today is my first day of work, yay! Anyways... it took a lot of cooperation on my part to get the job. ?I had to do what my manager asked, and she was very scatterbrained, so it was difficult to get everything done. I'm still not sure what I'm even supposed to be doing today. But, the chances I did get to speak to her, I asked a lot of questions which helped me understand what I was to be doing a little better.
AOD blog #4
Evaluation and Reflection:
I have been practicing what I believe is evaluation and reflection when it comes to my schoolwork lately. For example, I believe that I recieved an unfair grade from Ben when it came to the second essay/project. I confronted him about it, and we agreed to meet tomorro to discuss what I could do to improve my grade next time, and possibly this time. Also, I am trying my best to step it up in all of my classes. In math, I am doing my homework on time, and have been studying more often. In history, I have also been studying, as well as taking more notes in class, which I haven't done for a while. Finally, in English, I have been trying to contribute more to my group when it comes to our third essay, so that I can be sure I get a better grade than my last two essays. I do however, need to work on getting a few things accomplished in AOD and college 100, such as being consistent with my blog posts (im trying to catch up now :]) and in college 100, I need to begin my skills journal.
I have been practicing what I believe is evaluation and reflection when it comes to my schoolwork lately. For example, I believe that I recieved an unfair grade from Ben when it came to the second essay/project. I confronted him about it, and we agreed to meet tomorro to discuss what I could do to improve my grade next time, and possibly this time. Also, I am trying my best to step it up in all of my classes. In math, I am doing my homework on time, and have been studying more often. In history, I have also been studying, as well as taking more notes in class, which I haven't done for a while. Finally, in English, I have been trying to contribute more to my group when it comes to our third essay, so that I can be sure I get a better grade than my last two essays. I do however, need to work on getting a few things accomplished in AOD and college 100, such as being consistent with my blog posts (im trying to catch up now :]) and in college 100, I need to begin my skills journal.
AOD blog #3
Negotiation:
Me and my Boyfriend have decided recently that we need to talk about a few things. So, we talked a little on the phone (he's in Oregon) and we listened to each others opinions. We have agreed to talk things over when he gets home because it will be easier for us to discuss certain issues in person.
Me and my Boyfriend have decided recently that we need to talk about a few things. So, we talked a little on the phone (he's in Oregon) and we listened to each others opinions. We have agreed to talk things over when he gets home because it will be easier for us to discuss certain issues in person.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Rough Draft Essay #3
INTRODUCTION:
The state of Rhode Island was mainly populated by antifederalists at the time of the ratification of the constitution in 1787. A signifigant reason they were opposed the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny much of the rights and power of individual states. Reasons behind this strong dissaproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island which was the manual with rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more effecient. There was also a great deal of concern about the land ordinance of 1785, where each states boundaries extended well beyond the boundaries originly assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay of the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been payed off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.
CONCLUSION:
For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.
Personal Response:
If there was to be something like the constitutiona debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller, individual governments with their own different laws. Antifederalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
The state of Rhode Island was mainly populated by antifederalists at the time of the ratification of the constitution in 1787. A signifigant reason they were opposed the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny much of the rights and power of individual states. Reasons behind this strong dissaproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island which was the manual with rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more effecient. There was also a great deal of concern about the land ordinance of 1785, where each states boundaries extended well beyond the boundaries originly assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay of the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been payed off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.
CONCLUSION:
For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.
Personal Response:
If there was to be something like the constitutiona debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller, individual governments with their own different laws. Antifederalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Essay Reflection #2
If I had to give myself a grade for this essay I would probably say a B. I feel like I did a lot of reasearch and had good information on the topic of being a loyalist. I do think that I could have had a few more specifics on the happenings of that time, but overall, I think my essay was pretty well written.
I definately think I did better on this essay than the first one. I researched a lot more, and actually got really into my character and the role I was playing as a loyalist. Whereas, the first essay I quickly lost interest, and almost gave up because I was so uninterested. Also, this essay was on time and I put a lot of effort into making it look neat and more organised than essay #1.
In regards to how I worked with my partner Josh, I believe we definately had an equal distribution of research. We both knew what it was that we needed to research. We also collaborated very well in terms of creating our journals so that they tied together and flowed nicely. If I had to give Josh a grade, I would give him a B to a B+, because although we pretty much did the same amount of work in typing and research, he printed our actual papers, and made them look creative.
Josh and I didn't really have creative conflict in our journals except for maybe near the end, when we discover each others writings, and discuss what we thought of them. We did very well working together and communicated well. Overall, I think this essay was actually pretty fun, and I enjoyed working with Josh on creating this essay.
I definately think I did better on this essay than the first one. I researched a lot more, and actually got really into my character and the role I was playing as a loyalist. Whereas, the first essay I quickly lost interest, and almost gave up because I was so uninterested. Also, this essay was on time and I put a lot of effort into making it look neat and more organised than essay #1.
In regards to how I worked with my partner Josh, I believe we definately had an equal distribution of research. We both knew what it was that we needed to research. We also collaborated very well in terms of creating our journals so that they tied together and flowed nicely. If I had to give Josh a grade, I would give him a B to a B+, because although we pretty much did the same amount of work in typing and research, he printed our actual papers, and made them look creative.
Josh and I didn't really have creative conflict in our journals except for maybe near the end, when we discover each others writings, and discuss what we thought of them. We did very well working together and communicated well. Overall, I think this essay was actually pretty fun, and I enjoyed working with Josh on creating this essay.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Final Draft; loyalism and patriotism
For future reference towards anyone who should read this journal in years to come, let me tell you who I am... My name is Nicholas Addy. I am the wealthy governer of Massachusetts.*1 I have a son named Isaac Addy. I have a strong bond with the british government, and I get everything I might need from them. It seems as if there are going to be some problems with the british by way of how citizens of America are acting in the present. We shall see what happens.
February 04, 1775
Dear Diary,
Today was a very interesting day for me. I have decided that I am completely against the Patriot act. It is repulsive that these such citizens would dare think they should try to rebel against the British government. I for one am all for being a British-American. Since I am a wealthy government official, I have splendid benefits given to me by the British government that I would rather not part with.*2 I dare say, all of those patriot fools are only rebelling because they cannot seem to come about such great stature as I and other political leaders of America came to be. That is not the British government's fault. The whigs should learn to deal with the fact that they are not superior to us officials. Is that my fault? Of course it isn't. But do I care about them anyhow? Of course not. Regardless of this, I strongly believe that only a stable sovereign government can bring the colonies of America together in theory that this will help defend us from outside attack.*2 Enough for today. I must go eat dinner. Goodbye, and may tomorrow be a great day.
-Governor of Massachusetts Nicholas Addy
March 07, 1775
Dear diary,
My son has taken side of the patriots. He confronted me this morning, telling me that on March 04, he heard me talking with a friend in the parlor about my loyalist views. He told me that he completely dissagrees with me. He is a fool and a traitor. I feel as if he thinks lowly of me now that I have officially established my position of a loyalist. I stand firm in my beliefs of loyalism and will stand firm for the British government, as it secures my position as a governor. I do not understand these patriot's views. I mean, being loyal means all the benefits for me. I most definately am a defender of the constitutional order of Britain.*3 If we change our ways in America, it will be complete chaos. The prosperity of America depends on the British! I don't know what my son is thinking. Fool fool fool!
In further news, I have heard that those loyal to the british have begun getting publicly humiliated. A friend of mine got tarred and feathered. The highest level of embarassment I do say.*4
Aside from that, I feel something more coming. Something powerful, that will determine our future as a country. I can only hope those loyal to the British government will prevail if we should have to go to war with the patriots.
-Nicholas Addy
April 19, 1775
Dear Diary,
The war has begun. The british did some searching and discovered preparations being made by the patriots hinting at attack. If we change the way of the colonies now, it will be in such complete chaos! We need order here and the british help us maintain that order.*1 The patriots need to accept the colonies the way they are, and not try to change things. I guess it is too late for that now, as I hear a battle is beginning in the near future. We must fight for what we believe in, and shall the loyalists prevail!
-Nicholas Addy
April 21, 1775
Dear Diary,
I found my son Isaac's journal this very morning. He only confirms my opinion of him being a complete fool by his writings. He says we who uphold the british government are greedy. He is the one who is greedy. Fighting against the british, who made our colonies what they are today. The patriots will never get away with this!
-Nicholas Addy
Sources:
1- Jstor. Article review of a book written by Robert Mccluer Calhoon; published 1973. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197408%2940%3A3%3C462%3ATLIRA1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
2- Article titled: The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial New York and Massachusetts; by Janice Potter. Reviewed by John W. Tyler. Published 1973.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28198312%2956%3A4%3C622%3ATLWSLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
3- Article:Loyalism and constitutionalism by Daniel Larison, 2004
http://larison.org/2004/08/08/loyalism-and-constitutionalism/
4- Source: Wikipedia. I know I know, but it had some really good information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)#Loyalists_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies
February 04, 1775
Dear Diary,
Today was a very interesting day for me. I have decided that I am completely against the Patriot act. It is repulsive that these such citizens would dare think they should try to rebel against the British government. I for one am all for being a British-American. Since I am a wealthy government official, I have splendid benefits given to me by the British government that I would rather not part with.*2 I dare say, all of those patriot fools are only rebelling because they cannot seem to come about such great stature as I and other political leaders of America came to be. That is not the British government's fault. The whigs should learn to deal with the fact that they are not superior to us officials. Is that my fault? Of course it isn't. But do I care about them anyhow? Of course not. Regardless of this, I strongly believe that only a stable sovereign government can bring the colonies of America together in theory that this will help defend us from outside attack.*2 Enough for today. I must go eat dinner. Goodbye, and may tomorrow be a great day.
-Governor of Massachusetts Nicholas Addy
March 07, 1775
Dear diary,
My son has taken side of the patriots. He confronted me this morning, telling me that on March 04, he heard me talking with a friend in the parlor about my loyalist views. He told me that he completely dissagrees with me. He is a fool and a traitor. I feel as if he thinks lowly of me now that I have officially established my position of a loyalist. I stand firm in my beliefs of loyalism and will stand firm for the British government, as it secures my position as a governor. I do not understand these patriot's views. I mean, being loyal means all the benefits for me. I most definately am a defender of the constitutional order of Britain.*3 If we change our ways in America, it will be complete chaos. The prosperity of America depends on the British! I don't know what my son is thinking. Fool fool fool!
In further news, I have heard that those loyal to the british have begun getting publicly humiliated. A friend of mine got tarred and feathered. The highest level of embarassment I do say.*4
Aside from that, I feel something more coming. Something powerful, that will determine our future as a country. I can only hope those loyal to the British government will prevail if we should have to go to war with the patriots.
-Nicholas Addy
April 19, 1775
Dear Diary,
The war has begun. The british did some searching and discovered preparations being made by the patriots hinting at attack. If we change the way of the colonies now, it will be in such complete chaos! We need order here and the british help us maintain that order.*1 The patriots need to accept the colonies the way they are, and not try to change things. I guess it is too late for that now, as I hear a battle is beginning in the near future. We must fight for what we believe in, and shall the loyalists prevail!
-Nicholas Addy
April 21, 1775
Dear Diary,
I found my son Isaac's journal this very morning. He only confirms my opinion of him being a complete fool by his writings. He says we who uphold the british government are greedy. He is the one who is greedy. Fighting against the british, who made our colonies what they are today. The patriots will never get away with this!
-Nicholas Addy
Sources:
1- Jstor. Article review of a book written by Robert Mccluer Calhoon; published 1973. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197408%2940%3A3%3C462%3ATLIRA1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
2- Article titled: The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial New York and Massachusetts; by Janice Potter. Reviewed by John W. Tyler. Published 1973.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28198312%2956%3A4%3C622%3ATLWSLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
3- Article:Loyalism and constitutionalism by Daniel Larison, 2004
http://larison.org/2004/08/08/loyalism-and-constitutionalism/
4- Source: Wikipedia. I know I know, but it had some really good information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)#Loyalists_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies
Monday, November 5, 2007
Rough Draft; Loyalism vs. Patriotism.
For future reference towards anyone who should read this journal in years to come, let me tell you who I am... My name is Nicholas Addy. I am the wealthy governer of Massachusetts.¹ I have a son named Isaac Addy. I have a strong bond with the british government, and I get everything I might need from them. It seems as if there is going to be some problems with the british by way of how citizens of America are acting in the present. We shall see what happens.
February 04, 1775
Dear Diary,
Today was a very interesting day for me. I have decided that I am completely against the Patriot act. It is repulsive that these such citizens would dare think they try to rebel against the British government. I for one am all for being a British-American. Since I am a wealthy government official, I have splendid benefits given to me by the British government that I would rather not part with.² I dare say, all of those patriot fools are only rebelling because they cannot seem to come about such great stature as I and other political leaders of America came to be. That is not the British government's fault. The whigs should learn to deal with the fact that they are not superior to us officials. Is that my fault? Of course it isn't. But do I care about them anyhow? Of course not. Regardless of this, I strongly believe that only a stable sovereign government can bring the colonies of America together in theory that this will help defend us from outside attack.² Enough for today. I must go eat dinner. Goodbye, and may tomorrow be a great day for loyalism.
-Governor of Massachusetts Nicholas Addy
March 07, 1775
Dear diary,
My son has taken side of the patriots. He confronted me this morning, telling me on March 04, he heard me talking with a friend in the parlor about my loyalist views. He told me that he completely dissagrees with me. He is a fool and a traitor. I feel as if he thinks lowly of me now that I have officially established my position of a loyalist. I stand firm in my beliefs of loyalism and will stand firm for the British government as it secures my position as a governor. I don't understand these patriot's views. I mean, being loyal means all the benefits for me. I most definately am a defender of the constitutional order of Britain.³ If we change our ways in America, it will be complete chaos. The prosperity of America depends on the British! I don't know what my son is thinking. Fool fool fool! In further news, I have heard that those loyal to the british have begun getting publicly humiliated. A friend of mine got tarred and feathered. The highelst level of embarassment I do say.&sup4; Aside from that, I feel something more coming. Something powerful, that will determine our future as a country. I can only hope those loyal to the British government will prevail if we should have to go to war with the patriots.
-Nicholas Addy
April 19, 1775
Dear Diary,
The war has begun. The british did some searching and discovered preparations being made by the patriots hinting at attack. If we change the way of the colonies now, it will be in such complete chaos! We need order here and the british help us maintain that order.¹ The patriots need to accept the colonies the way they are, and not try to change things. I guess it is too late for that now, as I hear a battle is beginning in the near future. We must fight for what we believe in, and shall the loyalists prevail!
April 21, 1775
Dear Diary,
I found my son Isaac's journal this very morning. He only confirms my opinion of him being a complete fool by his writings. He says we who uphold the british government are greedy. He is the one who is greedy. Fighting against the british, who made our colonies what they are today. The patriots will never get away with this!
Sources:
1- Jstor. Article review of a book written by Robert Mccluer Calhoon; published 1973. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197408%2940%3A3%3C462%3ATLIRA1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
2- Article titled: The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial New York and Massachusetts; by Janice Potter. Reviewed by John W. Tyler. Published 1973.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28198312%2956%3A4%3C622%3ATLWSLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
3- Article:Loyalism and constitutionalism by Daniel Larison, 2004
http://larison.org/2004/08/08/loyalism-and-constitutionalism/
4- Source: Wikipedia. I know I know, but it had some really good information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)#Loyalists_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies
February 04, 1775
Dear Diary,
Today was a very interesting day for me. I have decided that I am completely against the Patriot act. It is repulsive that these such citizens would dare think they try to rebel against the British government. I for one am all for being a British-American. Since I am a wealthy government official, I have splendid benefits given to me by the British government that I would rather not part with.² I dare say, all of those patriot fools are only rebelling because they cannot seem to come about such great stature as I and other political leaders of America came to be. That is not the British government's fault. The whigs should learn to deal with the fact that they are not superior to us officials. Is that my fault? Of course it isn't. But do I care about them anyhow? Of course not. Regardless of this, I strongly believe that only a stable sovereign government can bring the colonies of America together in theory that this will help defend us from outside attack.² Enough for today. I must go eat dinner. Goodbye, and may tomorrow be a great day for loyalism.
-Governor of Massachusetts Nicholas Addy
March 07, 1775
Dear diary,
My son has taken side of the patriots. He confronted me this morning, telling me on March 04, he heard me talking with a friend in the parlor about my loyalist views. He told me that he completely dissagrees with me. He is a fool and a traitor. I feel as if he thinks lowly of me now that I have officially established my position of a loyalist. I stand firm in my beliefs of loyalism and will stand firm for the British government as it secures my position as a governor. I don't understand these patriot's views. I mean, being loyal means all the benefits for me. I most definately am a defender of the constitutional order of Britain.³ If we change our ways in America, it will be complete chaos. The prosperity of America depends on the British! I don't know what my son is thinking. Fool fool fool! In further news, I have heard that those loyal to the british have begun getting publicly humiliated. A friend of mine got tarred and feathered. The highelst level of embarassment I do say.&sup4; Aside from that, I feel something more coming. Something powerful, that will determine our future as a country. I can only hope those loyal to the British government will prevail if we should have to go to war with the patriots.
-Nicholas Addy
April 19, 1775
Dear Diary,
The war has begun. The british did some searching and discovered preparations being made by the patriots hinting at attack. If we change the way of the colonies now, it will be in such complete chaos! We need order here and the british help us maintain that order.¹ The patriots need to accept the colonies the way they are, and not try to change things. I guess it is too late for that now, as I hear a battle is beginning in the near future. We must fight for what we believe in, and shall the loyalists prevail!
April 21, 1775
Dear Diary,
I found my son Isaac's journal this very morning. He only confirms my opinion of him being a complete fool by his writings. He says we who uphold the british government are greedy. He is the one who is greedy. Fighting against the british, who made our colonies what they are today. The patriots will never get away with this!
Sources:
1- Jstor. Article review of a book written by Robert Mccluer Calhoon; published 1973. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28197408%2940%3A3%3C462%3ATLIRA1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
2- Article titled: The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial New York and Massachusetts; by Janice Potter. Reviewed by John W. Tyler. Published 1973.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28198312%2956%3A4%3C622%3ATLWSLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
3- Article:Loyalism and constitutionalism by Daniel Larison, 2004
http://larison.org/2004/08/08/loyalism-and-constitutionalism/
4- Source: Wikipedia. I know I know, but it had some really good information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)#Loyalists_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies
Thursday, November 1, 2007
AOD blog #2
-Creative Conflict-
On Friday, I had a confrontation with my friend Chelsea. I told her I felt as if she was neglecting to make an effort to make time to see me at all during the past two weeks or so. This was mostly because of her new boyfriend Rob. I told her how I felt like she would rather hang out with him then even hang out with me for 1 hour. She told me her side of the story, and why she hasn't really had a chance to make time for me becasue of other issues, not just Rob, that I had never thought of before the confrontation. In the end, we knew each others viewpoints, and are trying to work things out in a way that both of us will be able to handle.
On Friday, I had a confrontation with my friend Chelsea. I told her I felt as if she was neglecting to make an effort to make time to see me at all during the past two weeks or so. This was mostly because of her new boyfriend Rob. I told her how I felt like she would rather hang out with him then even hang out with me for 1 hour. She told me her side of the story, and why she hasn't really had a chance to make time for me becasue of other issues, not just Rob, that I had never thought of before the confrontation. In the end, we knew each others viewpoints, and are trying to work things out in a way that both of us will be able to handle.
Essay 2 Reflection #2
Today, Josh and I both just worked on researching for each of our sides of the matter. We found a few articles and websites to use as sources on our essay, posted them to our wikis and began to annotate each of them.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Essay 2 Reflection #1
Josh and I have proposed an agreement to do sort of a journaling type project for this essay. We will each have our own views and talk about things we did/things that have to do with our opposing positions (loyalist/patriot)
Friday, October 26, 2007
-English- Practice Midterm
The main issue presented in the passage by Thomas Hobbes is this; Anything a person does within a common-wealth is something they most likely do out of fear for the law. And every action they take for the law, is something that they have the right and liberty to neglect having to accomplish. Hobbes also describes how anything someone does, is an act of will and desire stemming from another act, creating a continuous chain where they will act out of necessity.
I think that in simpler terms what Hobbes is describing is that anyone has a right to act of their own will and necessity, if the law permits it. But, what he is also saying is that any person has the freedom to go about changing the law, so technically, the person did not have to do the task they did in fear of the law in the first place. I believe the authors point of view is that fear and rights are similar, and rights and necessity are similar.
From my own perspective, I feel that because someone is in fear of the law, they fail to change it, even thought they have proper rights to at least attempt to do so. So in a sense, this is in agreement with Hobbes. I have observed throughout my lifetime, people acting out of necessity after a continuous chain of other events, causes, and happenings in order to change laws and face other important issues that may need attention.
All in all, Thomas Hobes and myself have similar views on society, and the actions taken by minions of the law. Many people take actions towards specific things because they fear the law, and what will happen to them if they do not accomplish a certain task. And although many have slight power to reconstruct some areas of the law, few actually intervene and try to undertake the challenge. Eventually, a person or people will act and change something about the law that they find troublesome, becasue in the end, it all comes down to human necessity, and sometimes we need a little change in the way things are conducted.
I think that in simpler terms what Hobbes is describing is that anyone has a right to act of their own will and necessity, if the law permits it. But, what he is also saying is that any person has the freedom to go about changing the law, so technically, the person did not have to do the task they did in fear of the law in the first place. I believe the authors point of view is that fear and rights are similar, and rights and necessity are similar.
From my own perspective, I feel that because someone is in fear of the law, they fail to change it, even thought they have proper rights to at least attempt to do so. So in a sense, this is in agreement with Hobbes. I have observed throughout my lifetime, people acting out of necessity after a continuous chain of other events, causes, and happenings in order to change laws and face other important issues that may need attention.
All in all, Thomas Hobes and myself have similar views on society, and the actions taken by minions of the law. Many people take actions towards specific things because they fear the law, and what will happen to them if they do not accomplish a certain task. And although many have slight power to reconstruct some areas of the law, few actually intervene and try to undertake the challenge. Eventually, a person or people will act and change something about the law that they find troublesome, becasue in the end, it all comes down to human necessity, and sometimes we need a little change in the way things are conducted.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
AOD blog #1
-Celebration and appreciation-
The other day, I had a rather pleasant conversation on the bus with a nice man named Harvey. I had met him on a previous occasion about a month ago and we started talking just about our lives and fun things. Harvey is slightly mentally handicapped. As I'm talking to him, I realize how incredibly nice he is. He just talks to me about life and tings he does during the day and movies etc... It makes me think about my attitude towards life and other people, and how that people like Harvey, are the kind of people in this world that we need more of. I wonder why you can hardly ever meet anyone so genuine as him, and it just made me think.
The other day, I had a rather pleasant conversation on the bus with a nice man named Harvey. I had met him on a previous occasion about a month ago and we started talking just about our lives and fun things. Harvey is slightly mentally handicapped. As I'm talking to him, I realize how incredibly nice he is. He just talks to me about life and tings he does during the day and movies etc... It makes me think about my attitude towards life and other people, and how that people like Harvey, are the kind of people in this world that we need more of. I wonder why you can hardly ever meet anyone so genuine as him, and it just made me think.
essay 1 reflection post
In my essay on Bacon's Rebellion, I think I could have done slightly better. I definately have learned about the way I write and my writing process while writing this essay. I have discovered that I am so used to writing informative essays, that it's tough to have to add my opinion into everything. This is not the way I write, and I find it distracting to the reader because every 2 sentences comes; "I believe this was wrong because..." My writing philosophy involves mainly journalism and informative types of writing. I am better at this style, and I enjoy it more so than opinionated writing.
It's very difficult to make the transition from high school writing into college level writing when we are not really being instructed on how to do that. I think we need more coaching and instruction on how to write rather than the usual, "write this about this using your opinion." That doesn't give me much to work with, especially after writing in a way that is almost the complete opposite of what is being expected of us now.
For the next essay I write for this class, I will definately try to make changes in my writing style. I will add in more of my opinion; although it would be easier if I knew how to do that efficiently. I am also going to spend more time at home in order to finish on time. I believe that the main thing I need to work on is just trying to figure out exactly waht it is that is being expected out of the next essay. This will hopefully help improve my writing in more ways than one.
It's very difficult to make the transition from high school writing into college level writing when we are not really being instructed on how to do that. I think we need more coaching and instruction on how to write rather than the usual, "write this about this using your opinion." That doesn't give me much to work with, especially after writing in a way that is almost the complete opposite of what is being expected of us now.
For the next essay I write for this class, I will definately try to make changes in my writing style. I will add in more of my opinion; although it would be easier if I knew how to do that efficiently. I am also going to spend more time at home in order to finish on time. I believe that the main thing I need to work on is just trying to figure out exactly waht it is that is being expected out of the next essay. This will hopefully help improve my writing in more ways than one.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Bacon's rebellion Final Draft
I am so sorry about the late essay. My internet went down last night and I couldn't finish my final draft. But I got up early today to finish and luckily my internet was working again! I really hope this doesn't count against me. Once again, I'm sorry.
Class was a predominate issue in Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. The rebellion brought about many changes in Virginia having to do with both class and status. Bacon's rebellion was brought on largely because of the way the colonial settlers were being treated by their own government. The rebellion was an example of how class, racism, and the desire for land and wealth threatened England's society.
Around 1675-1676 the colonists started to expand further west. They began to fight with the Indians for the land that they both believed was theirs. I think this was unfair for the Indians. They were there first, therefore should be entitled to this land. The government tried to erase tensions between both groups. Nathanial Bacon, along with many others of different races and quite a few lower class citizens were extremely frustrated with the idea of the Indians being allowed to keep all of the land to themselves and being protected by the colonial government. I believe that in order to not cause conflict between the two groups, they should have tried to come to an agreement to allot the land between them. This could have had a huge impact on the colony, and Bacon's rebellion possibly wouldn't have even happened had this kind of agreement been discussed. Bacon eventually had had enough, and and went to governor William Berkeley to discuss the matter of trying to get rights to encroach on native lands and attack. Berkeley said no, which led to Bacon's retaliation. He and his supporters went to war against the Indians.
Before the war began, William Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia on and off for about 20 years, was very involved in creating treaties with many Indian tribes guaranteeing lands north of the York River to belong to the Powhatan tribe.(source 3) This in my opinion, was a pretty intelligent thing to do. If establishing peace with the Natives helped the Virginian colony it was a great move on his part. Then again, as mentioned later, many colonists believed he was just doing it for personal financial and status gain. His initial motive for creating such peace treaties was to avoid further uprisings such as ones in the early 1600's. Although I believe this was only part of the reason why he created them. The last uprising before 30 years of peace was in 1646. The order that came after this time allowed for economic prosperity because of trade with surrounding Indian tribes.
Many Virginians believed that this trade only benefited Governor Berkeley and his crew. Both sides of the class divide were getting upset at Berkeley's ways. These classes included the people who ran the governmental affairs, and the small farmer group.
Nathanial Bacon believed that because he was of a higher class than most, he deserved more land. Many people who were poor, recently freed servants came to his aid hoping to get land for themselves. Bacon said, "our design is not only to ruin and extirpate all Indians in general but all manner of trade and commerce with them."(source 2) I think this definately just goes to show how greedy and power hungry Bacon was. I believe that his motives for the rebellion were extreme. He could have somehow formed a better plan that would allow him to gain more land, in a more fair way than he did.
At first, Bacon and Berkeley were civil acquaintances. That is until Bacon decided that Berkeley and some other members of the current government of Virginia did not act as a traditional government should.(source 2) Bacon basically believed that those running the government were trying to gain status by collecting money from the public by way of unfair taxes, and he did not particularly like the "new" way of government. I find it great that Bacon stood up to the government, but I do believe he could have gone about it in a very different way than he did.
The subconscious beginnings of the rebellion started when riffs between Indians and colonists first began to arise again in 1675. It sparked when a group of Doeg Indians entered the property of Thomas Mathew and claimed that he did not pay them for goods they had traded earlier on. In retaliation, the Natives attempted to steal a number of Mathew's hogs. Thomas Mathew then killed quite a few of the Indian group. The killings went back and forth between the two tribes until eventually gov Berkeley wanted to start a war against the Indians. He later decided to instead opt for a defensive policy. The Indians made another attack in the winter of that same year which lead to several servants of Bacon's and others' being killed. (source 1)
Bacon then asked Berkeley for adequate funding to allow him to start an army of volunteers (mostly lowly planters and farmers) to lead against the Indians in the region. I think Bacon knew that the lower class citizens would be most likely to join forces with him, because they hoped to gain land for themselves in the process. At first, Gov. Berkeley turned town Bacon's request.
In June of the next year Bacon finally got his grant after holding the governor at gunpoint. He was also given permission to enslave all Indians captured in battle. The rebellion lasted throughout the summer with Bacon and his low class followers seemingly at the high end of the rebellion. They eventually drove out the governor and his followers. Jamestown was burned in September on 1676. There was no more English authority in the colony after this event took place.
After Bacon's death in October ¹, many of his followers turned to allegiance with England and became followers of the King and the governor. Still trying to gain freedom from their lower class lifestyle were 20 English servants and 80 black slaves. They eventually gave up the hope of maybe becoming something bigger than a poor lower class citizen. Well after the rebellion ended, there was still constant fear among the elite power that those of lower class would retaliate as Bacon and his followers did.
sources:
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Bacon
2- http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_labor_history/105076
3- http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2117/view/00435597/di957160/95p0870z/0?currentResult=00435597%2bdi957160%2b95p0870z%2b0%2c9E07&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Dbacons%2Brebellion%26wc%3Don
Class was a predominate issue in Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. The rebellion brought about many changes in Virginia having to do with both class and status. Bacon's rebellion was brought on largely because of the way the colonial settlers were being treated by their own government. The rebellion was an example of how class, racism, and the desire for land and wealth threatened England's society.
Around 1675-1676 the colonists started to expand further west. They began to fight with the Indians for the land that they both believed was theirs. I think this was unfair for the Indians. They were there first, therefore should be entitled to this land. The government tried to erase tensions between both groups. Nathanial Bacon, along with many others of different races and quite a few lower class citizens were extremely frustrated with the idea of the Indians being allowed to keep all of the land to themselves and being protected by the colonial government. I believe that in order to not cause conflict between the two groups, they should have tried to come to an agreement to allot the land between them. This could have had a huge impact on the colony, and Bacon's rebellion possibly wouldn't have even happened had this kind of agreement been discussed. Bacon eventually had had enough, and and went to governor William Berkeley to discuss the matter of trying to get rights to encroach on native lands and attack. Berkeley said no, which led to Bacon's retaliation. He and his supporters went to war against the Indians.
Before the war began, William Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia on and off for about 20 years, was very involved in creating treaties with many Indian tribes guaranteeing lands north of the York River to belong to the Powhatan tribe.(source 3) This in my opinion, was a pretty intelligent thing to do. If establishing peace with the Natives helped the Virginian colony it was a great move on his part. Then again, as mentioned later, many colonists believed he was just doing it for personal financial and status gain. His initial motive for creating such peace treaties was to avoid further uprisings such as ones in the early 1600's. Although I believe this was only part of the reason why he created them. The last uprising before 30 years of peace was in 1646. The order that came after this time allowed for economic prosperity because of trade with surrounding Indian tribes.
Many Virginians believed that this trade only benefited Governor Berkeley and his crew. Both sides of the class divide were getting upset at Berkeley's ways. These classes included the people who ran the governmental affairs, and the small farmer group.
Nathanial Bacon believed that because he was of a higher class than most, he deserved more land. Many people who were poor, recently freed servants came to his aid hoping to get land for themselves. Bacon said, "our design is not only to ruin and extirpate all Indians in general but all manner of trade and commerce with them."(source 2) I think this definately just goes to show how greedy and power hungry Bacon was. I believe that his motives for the rebellion were extreme. He could have somehow formed a better plan that would allow him to gain more land, in a more fair way than he did.
At first, Bacon and Berkeley were civil acquaintances. That is until Bacon decided that Berkeley and some other members of the current government of Virginia did not act as a traditional government should.(source 2) Bacon basically believed that those running the government were trying to gain status by collecting money from the public by way of unfair taxes, and he did not particularly like the "new" way of government. I find it great that Bacon stood up to the government, but I do believe he could have gone about it in a very different way than he did.
The subconscious beginnings of the rebellion started when riffs between Indians and colonists first began to arise again in 1675. It sparked when a group of Doeg Indians entered the property of Thomas Mathew and claimed that he did not pay them for goods they had traded earlier on. In retaliation, the Natives attempted to steal a number of Mathew's hogs. Thomas Mathew then killed quite a few of the Indian group. The killings went back and forth between the two tribes until eventually gov Berkeley wanted to start a war against the Indians. He later decided to instead opt for a defensive policy. The Indians made another attack in the winter of that same year which lead to several servants of Bacon's and others' being killed. (source 1)
Bacon then asked Berkeley for adequate funding to allow him to start an army of volunteers (mostly lowly planters and farmers) to lead against the Indians in the region. I think Bacon knew that the lower class citizens would be most likely to join forces with him, because they hoped to gain land for themselves in the process. At first, Gov. Berkeley turned town Bacon's request.
In June of the next year Bacon finally got his grant after holding the governor at gunpoint. He was also given permission to enslave all Indians captured in battle. The rebellion lasted throughout the summer with Bacon and his low class followers seemingly at the high end of the rebellion. They eventually drove out the governor and his followers. Jamestown was burned in September on 1676. There was no more English authority in the colony after this event took place.
After Bacon's death in October ¹, many of his followers turned to allegiance with England and became followers of the King and the governor. Still trying to gain freedom from their lower class lifestyle were 20 English servants and 80 black slaves. They eventually gave up the hope of maybe becoming something bigger than a poor lower class citizen. Well after the rebellion ended, there was still constant fear among the elite power that those of lower class would retaliate as Bacon and his followers did.
sources:
1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Bacon
2- http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_labor_history/105076
3- http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2117/view/00435597/di957160/95p0870z/0?currentResult=00435597%2bdi957160%2b95p0870z%2b0%2c9E07&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Dbacons%2Brebellion%26wc%3Don
Monday, October 15, 2007
Rough Draft: Bacon's Rebellion
Class was a predominate issue in Bacon's Rebellion of 1676. The rebellion brought about many changes in Virginia having to do with both class and status. Bacon's rebellion was brought on largely because of the way the colonial settlers were being treated by their own government. The rebellion was an example of how class, racism, and the desire for land and wealth threatened England's society.
Around 1675-1676 the colonists started to expand further west. They began to fight with the Indians for the land that they both believed was theirs. I think this was unfair for the Indians. They were there first, therefore should be entitled to this land. The government tried to erase tensions between both groups. Nathanial Bacon, along with many others of different races and quite a few lower class citizens were extremely frustrated with the idea of the Indians being allowed to keep all of the land to themselves and being protected by the colonial government. I believe that in order to not cause conflict between the two groups, they should have tried to come to an agreement to allot the land between them. This could have had a huge impact on the colony, and Bacon's rebellion possibly wouldn't have even happened had this kind of agreement been discussed. Bacon eventually had had enough, and and went to governor William Berkeley to discuss the matter of trying to get rights to encroach on native lands and attack. Berkeley said no, which led to Bacon's retaliation. He and his supporters went to war against the Indians.
Before the war began, William Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia on and off for about 20 years, was very involved in creating treaties with many Indian tribes guaranteeing lands north of the York River to belong to the Powhatan tribe. This in my opinion, was a pretty intelligent thing to do. If establishing peace with the Natives helped the Virginian colony it was a great move on his part. Then again, as mentioned later, many colonists believed he was just doing it for personal financial and status gain. His initial motive for creating such peace treaties was to avoid further uprisings such as ones in the early 1600's. Although I believe this was only part of the reason why he created them. The last uprising before 30 years of peace was in 1646. The order that came after this time allowed for economic prosperity because of trade with surrounding Indian tribes.
Many Virginians believed that this trade only benefited Governor Berkeley and his crew. Both sides of the class divide were getting upset at Berkeley's ways. These classes included the people who ran the governmental affairs, and the small farmer group.
Nathanial Bacon believed that because he was of a higher class than most, he deserved more land. Many people who were poor, recently freed servants came to his aid hoping to get land for themselves. Bacon said, "our design is not only to ruin and extirpate all Indians in general but all manner of trade and commerce with them."¹ I think this definately just goes to show how greedy and power hungry Bacon was. I believe that his motives for the rebellion were extreme. He could have somehow formed a better plan that would allow him to gain more land, in a more fair way than he did.
At first, Bacon and Berkeley were civil acquaintances. That is until Bacon decided that Berkeley and some other members of the current government of Virginia did not act as a traditional government should. Bacon basically believed that those running the government were trying to gain status by collecting money from the public by way of unfair taxes, and he did not particularly like the "new" way of government. I find it great that Bacon stood up to the government, but I do believe he could have gone about it in a very different way than he did.
The subconcious beginnings of the rebellion started when riffs between Indians and colonists first began to arise again in 1675. It sparked when a group of Doeg Indians entered the property of Thomas Mathew and clamed that he did not pay them for goods they had traded earlier on. In retaliation, the Natives attempted to steal a number of Mathew's hogs. Thomas Mathew then killed quite a few of the Indian group. The killings went back and forth between the two tribes until eventually gov Berkeley wanted to start a war against the Indians. He later decided to instead opt for a defensive policy. The Indians made another attack in the winter of that same year which lead to several servants of Bacon's and others' being killed.
Bacon then asked Berkeley for adequate funding to allow him to start an army of volunteers (mostly lowly planters and farmers) to lead against the Indians in the region. I think Bacon knew that the lower class citizens would be most likely to join forces with him, because they hoped to gain land for themselves in the process. At first, Gov. Berkeley turned town Bacon's request.
In June of the next year Bacon finally got his grant after holding the governor at gunpoint. He was also given permission to enslave all Indians captured in battle. The rebellion lasted throughout the summer with Bacon and his low class followers seemingly at the high end of the rebellion. They eventually drove out the governor and his followers. Jamestown was burned in September on 1676. There was no more English authority in the colony after this event took place.
After Bacon's death in October, many of his followers turned to alleigance with England and became followers of the King and the governor. Still trying to gain freedom from their lower class lifestyle were 20 english servants and 80 black slaves. They eventualy gave up the hope of maybe becoming something bigger than a poor lower class citizen. Well after the rebellion ended, there was still constant fear among the elite power that those of lower class would retaliate as Bacon and his followers did.
Around 1675-1676 the colonists started to expand further west. They began to fight with the Indians for the land that they both believed was theirs. I think this was unfair for the Indians. They were there first, therefore should be entitled to this land. The government tried to erase tensions between both groups. Nathanial Bacon, along with many others of different races and quite a few lower class citizens were extremely frustrated with the idea of the Indians being allowed to keep all of the land to themselves and being protected by the colonial government. I believe that in order to not cause conflict between the two groups, they should have tried to come to an agreement to allot the land between them. This could have had a huge impact on the colony, and Bacon's rebellion possibly wouldn't have even happened had this kind of agreement been discussed. Bacon eventually had had enough, and and went to governor William Berkeley to discuss the matter of trying to get rights to encroach on native lands and attack. Berkeley said no, which led to Bacon's retaliation. He and his supporters went to war against the Indians.
Before the war began, William Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia on and off for about 20 years, was very involved in creating treaties with many Indian tribes guaranteeing lands north of the York River to belong to the Powhatan tribe. This in my opinion, was a pretty intelligent thing to do. If establishing peace with the Natives helped the Virginian colony it was a great move on his part. Then again, as mentioned later, many colonists believed he was just doing it for personal financial and status gain. His initial motive for creating such peace treaties was to avoid further uprisings such as ones in the early 1600's. Although I believe this was only part of the reason why he created them. The last uprising before 30 years of peace was in 1646. The order that came after this time allowed for economic prosperity because of trade with surrounding Indian tribes.
Many Virginians believed that this trade only benefited Governor Berkeley and his crew. Both sides of the class divide were getting upset at Berkeley's ways. These classes included the people who ran the governmental affairs, and the small farmer group.
Nathanial Bacon believed that because he was of a higher class than most, he deserved more land. Many people who were poor, recently freed servants came to his aid hoping to get land for themselves. Bacon said, "our design is not only to ruin and extirpate all Indians in general but all manner of trade and commerce with them."¹ I think this definately just goes to show how greedy and power hungry Bacon was. I believe that his motives for the rebellion were extreme. He could have somehow formed a better plan that would allow him to gain more land, in a more fair way than he did.
At first, Bacon and Berkeley were civil acquaintances. That is until Bacon decided that Berkeley and some other members of the current government of Virginia did not act as a traditional government should. Bacon basically believed that those running the government were trying to gain status by collecting money from the public by way of unfair taxes, and he did not particularly like the "new" way of government. I find it great that Bacon stood up to the government, but I do believe he could have gone about it in a very different way than he did.
The subconcious beginnings of the rebellion started when riffs between Indians and colonists first began to arise again in 1675. It sparked when a group of Doeg Indians entered the property of Thomas Mathew and clamed that he did not pay them for goods they had traded earlier on. In retaliation, the Natives attempted to steal a number of Mathew's hogs. Thomas Mathew then killed quite a few of the Indian group. The killings went back and forth between the two tribes until eventually gov Berkeley wanted to start a war against the Indians. He later decided to instead opt for a defensive policy. The Indians made another attack in the winter of that same year which lead to several servants of Bacon's and others' being killed.
Bacon then asked Berkeley for adequate funding to allow him to start an army of volunteers (mostly lowly planters and farmers) to lead against the Indians in the region. I think Bacon knew that the lower class citizens would be most likely to join forces with him, because they hoped to gain land for themselves in the process. At first, Gov. Berkeley turned town Bacon's request.
In June of the next year Bacon finally got his grant after holding the governor at gunpoint. He was also given permission to enslave all Indians captured in battle. The rebellion lasted throughout the summer with Bacon and his low class followers seemingly at the high end of the rebellion. They eventually drove out the governor and his followers. Jamestown was burned in September on 1676. There was no more English authority in the colony after this event took place.
After Bacon's death in October, many of his followers turned to alleigance with England and became followers of the King and the governor. Still trying to gain freedom from their lower class lifestyle were 20 english servants and 80 black slaves. They eventualy gave up the hope of maybe becoming something bigger than a poor lower class citizen. Well after the rebellion ended, there was still constant fear among the elite power that those of lower class would retaliate as Bacon and his followers did.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
outline
I. Class is shown a lot in Bacon's rebellion.
A. Bacon's rebellion was greatly affected by the class of different people.
a. Bacon was angry about the english government caring more about the indians than their own people
b. He thought the indians were recieveing more support and land etc... from the english goc. which he believed should have belonged to the english and not the indians
c. He retaliated and his followers were of all different classes. They all believed that this was wrong and that they should get the same amount, if not more land than the indians.
II.
A. Bacon's rebellion altered how many thought and lived their lives.
a. Indians: less land. it was being taken by bacon and his followers.
b. sometimes they became slaves because they had nothing left.
IIV.
A. People are still classified according to their wealth/status
a. Class is shown today through material items.
c. If someone is rich they are of higher status, poor- lower status
A. Bacon's rebellion was greatly affected by the class of different people.
a. Bacon was angry about the english government caring more about the indians than their own people
b. He thought the indians were recieveing more support and land etc... from the english goc. which he believed should have belonged to the english and not the indians
c. He retaliated and his followers were of all different classes. They all believed that this was wrong and that they should get the same amount, if not more land than the indians.
II.
A. Bacon's rebellion altered how many thought and lived their lives.
a. Indians: less land. it was being taken by bacon and his followers.
b. sometimes they became slaves because they had nothing left.
IIV.
A. People are still classified according to their wealth/status
a. Class is shown today through material items.
c. If someone is rich they are of higher status, poor- lower status
Friday, October 5, 2007
Notes etc on Bacon's Rebellion
http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
History notes:
The colonial government and surrounding natives agreed to a treaty in the 1640's in which native americans relinquished all claimes to land already settled to the english.
The number of land hungry colonists continued to multiply. However, encreaching on native lands and threatning the viability of the treaty.
The colonial government hammered out a fragile peace with the Indians but frontier settlers saw little in these terms that would benefit them.
People following Bacon, rebelling against the government were mainly farmers and others of lower class.
Beneath this dispute about Indian policy, smoldered hostilit between frontier planters and tidewater gentry, between struggling farmers and priveleged granduers.
Nathanial Bacon led frontier settlers, who charged the elite with operating the government for their own private gain and favoring Indian interests over their own.
Elections in 1676 ousted the political elite, and put in power political leaders, including bacon.
The new legislature passed a series of reform measures that favored small planters and the frontier settlers.
Gov Berkley, the gov of Virginia, branded Bacon a traitor; this prompted Bacon and his followers to declare war on the governer and the elite.
Berkley and his men crushed the rebellion, and the elite strengthened their positions.
In the aftermath of the rebellion, tension lessened between great planters and small farmers.
Mainly because the elite recognized that it was safer for colonists to fight Indians rather than each other.
Henceforth, colonial authorities made little effort to restrict settlers' encroachment in Indian lands.
SLAVE LABOR!!--
The most profitible part of the new world empire in the 17c lay in the caribbean, on the tiny island of Barbados, where sugar production fueled the export market.
Sugar production was an expensive proposition made possible by costly machinery, and extensive slave labor. Only the wealthiest planters could participate.
For slaves, work on a sugar plantation was a life sentence to brutal, unremitting labor. Usually only lasting about 5 years into their slaving life.
CAROLINA!!--
The early settlers of what would become South Carolina were immigrants from Barbados
The Barbadian immigrants brought their slaves with them; by 1700, slaves made up about 1/2 of the population.
SLAVE LABOR IN THE CHESAPEAKE!!--
The slave free person ratio remained low in the Chesapeake compared to Carolina; nevertheless, Chesapeake planters began to purchase massive amounts of slaves from 1670-1700
By 1700, about 1 in 8 peoplein the region was a black person from Africa.
The slave labor system polarized Chesapeake society along lines of race and status.
Most whites of the Chesapeake did not own slaves. Despite this, tensions from economic stratification among whites was muted by the fundamental distinction between slave (black) and free (whites.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/military/bacon.html
History notes:
The colonial government and surrounding natives agreed to a treaty in the 1640's in which native americans relinquished all claimes to land already settled to the english.
The number of land hungry colonists continued to multiply. However, encreaching on native lands and threatning the viability of the treaty.
The colonial government hammered out a fragile peace with the Indians but frontier settlers saw little in these terms that would benefit them.
People following Bacon, rebelling against the government were mainly farmers and others of lower class.
Beneath this dispute about Indian policy, smoldered hostilit between frontier planters and tidewater gentry, between struggling farmers and priveleged granduers.
Nathanial Bacon led frontier settlers, who charged the elite with operating the government for their own private gain and favoring Indian interests over their own.
Elections in 1676 ousted the political elite, and put in power political leaders, including bacon.
The new legislature passed a series of reform measures that favored small planters and the frontier settlers.
Gov Berkley, the gov of Virginia, branded Bacon a traitor; this prompted Bacon and his followers to declare war on the governer and the elite.
Berkley and his men crushed the rebellion, and the elite strengthened their positions.
In the aftermath of the rebellion, tension lessened between great planters and small farmers.
Mainly because the elite recognized that it was safer for colonists to fight Indians rather than each other.
Henceforth, colonial authorities made little effort to restrict settlers' encroachment in Indian lands.
SLAVE LABOR!!--
The most profitible part of the new world empire in the 17c lay in the caribbean, on the tiny island of Barbados, where sugar production fueled the export market.
Sugar production was an expensive proposition made possible by costly machinery, and extensive slave labor. Only the wealthiest planters could participate.
For slaves, work on a sugar plantation was a life sentence to brutal, unremitting labor. Usually only lasting about 5 years into their slaving life.
CAROLINA!!--
The early settlers of what would become South Carolina were immigrants from Barbados
The Barbadian immigrants brought their slaves with them; by 1700, slaves made up about 1/2 of the population.
SLAVE LABOR IN THE CHESAPEAKE!!--
The slave free person ratio remained low in the Chesapeake compared to Carolina; nevertheless, Chesapeake planters began to purchase massive amounts of slaves from 1670-1700
By 1700, about 1 in 8 peoplein the region was a black person from Africa.
The slave labor system polarized Chesapeake society along lines of race and status.
Most whites of the Chesapeake did not own slaves. Despite this, tensions from economic stratification among whites was muted by the fundamental distinction between slave (black) and free (whites.)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Tobacco's influence on society
It's amazing how tobacco was once (and still is) thought of as quite a trendy thing to do, while tobacco users never knew fully the dangers of smoking until many years later. In the 1600's, tobacco first originated in Virginia. It soon became the cash crop of the state, and many were eager to cultivate it for the wealth it brought. Unfortunately, back then, many people did not associate smoking with being as deadly as it really was. And because a person's lifespan was somewhat shorter in the 1600's than modern times, nobody really knew that the tobacco was indeed shortening their lifespan a trifling amount. Tobacco in the early years was made into more cigars than cigarettes, and what cigarettes were made were mainly just pure tobacco. That however, is not so much how they are developed today. As stated on "www.whadafxup.com" ingredients such as tar, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and higher amounts of nicotine than in previous years are now additives and some of the main components of cigarettes. Both in the 1600's and today, cigarettes and other tobacco products have been almost subliminaly aimed at a younger generation. In the 1600's, postwar cigarette ads were geared towards women and children. Even now, advertisments are put into movies such as "The Muppet Movie." Also reported on "http://www.whadafxup.com/" was the fact that in 2006, an estimated 75% of youth rated movies, and 90% of R rated movies gave reference to tobacco products. Also stated was a quote from a 1984 tobacco company that simply declares younger adult smokers "replacement smokers." From the 1600's on, a large portion of the nation were fans of cigarettes and cigars. It was not until the 1960's that researchers discovered the many health defects associated with the usage of tobacco. Today most of society is well informed of the dangers of tobacco, yet many continue to use the products of the tobacco companies. One of the reasons why people are so hooked is because the nicotine levels are double the amount than in previous years in order to keep people addicted. This in turn, equals more money for tobacco companies, who seem to not care even remotely about the health risks of the use of their products. A quote relayed by "http://www.whadafxup.com/" is said by the CEO of a major tobacco company in 1997. He states; he would "instantly shut his doors, to get a better hold on things," if it were proved to his satisfaction that smoking causes cancer. That same company now admits on their website that smoking does indeed cause cancer, yet they continue to manufacture these lethal products.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Community service reflection
Friday's community service project was overall, an exciting and new experience for me. My group members and I were instructed to help out our client by digging up grass around her house so that we could proceed to lay down plastic, and later bark overtop of that. Our group worked very nicely together. There was a great effort put into the teamwork aspect of the project. Although we ended up not having enough time or recources needed in order to finish our work. We did however, get about hald of our client's lawn looking quite beautiful. I hope that the remainder of her lawn gets finished soon, so that she can have a fabulous looking exterior to her home. This was an extremely exhilerating experience, and I would love to have the opportunity to something similar in the future.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Types of Writing
The types of writing I love to do most is journalism. Writing is not really my favorite subject but when I do have to write, I enjoy writing about current events, news stories and real life issues. I approach this type of writing by preparing myself in a lot of ways. I try to do a lot of researching on my topic. I then try to gather information from real people who experienced whatever I am writing about. I apply as much real life information as I can when writing news stories and such. The "they say/I say" approach could be well used in debates and more argumentative writings, rather than creative writing and short stories. I think if someone were to try and use the "they say/I say" means of approaching a subject, they may not alwasy be able to get the most out of their topic.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
To write
To the Authors of "They Say I Say" are implying that writing is a "they say, I say" type of process. Meaning that an author should not only present their ideas, but also presenting those ideas in response to someone elses words. What writing is to me, is relaying information, stories, news etc... in a way that I deem necessary. Writing allows me to communicate what I am feeling in a multitude of ways. Such as, the ability to use as much creativity and emotion as I feel needs to be used in order to get a point across. To me, writing is also a way of being able to provide others with an insight into my life, opinions, aspirations and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
