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.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
