Trying, failing, and learning from mistakes is one of the best ways to become better at writing. Luckily though, I have not had the misfortune of failing yet. Few are natural born writers, and I happened to not be one of them. This writing class has helped me to develop my strengths and skills, while also lessening the amount of shortcomings I have. I have increased these strengths through writing multiple essay’s this quarter as well as blog entries. When compared to my writing in previous years, I feel that I have improved drastically.
The first essay I have chosen to use as a sample of my work was the essay I did for my mid-term. I was to write on a quote from John Locke’s Treatise on Government. The only portion of it that I had minor trouble with was adding historical content relevant to the quote that we were to be writing on. In this essay, I was able to organize my information in an effective way as to get my thoughts across. Also, I was able to maintain good topic control. That was much better considering that I did quite poorly on that aspect for my first essay. Since then, I have been able to maintain control over my topics better than ever. My biggest struggle was addressing the reader directly during the early part of the essay. “Such decisions can be good or bad depending on our sense of reason.” Where it says, “our reason” is one specific point, before I made corrections, where I addressed the reader. I am surprised that I was able to make so much progress so quickly.
Shortly after the mid-term, the class was assigned our second essay that was completed in pairs. In these pairs, we were to argue why we were either patriots or loyalists during the revolutionary era also called Patriots vs. Loyalists. My partner and I decided that we were going to writing letters back and fourth to each other. For this essay, as opposed to essays before, I was able to write an excellent thesis which was,”Staying loyal to the British crown and King George III is the only way to end this conflict quickly.” I have been working to implement theses just as good into my other essays. I also felt that I made some good progress with topic control when I did my part of the essay. At this point, I was still having problems with using my sources but also with organization. Otherwise, I did very well on the essay overall.
About a day or so ago, depending on when this is read, my class completed the writing final exam. The exam consisted of an essay we had to write discussing a quote by Michel Foucault. I think I did rather well on the essay considering the complexity of it. One flaw that I should have paid a little more attention to was coming up with a well written thesis. Organization and personal reflection were my strong points in this essay. I was able to organize the points of the essay that I needed to write on as well as keep to the point. It took me a bit to find some good, concrete supporting information and evidence but I feel that I was bale to nail that one home as well. I feel quite confident about my grade for the final but not overly confident.
Considering where I was when I started writing 101, a lot more progress has been made than I thought possible. I am still struggling a little with writing theses, but I have made much progress considering where I started. Also, I am struggling with topic control a bit but I have gotten far better with it than originally thought. Organizing my information is something that has become quite easy for me, as well as theses for certain assignments. Even after taking this class, I still believe that writing, most often, is merely a way to complete an assignment. There are of course, always exceptions to this. In short, I have gotten better by far with my writing, but my philosophy on it has not changed at all. I believe that the two essays I have chosen, as well as my final exam, will be testament to how much better my writing has become throughout this quarter.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Portfolio: Essay 1 --Mid-Term
Paul Headman
Frame I
Reason is a trait inherent to all human beings. It is one of the most important traits that helps to make decisions. Such decisions can be good or bad depending on one’s sense of reason. Will depends upon the reason one has. Without reason, one cannot act. The passage from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government confirms this. It discusses how mans actions are affected by reason.
Locke describes mans actions and how they are based on man having reason. He says that reason instructs man on how to govern themselves. This helps man to know how much freedom he has over his own will. I believe Locke added this part into a piece on government because mans reason can affect government. Reason leads to action which determines how a government is run and what happens in that government.
I personally, find much of this to be quite true. Man does seem to act based on their reason. I know this because many if not all of my actions and decisions have been based on my reason, and not my gut feeling. Once specifically, I was debating on whether or not to do an assignment. This happened to be the first time that I seriously considered not doing my homework. I quickly decided that getting a good grade was more important than being able to slack off for a night.
As I said before, reason affects much of what humans do. Without reason, one cannot know how to act. I would say John Locke believed this to some extent. Humans govern themselves, individually, based on their reason. Freedom is based on ones will, which is based on reason. Because of this, I believe reason to be one of the most important human traits.
Frame I
Reason is a trait inherent to all human beings. It is one of the most important traits that helps to make decisions. Such decisions can be good or bad depending on one’s sense of reason. Will depends upon the reason one has. Without reason, one cannot act. The passage from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government confirms this. It discusses how mans actions are affected by reason.
Locke describes mans actions and how they are based on man having reason. He says that reason instructs man on how to govern themselves. This helps man to know how much freedom he has over his own will. I believe Locke added this part into a piece on government because mans reason can affect government. Reason leads to action which determines how a government is run and what happens in that government.
I personally, find much of this to be quite true. Man does seem to act based on their reason. I know this because many if not all of my actions and decisions have been based on my reason, and not my gut feeling. Once specifically, I was debating on whether or not to do an assignment. This happened to be the first time that I seriously considered not doing my homework. I quickly decided that getting a good grade was more important than being able to slack off for a night.
As I said before, reason affects much of what humans do. Without reason, one cannot know how to act. I would say John Locke believed this to some extent. Humans govern themselves, individually, based on their reason. Freedom is based on ones will, which is based on reason. Because of this, I believe reason to be one of the most important human traits.
Portfolio: Essay 2 --Loyalists vs Patriots
{Note: The bold and italic portions are the parts of the essay that I wrote. I kept the other portions for refrence to the entire essay.}
March 13, 1774
Dear Cousin Maryanne,
I thought I would write and see how things have been. It has been a while since we last spoke. How have you been? Are you still a farmer way out there in the country? I do not know if you have heard but I just recently became a royal governor. So as you could probably guess, things are going quite well for me. Have you heard of this rebellion of the colonists against the Crown? Apparently they want liberty and freedom from our glorious government and king. Staying loyal to the British crown and King George III is the only way to end this conflict quickly. As you can guess, I have sided already with my fellow British who still remain loyal. I do not know whom you have sided with, but it is my hope that you will remain loyal to the crown. I offer my best wishes to you and your family in this time of struggle.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
March 25, 1774
Dearest William,
Things have been quite well here on the farm. Indeed it has been quite a while, I’m glad to hear from you. I’m also happy to hear about your position in government. I have heard about the rebellion and how the colonists are feeling about this, and I’m sorry the see the position you’ve taken on this matter. In this time of war, the best for everyone in the end is liberation from the British. How can you question the want for liberty and freedom? This is exactly why we were proud of being British. Our fellow British, have imposed on us taxes that they didn’t even consider asking you about. You are part of the British government and they do not consider what you want, as if you and I are not equal with them. Remember what your fellow colonists have said, “Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this his most ancient colony have enjoyed the right being thus governed by their own assembly, in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same have never been forfeited or any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the kind and people of Great Britain.”(1) The country seems to be moving forward and you do not seem to be moving with it. This I do not understand. I pray you reply with haste so we may continue this discussion.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 6, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I cannot understand why you have not sided with the other loyal British. You are British by birth, which makes me wonder why. You ask why I would question the want for liberty and freedom. We have the liberty to be British subjects. We have the freedom to live where we want and to an extent, do what we want. As well, George III, and his military protect us. If it were not for such protection, many of us would have been killed long ago. Therefore, it is his right to tax us. I will agree that I do not like the fact that he did tax us without our consent. Regardless, these taxes help keep the military and economy going so that our well being is taken care of and so that we are protected. It is part of our living under this government that we are not completely equal. True British do not mind living under our king. We embrace it. The British see your kind as a mob. We see you as a mob who could take away our liberty and our property. We are afraid of being deprived of our personal peace and the loss of authority. I am sure that your road of revolution will lead to chaos for colonists and British alike, now and in the future. It is my sincerest hope that you will come and ally yourself with us so that this turmoil may come to an end.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
April 18, 1774
William,
Can you not see that we are on the brink of war? I am sorry to speak with such contempt, but has the British Parliament really clouded your mind so much? We must protect ourselves. I do not believe that by contributing to these taxes we are keeping our security in Britain. They do not have any respect for our government. They consider us to be lesser. I do believe that a revolution in the colonies and the right to liberty is worth the chaos that may be caused. Remember what has happened in Boston? They have completely shut down the harbor and are leaving us to the cold and to starve. (3) They are the ones causing chaos if anyone. Dear cousin I beg of you, please reconsider your position. Ally yourself with who you came to this continent with, and with whom you know well. The turmoil is not likely to end as soon as you wish. You are not in Boston like I, and therefore do not have any idea of real turmoil. I will agree that without the British military we would be in great trouble, however, we are coming upon a time for change. They are more against us than they are for. They have supported us in the past in coming here, but now they ignore our voices. And so, dear cousin, we must stand together, not divided, or we will surely fall.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 30, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I can see that we are on the brink of war. The British Parliament has not clouded my mind. On the contrary, I am thinking clearer than ever before. They do have respect for the government because it is part of their government. We are British citizens; therefore we follow their laws and are part of their government. We do not have a separate government just because we live so far away from Britain. Can you honestly say that the liberty you crave is really worth the death and chaos? Britain’s military might will crush you. No one is happy about the harbor being shut down but if the tea had not been destroyed, the harbor would still be open. If you try to sever ties with Britain then, “There is an end to your trade, and a total loss of your property.”(4) If you must blame anyone, blame the ones who dumped the tea and started this, not the British. If you and the other colonists you have sided with, would only follow British laws and obey the king, then all this trouble could have been avoided from the beginning. I have allied myself with the ones who are trying to keep the peace, not start conflict. Yes, I may not know of the turmoil you face but I have heard enough about it to know that you deserve it. You say we should stand together. I’m sorry my dear cousin, but that is just not possible. I’m sorry to say but if you are not with me, then you are my enemy.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
May 13, 1774
Dear Cousin,
We tried to follow their law, but they themselves are the ones who violate it. As I mentioned earlier, they are the ones who created the law of us governing ourselves in accordance of taxation and internal police. So if they would only follow their own law, we would not have all of this trouble. Since there is no war, or at least not yet, they do not even have the right to be present in our towns. Just a few weeks ago those bloody red coats came into my home without even knocking and asked for some food. I gave it to them of course, but they don’t even have manners. William they have taken our dignity, our respect, our money, our harbor… what are next, our lives? Indeed, they have already taken lives. Or have you forgotten about the Massacre down here in Boston? William we must stand together. Not just as colonies, but remember we are family. Do not let the British Empire separate us. We can win if we only do this together.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
March 13, 1774
Dear Cousin Maryanne,
I thought I would write and see how things have been. It has been a while since we last spoke. How have you been? Are you still a farmer way out there in the country? I do not know if you have heard but I just recently became a royal governor. So as you could probably guess, things are going quite well for me. Have you heard of this rebellion of the colonists against the Crown? Apparently they want liberty and freedom from our glorious government and king. Staying loyal to the British crown and King George III is the only way to end this conflict quickly. As you can guess, I have sided already with my fellow British who still remain loyal. I do not know whom you have sided with, but it is my hope that you will remain loyal to the crown. I offer my best wishes to you and your family in this time of struggle.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
March 25, 1774
Dearest William,
Things have been quite well here on the farm. Indeed it has been quite a while, I’m glad to hear from you. I’m also happy to hear about your position in government. I have heard about the rebellion and how the colonists are feeling about this, and I’m sorry the see the position you’ve taken on this matter. In this time of war, the best for everyone in the end is liberation from the British. How can you question the want for liberty and freedom? This is exactly why we were proud of being British. Our fellow British, have imposed on us taxes that they didn’t even consider asking you about. You are part of the British government and they do not consider what you want, as if you and I are not equal with them. Remember what your fellow colonists have said, “Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this his most ancient colony have enjoyed the right being thus governed by their own assembly, in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same have never been forfeited or any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the kind and people of Great Britain.”(1) The country seems to be moving forward and you do not seem to be moving with it. This I do not understand. I pray you reply with haste so we may continue this discussion.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 6, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I cannot understand why you have not sided with the other loyal British. You are British by birth, which makes me wonder why. You ask why I would question the want for liberty and freedom. We have the liberty to be British subjects. We have the freedom to live where we want and to an extent, do what we want. As well, George III, and his military protect us. If it were not for such protection, many of us would have been killed long ago. Therefore, it is his right to tax us. I will agree that I do not like the fact that he did tax us without our consent. Regardless, these taxes help keep the military and economy going so that our well being is taken care of and so that we are protected. It is part of our living under this government that we are not completely equal. True British do not mind living under our king. We embrace it. The British see your kind as a mob. We see you as a mob who could take away our liberty and our property. We are afraid of being deprived of our personal peace and the loss of authority. I am sure that your road of revolution will lead to chaos for colonists and British alike, now and in the future. It is my sincerest hope that you will come and ally yourself with us so that this turmoil may come to an end.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
April 18, 1774
William,
Can you not see that we are on the brink of war? I am sorry to speak with such contempt, but has the British Parliament really clouded your mind so much? We must protect ourselves. I do not believe that by contributing to these taxes we are keeping our security in Britain. They do not have any respect for our government. They consider us to be lesser. I do believe that a revolution in the colonies and the right to liberty is worth the chaos that may be caused. Remember what has happened in Boston? They have completely shut down the harbor and are leaving us to the cold and to starve. (3) They are the ones causing chaos if anyone. Dear cousin I beg of you, please reconsider your position. Ally yourself with who you came to this continent with, and with whom you know well. The turmoil is not likely to end as soon as you wish. You are not in Boston like I, and therefore do not have any idea of real turmoil. I will agree that without the British military we would be in great trouble, however, we are coming upon a time for change. They are more against us than they are for. They have supported us in the past in coming here, but now they ignore our voices. And so, dear cousin, we must stand together, not divided, or we will surely fall.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 30, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I can see that we are on the brink of war. The British Parliament has not clouded my mind. On the contrary, I am thinking clearer than ever before. They do have respect for the government because it is part of their government. We are British citizens; therefore we follow their laws and are part of their government. We do not have a separate government just because we live so far away from Britain. Can you honestly say that the liberty you crave is really worth the death and chaos? Britain’s military might will crush you. No one is happy about the harbor being shut down but if the tea had not been destroyed, the harbor would still be open. If you try to sever ties with Britain then, “There is an end to your trade, and a total loss of your property.”(4) If you must blame anyone, blame the ones who dumped the tea and started this, not the British. If you and the other colonists you have sided with, would only follow British laws and obey the king, then all this trouble could have been avoided from the beginning. I have allied myself with the ones who are trying to keep the peace, not start conflict. Yes, I may not know of the turmoil you face but I have heard enough about it to know that you deserve it. You say we should stand together. I’m sorry my dear cousin, but that is just not possible. I’m sorry to say but if you are not with me, then you are my enemy.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
May 13, 1774
Dear Cousin,
We tried to follow their law, but they themselves are the ones who violate it. As I mentioned earlier, they are the ones who created the law of us governing ourselves in accordance of taxation and internal police. So if they would only follow their own law, we would not have all of this trouble. Since there is no war, or at least not yet, they do not even have the right to be present in our towns. Just a few weeks ago those bloody red coats came into my home without even knocking and asked for some food. I gave it to them of course, but they don’t even have manners. William they have taken our dignity, our respect, our money, our harbor… what are next, our lives? Indeed, they have already taken lives. Or have you forgotten about the Massacre down here in Boston? William we must stand together. Not just as colonies, but remember we are family. Do not let the British Empire separate us. We can win if we only do this together.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
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.” History is one of the more complex subjects. It involves more than just dates and times in the past. It delves much deeper than that. This quote by Michel Foucault is a way to show the depth of history.
***************
In this quote, Foucault is saying that history cannot be judged by what is normal today. History today can only be judged by what is normal for modern day man. What happened in the past was the pathway for how people and society have gotten where they are today. Times are different and people are different compared to what they were a couple to hundreds of years ago. For example, people today have televisions, phones, and cars. In the late 18th century, people read books, wrote letters, and either walked or rode horseback to their destinations. Life is easier now than it was then and for that reason, history must be judged based on hat life was like then, not how life is now. Present history can be studied by what is common now, but past history cannot.
*****************
Foucault’s theory can compare to my own experiences and/or observations. Many times when I was younger and even now, I would look back on history and say how much better my life is compared to “those poor fools” as I often said. I would say how I have television and internet while saying all they had were books, little wood homes, and no electricity. After reading Foucault’s question, I find that I have a different answer for why we consider history. I learn and consider history not because I am interested in the past but because I want to learn from it. By understanding history, society has a better chance of not repeating past mistakes but also how to deal with similar events if they might occur.
*****************
My answer influences what I have learned in class because I do not look at what I have learned in the same manner. I do not look back on history as just another date lost in time. I see it as a way to grow and increase my knowledge so that past mistakes can be avoided if possible. For example, Great Britain became all controlling over the colonies, deciding what was to be law and how life was to be. This led to the American Revolution where the colonists rebelled against Britain to gain freedom from tyranny. By learning from this point in time, I can do my part to ensure that the United States government does not become all powerful and all controlling over its people. On another hand, my learning could very well have been different with a different answer to Foucault’s question. Had my answer been more along the lines of “history is studied because it needs to be,” my learning history might not have been as important. If I was just studying history because I had to, then all I would say is that it is merely a bunch of dates placed in chronological order. I would not care about history, if it had no actual importance to me. Say people are taught about slavery just because they have to be. Myself and others would more than likely, just read the information instead of taking the time to understand it. Not understanding could possibly result in slavery becoming a large issue once again.
****************
Foucault believes that history can not be looked upon by today’s standards. It must be looked upon by the standards of the time. I say that history is considered because people have to know history to learn from past mistakes. His viewpoint and mine may be different in their ways but it all involves understanding our history. Whether that history is modern day history or history of the past, all depends upon the question being asked. I can only hope that people will be able to understand how important history is from all perspectives before they decide that they do not care. As for me, I have learned how important history really is to my life and to society whether or not I always see it.
***************
In this quote, Foucault is saying that history cannot be judged by what is normal today. History today can only be judged by what is normal for modern day man. What happened in the past was the pathway for how people and society have gotten where they are today. Times are different and people are different compared to what they were a couple to hundreds of years ago. For example, people today have televisions, phones, and cars. In the late 18th century, people read books, wrote letters, and either walked or rode horseback to their destinations. Life is easier now than it was then and for that reason, history must be judged based on hat life was like then, not how life is now. Present history can be studied by what is common now, but past history cannot.
*****************
Foucault’s theory can compare to my own experiences and/or observations. Many times when I was younger and even now, I would look back on history and say how much better my life is compared to “those poor fools” as I often said. I would say how I have television and internet while saying all they had were books, little wood homes, and no electricity. After reading Foucault’s question, I find that I have a different answer for why we consider history. I learn and consider history not because I am interested in the past but because I want to learn from it. By understanding history, society has a better chance of not repeating past mistakes but also how to deal with similar events if they might occur.
*****************
My answer influences what I have learned in class because I do not look at what I have learned in the same manner. I do not look back on history as just another date lost in time. I see it as a way to grow and increase my knowledge so that past mistakes can be avoided if possible. For example, Great Britain became all controlling over the colonies, deciding what was to be law and how life was to be. This led to the American Revolution where the colonists rebelled against Britain to gain freedom from tyranny. By learning from this point in time, I can do my part to ensure that the United States government does not become all powerful and all controlling over its people. On another hand, my learning could very well have been different with a different answer to Foucault’s question. Had my answer been more along the lines of “history is studied because it needs to be,” my learning history might not have been as important. If I was just studying history because I had to, then all I would say is that it is merely a bunch of dates placed in chronological order. I would not care about history, if it had no actual importance to me. Say people are taught about slavery just because they have to be. Myself and others would more than likely, just read the information instead of taking the time to understand it. Not understanding could possibly result in slavery becoming a large issue once again.
****************
Foucault believes that history can not be looked upon by today’s standards. It must be looked upon by the standards of the time. I say that history is considered because people have to know history to learn from past mistakes. His viewpoint and mine may be different in their ways but it all involves understanding our history. Whether that history is modern day history or history of the past, all depends upon the question being asked. I can only hope that people will be able to understand how important history is from all perspectives before they decide that they do not care. As for me, I have learned how important history really is to my life and to society whether or not I always see it.
#9 AoD
Yesterday, my sister and I got into a debate/argument. She was complaining that she has way too much homework to do. When I heard this I started to tell her how she outght to come to PSEC and then see what real homework is like. She got mad and started in on how I always have it worse than everyone else. She started in with how she has book reports to do and how she spends some of her weekends doing homework. I told her that it takes her that long because she will not get off of myspace when she does her work. I then stated how my homework takes all weekend because there is that much to do. Yet again her only argument was how I always have it worse than her. I decided to try and show her my homework to see if she would believe me then. Somehow that did not work either. She just got madder, and went off into one of her tangents, and in doing that striking a similar resemblence to my mom. My mom got involved after hearing enough and yelled at both of us. My sister fought back but I just let it go and walk away. Yet again I learned too late that there are some arguments to walk away from and others to become involved in. I realized in te end that this was one to not get involved in.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Portfolio Letter Rough Draft
Trying, failing, and learning from mistakes is one of the best ways to get better at writing. Luckily though, I have not had the misfortune of failing yet. Few are natural born writers, and I happened to not be one of them. This writing class has helped me to develop my strengths and skills, while also lessening the amount of weaknesses I have. I have increased these strengths through writing multiple essay’s this quarter as well as blog entries. When compared to my writing in previous years, I feel that I have improved drastically.
The first essay I have chosen to use as a sample of my work was the essay I did for my mid-term. The only portion of it that I had trouble with was adding historical content relevant to the quote that we were to be writing on. In this essay, I was able to organize my information in an effective way as to get my thoughts across. Also, I was able to maintain good topic control. That was much better considering that I did very poorly on that aspect for my first essay. Since then, I have been able to maintain control over my topics better than ever. My biggest problem was addressing the reader directly during the early part of the essay. I am quite surprised that I was able to make so much progress so quickly.
Shortly after the mid-term, we were assigned our second essay that we completed in pairs. We were to argue why we were either patriots or loyalists during the revolutionary era. We decided for this essay that we were going be writing letters back and fourth to each other. For this essay, as opposed to essays before, I was able to write a very good thesis and I have been working to implement theses just as good into my other essays. I also felt that I made some good progress with topic control when I did my part of the essay. At this point, I was still having problems with using my sources but also with organization. Otherwise, I did very well on the essay overall.
Considering where I was when I started writing 101, I have made a lot more progress than I thought I would. I am still struggling a little with the theses, but I have made a lot of progress from where I started. I am also struggling with topic control a bit but I have gotten far better with it than I ever thought I could. Organizing my information is something that has become quite easy for me, as well as theses for certain assignments. Even after taking this class, I still believe that writing, most often, is merely a way to complete an assignment. There are of course, always exceptions to this. In short, I have gotten better by far with my writing, but my philosophy on it has not changed at all.
The first essay I have chosen to use as a sample of my work was the essay I did for my mid-term. The only portion of it that I had trouble with was adding historical content relevant to the quote that we were to be writing on. In this essay, I was able to organize my information in an effective way as to get my thoughts across. Also, I was able to maintain good topic control. That was much better considering that I did very poorly on that aspect for my first essay. Since then, I have been able to maintain control over my topics better than ever. My biggest problem was addressing the reader directly during the early part of the essay. I am quite surprised that I was able to make so much progress so quickly.
Shortly after the mid-term, we were assigned our second essay that we completed in pairs. We were to argue why we were either patriots or loyalists during the revolutionary era. We decided for this essay that we were going be writing letters back and fourth to each other. For this essay, as opposed to essays before, I was able to write a very good thesis and I have been working to implement theses just as good into my other essays. I also felt that I made some good progress with topic control when I did my part of the essay. At this point, I was still having problems with using my sources but also with organization. Otherwise, I did very well on the essay overall.
Considering where I was when I started writing 101, I have made a lot more progress than I thought I would. I am still struggling a little with the theses, but I have made a lot of progress from where I started. I am also struggling with topic control a bit but I have gotten far better with it than I ever thought I could. Organizing my information is something that has become quite easy for me, as well as theses for certain assignments. Even after taking this class, I still believe that writing, most often, is merely a way to complete an assignment. There are of course, always exceptions to this. In short, I have gotten better by far with my writing, but my philosophy on it has not changed at all.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
#8 AoD
Lately, I have noticed that my grandma and my dad argue a lot. It's not fighting arguing, it's more like bickering arguing. My grandma has been getting older so my dad has been doing more to help. She, most often, responds to this with the argument that she is not an invalid. This seems to go on and on, week after week. I've made a couple attempts to step in and try to help. My dad is more willing to listen and aggree. My grandma though, is too bullheaded to even try. She is unwilling to accept that she is getting older and less capable to certain things. I've tried to talk wither her alone and see if that makes a difference, but she is just unwilling to listen or bend. She is not completely incaple to anything by far, but with the road she is talking, she'll be there soon. I only wish that there was something I could do or say to help resolve both situations before it becomes too much of a problem.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Essay 3 Reflection
1.)Group interaction for this essay went fairly well. When we were here at school, there were few problems with interaction and we got most of the work done because of that. However, in terms of communication outside of school, things didn't go so well. Shelby and I kept in contact most of the time. On the weekends, Thanksgiving weekend specifically, Josh and Johan did not e-mail either of us back at all. Because Shelby and I communicated, a good portion of the work got done so we didn't have to rush at the last second. For the most part, communication wasn't a problem exept in those few instances.
2.)The contract helped and was applied while we did this essay. We each did our parts like we were supposed to. We all did our research and we all contributed in any way that we needed to or could. At the end there was some minor trouble though. Josh and Johan did not thave their parts written. Shelby and I considered chewing them out and possibly deducting points, but we later found that it was because they couldn't find any more information. Because this had been such a problem during this whole essay and because they were really frustrated, we decided to help them figure it out as quickly as possible. In the end, the work got done and no "punishment" was required. So basically, the contract did exactly what it was supposed to and no one deviated from it.
3.)The wiki was fairly helpful during this essay. At first not much was posted to the wiki because we couldn't find anything. As time went on, we of course added sources thatwere helpful as we found them. Out of all the sources that were found, only five of them were used. Any other source we found was just general backround information for the essay, nothing that was very useful. Not very much to say in terms of the wiki other than we used it semi-often. And just as a note to the intructors, the second source on the paper is only a web address because I couldn't get a correct citation for it.
4.)For this essay, I feel that I made a bit more progress than I did on the last two essays. I may have done the actual writing at the last minute, more so than not, but I feel that I did very well. This is the first essay that I have actually had confidence in. Maybe thats just because it's the last essay. I spent more time researching on this essay than I did on the last two and that, I feel, is a lot of progress. I also spent some extra time going over what I wrote to make sure it sounded good. I'd probably say that I get a pass. Possibly a pass+. Because of all this, I can say with confidence that I have improved quite a bit from the other two essays.
2.)The contract helped and was applied while we did this essay. We each did our parts like we were supposed to. We all did our research and we all contributed in any way that we needed to or could. At the end there was some minor trouble though. Josh and Johan did not thave their parts written. Shelby and I considered chewing them out and possibly deducting points, but we later found that it was because they couldn't find any more information. Because this had been such a problem during this whole essay and because they were really frustrated, we decided to help them figure it out as quickly as possible. In the end, the work got done and no "punishment" was required. So basically, the contract did exactly what it was supposed to and no one deviated from it.
3.)The wiki was fairly helpful during this essay. At first not much was posted to the wiki because we couldn't find anything. As time went on, we of course added sources thatwere helpful as we found them. Out of all the sources that were found, only five of them were used. Any other source we found was just general backround information for the essay, nothing that was very useful. Not very much to say in terms of the wiki other than we used it semi-often. And just as a note to the intructors, the second source on the paper is only a web address because I couldn't get a correct citation for it.
4.)For this essay, I feel that I made a bit more progress than I did on the last two essays. I may have done the actual writing at the last minute, more so than not, but I feel that I did very well. This is the first essay that I have actually had confidence in. Maybe thats just because it's the last essay. I spent more time researching on this essay than I did on the last two and that, I feel, is a lot of progress. I also spent some extra time going over what I wrote to make sure it sounded good. I'd probably say that I get a pass. Possibly a pass+. Because of all this, I can say with confidence that I have improved quite a bit from the other two essays.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Essay 3 Final Draft
Shelby Lee
Paul Headman
Joshua Hollinger-Lant
Johan Horton
The Federalists of New Hampshire
“With great power, comes great responsibility.” The Federalists in the state of New Hampshire had the power of both wisdom and money two things that gave them standings over the Anti-federalists. All this influence though did give them a huge responsibility and pressure to make wise decisions. Being the ninth state to ratify the Constitution the Federalists of New Hampshire had the most power but also the most responsibility when making the decision to ratify. The Federalists of New Hampshire had more of a perspective on matters and moral values that trumped that of those of the Anti-federalists. The Federalists realized and knew what was better for the people of New Hampshire while the Anti-federalists just knew what was good for them. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. One thing most of the Anti-federalists and Federalists kind of agreed on is the issue of slavery. One thing that separated the Federalists and Anti-federalists was the rich and poor classes of New Hampshire; they each had different views on what was good for the people. The morals of the Federalists are another key factor that really separated them from the Anti-federalists whose morals were a little more self-centered.
Few people, Federalists or Anti-federalists, were happy with slavery. The issue of slavery and the constitution was not so much an issue of Federalist or Anti-federalists, but more an issue of north and south. Generally, people in the south were for slavery while, generally, people in the north were against it. As more states began to ratify, the Federalists became desperate to have a ninth state to ratify. For this reason, they were willing to do almost anything. Unfortunately, Slavery, being the controversial issue that it was, was not something that could be solved easily. It was decided that the issue of slavery and the slave trade would be put off for another twenty years (2.) This was enough to satisfy most of the states, north and south for the time being. It was the Anti-federalists who were most against slavery but since New Hampshire was a northern state, the Federalists were against it as well, though not to such an extent. Because of this, New Hampshire got one step closer to ratifying the constitution.
Slavery's very ethics has been an issue for many a century. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification. United, New Hampshire declared, "Hereby it is conceived if we ratify the Constitution that we become consenters to, and partakers in, the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic" (1). While the colony did not consider it an obligation to go to other countries or states to abolish slavery itself, they decided - wholeheartedly - to refrain from participating in such”cruel and inhuman merchandise." (1) The sanctity of God's laws was important in the era, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws. 'What would it feel like to be stolen from all that is known and cherished? To be separated from loved ones and sold - like an object - to a man who will own another's soul until death?' These were questions that were asked often during debates over slavery and ratification. And, unfortunately, the issue was resolved neither easily, nor quickly, for it continued many years after New Hampshire ratified the constitution.
(Paul) I would agree with the anti-federalists side. Although both sides were against it, the anti-federalists were more so. Slavery was a horrible and inhuman act that needed to be finished with. Anti-federalists wanted to end slavery as quickly as possible. The federalists, though having similar thoughts, weren’t in quite as much of a hurry as the anti-federalists. What I don’t agree with is the fact that they just let it go for twenty years. All that is was more misery for the slaves. All in all though, the anti-federalists did try and that counts for something. The results may not have been immediate but they did come. Slavery should have been a larger issue, but such a complex issue would have much more difficult to solve right away.
(Shelby) Imprisonment of peoples will forever be unjust. Despite the federalist’s desperation to ratify the constitution, such is not a valid excuse for the continued slavery of an entire peoples. There is the liberty of man that he can be under no other will than his own unless by his own consent, that he can give power to no man to take his life, to hold him against his will (John Locke, Two Treatise's of Government, Ch. V sections 22-24), yet continued such a treasonous event in the United States. The anti-federalists would have easily won had they called for a compact for the dissolution of slavery. They would have gone to war with the southern colonies long before it truly began, and it would not be known as a Civil War. Yet, with that would come to be the federalist's fear that the confederacy would dissolve and all hope for union lost. Both of the groups, though, easily settled on bypassing the agreement all-together. In itself, that proves the blasphemy of the anti-federalists and federalists alike, for they both praise liberties and unions of the states and better their own environment instead of those who truly need the aid. Slavery should have been a larger issue in the constitution's ratification.
Federalists knew the new union would favor the rich. Generally, they agreed that those of the elite would be supported in running for office more often than those of the lower classes (3). The group agreed as such merely because they believed those who were economically sound would be able to bring the government more stability (4), in the sense that these peoples understood the ways of financing and taxation so they would be more likely to allow the union to flourish. Moreover, these men were, unlike the lower classes, educated (5). A few of these types of people in New Hampshire were wealthy artisans, lawyers, and merchants. Thus, in the United States, the wealthy would be favored for governmental positions.
Of course, there was much rebuke against this belief. Anti-federalists were quick to deem that allowing the elite to govern them leaves the Union in the hands of the few, not the many (5). These small farmers complained that they could not even be represented, that they were being smothered under the tyranny of the wealthy (3, 4). Their heated arguments pointed to aristocracy in place of the confederacy, and tempers flared as many accusingly highlighted certain of their fellows’ inability to even vote due to landownership requirements (5). Determinedly, they called for action against the ratifying of an oppressive society that the Revolution freed them from. Despite the obvious logic in the favoring of the wealthy, anti-federalists claimed it inequality.
(Paul) The poor, because they are poor, have little knowledge of governmental affairs. This means that they can not effectively run a government. Only those who have such knowledge can do this. Therefore it would be the planter elite who could run the government, although, if given the opportunity, the poor might be able to learn giving them the chance to help run the government. The poor cannot run it by nature because they have no such knowledge unlike the planter elite. If given the opportunity to learn they could be able to run it just as well as the elite.
(Shelby)Such distinctions between rich and poor are clearly logical. When, most often, the poor and bedraggled do not have much comprehension of the government, or even an education, it could result in anarchy if the poorer were allowed equal voting rights. Admittedly, some of the poorer men might be those who were once quite wealthy or held great esteem and thus, greatly outraged by their inability to now participate in the rulings of the people, exceptions of such rules might be made. Succinctly, only the elite and upper middle classes have knowledge enough to be able to lead the union and republic.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand responsibility, and how to govern themselves, whereas those who struggle in life cannot so much as even rule over themselves capably (4). Thus, those who have weak morals should not be entitled to govern even a portion of the confederacy while the elite can virtuously rule them into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they can't even support themselves, and thus cannot have views enough to responsibly earn even a portion of the government under control. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while they complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). Barely able to sustain themselves and quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork, the farmers of New Hampshire don't have strong enough of a righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
(Paul) I do not agree that only the wealthy should have the most power. Greed comes to those who have power, but if those in power already are wealthy, then problems are just going to increase. Morals of the common man do a better job than that of just rich men. If just wealthy men are in control, then the poor and weak will still get stomped on. If everyone has some of the power then there is less chance of greed and one person having supreme control. The wealthy usually take advantage of what they can. If everyone is in on a piece of the pie, then there is less likely to be such problems.
(Shelby) It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy, a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment which governs them. It would thus be a despotic, corrupt union which would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
The majority of New Hampshire decided that they would hold tight to their moral values and ratify the constitution. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. They knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals that would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not just as a state. The wealth that most of the elites that would later become part of the government allowed them to better finance and help the union they had helped to create. It has also been said that with wealth comes great responsibility which helped the Federalists who were mainly elites to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than a small body, as the Anti-federalists wanted. They also realized how vital it was to postpone something’s you value to help the majority like the abolishment of slavery. All of these key factors and decisions allowed New Hampshire to become the ninth state to ratify the Constitution and help make the United States we know today.
(Josh) After doing research I feel that I most agree with the Federalist point of view. The Anti-federalists argue that only a small republic of people can provide what they need to be happy and satisfied. I do think the Federalists had it right though that the educated people of the society should be the ones to make the decisions. I feel that the educated people would have a better sense of what was moral and right for the people of the state and nation. They may be richer and use that as a bias sometimes but the reason they are wealthy was because of the decisions they have made in their life. This is why I feel that the Federalists point of view is the right one.
(Johan) I share qualities and beliefs of both a federalist and an anti-federalist and so I stand somewhere in-between. I agree that a government was needed and that the constitution was a great idea that needed to be enacted. I also agree that the government needed to be run by competent, responsible, and trustworthy people who made decisions for a whole and not just a small group. On the other hand, I agree that a slow, cautious approach to signing the ratification to the U.S. Constitution was necessary. This was necessary in assuring that every point outlined in the constitution was fair and gave equal rights to all states and peoples and did not favor some over others. I strongly feel that slavery should have been abolished much sooner than it was. If I had to pick one side to stand by I would say that I lean more towards the anti-federalist side, although I still share federalist opinions.
Sources:
1:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007 http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/fed/mbio.html
2:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s9.html
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture: "The American Promise a History of the United States" pages 268-269 "Shay's Rebellion"
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government I can infer several different conclusions of the subject.
Paul Headman
Joshua Hollinger-Lant
Johan Horton
The Federalists of New Hampshire
“With great power, comes great responsibility.” The Federalists in the state of New Hampshire had the power of both wisdom and money two things that gave them standings over the Anti-federalists. All this influence though did give them a huge responsibility and pressure to make wise decisions. Being the ninth state to ratify the Constitution the Federalists of New Hampshire had the most power but also the most responsibility when making the decision to ratify. The Federalists of New Hampshire had more of a perspective on matters and moral values that trumped that of those of the Anti-federalists. The Federalists realized and knew what was better for the people of New Hampshire while the Anti-federalists just knew what was good for them. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. One thing most of the Anti-federalists and Federalists kind of agreed on is the issue of slavery. One thing that separated the Federalists and Anti-federalists was the rich and poor classes of New Hampshire; they each had different views on what was good for the people. The morals of the Federalists are another key factor that really separated them from the Anti-federalists whose morals were a little more self-centered.
Few people, Federalists or Anti-federalists, were happy with slavery. The issue of slavery and the constitution was not so much an issue of Federalist or Anti-federalists, but more an issue of north and south. Generally, people in the south were for slavery while, generally, people in the north were against it. As more states began to ratify, the Federalists became desperate to have a ninth state to ratify. For this reason, they were willing to do almost anything. Unfortunately, Slavery, being the controversial issue that it was, was not something that could be solved easily. It was decided that the issue of slavery and the slave trade would be put off for another twenty years (2.) This was enough to satisfy most of the states, north and south for the time being. It was the Anti-federalists who were most against slavery but since New Hampshire was a northern state, the Federalists were against it as well, though not to such an extent. Because of this, New Hampshire got one step closer to ratifying the constitution.
Slavery's very ethics has been an issue for many a century. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification. United, New Hampshire declared, "Hereby it is conceived if we ratify the Constitution that we become consenters to, and partakers in, the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic" (1). While the colony did not consider it an obligation to go to other countries or states to abolish slavery itself, they decided - wholeheartedly - to refrain from participating in such”cruel and inhuman merchandise." (1) The sanctity of God's laws was important in the era, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws. 'What would it feel like to be stolen from all that is known and cherished? To be separated from loved ones and sold - like an object - to a man who will own another's soul until death?' These were questions that were asked often during debates over slavery and ratification. And, unfortunately, the issue was resolved neither easily, nor quickly, for it continued many years after New Hampshire ratified the constitution.
(Paul) I would agree with the anti-federalists side. Although both sides were against it, the anti-federalists were more so. Slavery was a horrible and inhuman act that needed to be finished with. Anti-federalists wanted to end slavery as quickly as possible. The federalists, though having similar thoughts, weren’t in quite as much of a hurry as the anti-federalists. What I don’t agree with is the fact that they just let it go for twenty years. All that is was more misery for the slaves. All in all though, the anti-federalists did try and that counts for something. The results may not have been immediate but they did come. Slavery should have been a larger issue, but such a complex issue would have much more difficult to solve right away.
(Shelby) Imprisonment of peoples will forever be unjust. Despite the federalist’s desperation to ratify the constitution, such is not a valid excuse for the continued slavery of an entire peoples. There is the liberty of man that he can be under no other will than his own unless by his own consent, that he can give power to no man to take his life, to hold him against his will (John Locke, Two Treatise's of Government, Ch. V sections 22-24), yet continued such a treasonous event in the United States. The anti-federalists would have easily won had they called for a compact for the dissolution of slavery. They would have gone to war with the southern colonies long before it truly began, and it would not be known as a Civil War. Yet, with that would come to be the federalist's fear that the confederacy would dissolve and all hope for union lost. Both of the groups, though, easily settled on bypassing the agreement all-together. In itself, that proves the blasphemy of the anti-federalists and federalists alike, for they both praise liberties and unions of the states and better their own environment instead of those who truly need the aid. Slavery should have been a larger issue in the constitution's ratification.
Federalists knew the new union would favor the rich. Generally, they agreed that those of the elite would be supported in running for office more often than those of the lower classes (3). The group agreed as such merely because they believed those who were economically sound would be able to bring the government more stability (4), in the sense that these peoples understood the ways of financing and taxation so they would be more likely to allow the union to flourish. Moreover, these men were, unlike the lower classes, educated (5). A few of these types of people in New Hampshire were wealthy artisans, lawyers, and merchants. Thus, in the United States, the wealthy would be favored for governmental positions.
Of course, there was much rebuke against this belief. Anti-federalists were quick to deem that allowing the elite to govern them leaves the Union in the hands of the few, not the many (5). These small farmers complained that they could not even be represented, that they were being smothered under the tyranny of the wealthy (3, 4). Their heated arguments pointed to aristocracy in place of the confederacy, and tempers flared as many accusingly highlighted certain of their fellows’ inability to even vote due to landownership requirements (5). Determinedly, they called for action against the ratifying of an oppressive society that the Revolution freed them from. Despite the obvious logic in the favoring of the wealthy, anti-federalists claimed it inequality.
(Paul) The poor, because they are poor, have little knowledge of governmental affairs. This means that they can not effectively run a government. Only those who have such knowledge can do this. Therefore it would be the planter elite who could run the government, although, if given the opportunity, the poor might be able to learn giving them the chance to help run the government. The poor cannot run it by nature because they have no such knowledge unlike the planter elite. If given the opportunity to learn they could be able to run it just as well as the elite.
(Shelby)Such distinctions between rich and poor are clearly logical. When, most often, the poor and bedraggled do not have much comprehension of the government, or even an education, it could result in anarchy if the poorer were allowed equal voting rights. Admittedly, some of the poorer men might be those who were once quite wealthy or held great esteem and thus, greatly outraged by their inability to now participate in the rulings of the people, exceptions of such rules might be made. Succinctly, only the elite and upper middle classes have knowledge enough to be able to lead the union and republic.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand responsibility, and how to govern themselves, whereas those who struggle in life cannot so much as even rule over themselves capably (4). Thus, those who have weak morals should not be entitled to govern even a portion of the confederacy while the elite can virtuously rule them into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they can't even support themselves, and thus cannot have views enough to responsibly earn even a portion of the government under control. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while they complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). Barely able to sustain themselves and quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork, the farmers of New Hampshire don't have strong enough of a righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
(Paul) I do not agree that only the wealthy should have the most power. Greed comes to those who have power, but if those in power already are wealthy, then problems are just going to increase. Morals of the common man do a better job than that of just rich men. If just wealthy men are in control, then the poor and weak will still get stomped on. If everyone has some of the power then there is less chance of greed and one person having supreme control. The wealthy usually take advantage of what they can. If everyone is in on a piece of the pie, then there is less likely to be such problems.
(Shelby) It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy, a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment which governs them. It would thus be a despotic, corrupt union which would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
The majority of New Hampshire decided that they would hold tight to their moral values and ratify the constitution. The wisdom and morality of the Federalists is what allowed them to prevail. They knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals that would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not just as a state. The wealth that most of the elites that would later become part of the government allowed them to better finance and help the union they had helped to create. It has also been said that with wealth comes great responsibility which helped the Federalists who were mainly elites to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than a small body, as the Anti-federalists wanted. They also realized how vital it was to postpone something’s you value to help the majority like the abolishment of slavery. All of these key factors and decisions allowed New Hampshire to become the ninth state to ratify the Constitution and help make the United States we know today.
(Josh) After doing research I feel that I most agree with the Federalist point of view. The Anti-federalists argue that only a small republic of people can provide what they need to be happy and satisfied. I do think the Federalists had it right though that the educated people of the society should be the ones to make the decisions. I feel that the educated people would have a better sense of what was moral and right for the people of the state and nation. They may be richer and use that as a bias sometimes but the reason they are wealthy was because of the decisions they have made in their life. This is why I feel that the Federalists point of view is the right one.
(Johan) I share qualities and beliefs of both a federalist and an anti-federalist and so I stand somewhere in-between. I agree that a government was needed and that the constitution was a great idea that needed to be enacted. I also agree that the government needed to be run by competent, responsible, and trustworthy people who made decisions for a whole and not just a small group. On the other hand, I agree that a slow, cautious approach to signing the ratification to the U.S. Constitution was necessary. This was necessary in assuring that every point outlined in the constitution was fair and gave equal rights to all states and peoples and did not favor some over others. I strongly feel that slavery should have been abolished much sooner than it was. If I had to pick one side to stand by I would say that I lean more towards the anti-federalist side, although I still share federalist opinions.
Sources:
1:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007 http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/fed/mbio.html
2:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s9.html
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture: "The American Promise a History of the United States" pages 268-269 "Shay's Rebellion"
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government I can infer several different conclusions of the subject.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Essay #2 Reflection.
1.) On the first essay I did fairly well considering the large leap from high school to college. For the second essay, I truly think that I did not do very well. A no pass maybe a low pass. The low pass is what I'm hoping for. The reason for this would be lack of group communication and effort. I started out putting a lot of effort into the essay, but my partner kept waiting till the last minute to do her part. I tried most of the way through the essay to do it well and really try, but when my partner kept slacking off, I started to lose that want to even try. That of course is no excuse, but like I said, for the work I did, I probably deserve a no pass. Maybe, just maybe, a low pass. becauseof this, I am going to stive on the next essay to get a pass or a high pass. I don't want to settle for less.
2.) My process did not mesh very well with my partners. As I said before, I started out trying to get ahead and and get the work done but my partner kept waiting until the last minute. No matter what I did or said, she kept waiting and putting it off. In terms of the work she did, I would think she should get a no pass/low pass. In terms of her effort, I would think she should get a no pass. I'm glad that she did her work but I don't like the fact that it was always last minute. Because of that, I often had to do a rush job to get my part done. Communication was another problem we had. Often when I sent her an e-mail or message it would take her a day or a couple of days to get back to me. No matter how much I hounded her she just kept waiting. I don't like taking bad about her but it was extremely annoying. I honestly think that she should get a no pass. Possibly a low pass but notlikely.
3.) My partner and I never had any conflict. We did have some issues though. Actually I had some issues with her. As I have said many times above, she would not get her work done. She kept waiting till last minute. At first I tried to solve it by asking her if she could try and get going on her part because I don't do very well last minute. I gave it a day to see if it worked. In short it didn't. After that I started to hound her semi-daily. by hound, I mean I kept telling her that she needed to get her part done and done quickly. That didn't work. Finally, I sent her an e-mail that was straight short, and to the point. I got short with her and told her what needed to get done. Luckily, we were able to get the essay done and turned in on time. For our grade as a whole, I would say we got a no pass. A low pass is hopeful but not likely. The work was not the best it could have been but I'm hoping it was enough.
2.) My process did not mesh very well with my partners. As I said before, I started out trying to get ahead and and get the work done but my partner kept waiting until the last minute. No matter what I did or said, she kept waiting and putting it off. In terms of the work she did, I would think she should get a no pass/low pass. In terms of her effort, I would think she should get a no pass. I'm glad that she did her work but I don't like the fact that it was always last minute. Because of that, I often had to do a rush job to get my part done. Communication was another problem we had. Often when I sent her an e-mail or message it would take her a day or a couple of days to get back to me. No matter how much I hounded her she just kept waiting. I don't like taking bad about her but it was extremely annoying. I honestly think that she should get a no pass. Possibly a low pass but notlikely.
3.) My partner and I never had any conflict. We did have some issues though. Actually I had some issues with her. As I have said many times above, she would not get her work done. She kept waiting till last minute. At first I tried to solve it by asking her if she could try and get going on her part because I don't do very well last minute. I gave it a day to see if it worked. In short it didn't. After that I started to hound her semi-daily. by hound, I mean I kept telling her that she needed to get her part done and done quickly. That didn't work. Finally, I sent her an e-mail that was straight short, and to the point. I got short with her and told her what needed to get done. Luckily, we were able to get the essay done and turned in on time. For our grade as a whole, I would say we got a no pass. A low pass is hopeful but not likely. The work was not the best it could have been but I'm hoping it was enough.
#7 AoD
Yesterday, we just finished our second essay for history. We did this essay in pairs. Of course, when working with another person, problems are always encountered. In my pair, there was a lot of issues with lack of group communication and the issue of doing things last minute. Instead of dealing with the problem, I tried to solve it in a gentle manner. I tired to contact my partner many times but she always took forever to get back to me. Instead of talking to her when I had the chance and trying to solve the problem, I often tried to do it in a gentle way or just let it go. Because, I didn't really put all my effort into solving the problem, a good chunk of the blame is on me. Negotiating and coming to some sort of agreement would most likely have helped, but I just didn't put as much effort into it as I should have. Luckily, it wasn't enough of an issue to need mediation. Because of all that happened, we probably won't get that good of a grade, but I can accept that and learn from my mistakes. I don't like taking control, but if there is anything I have learned from this, it is that sometimes taking control is needed. I also learned that some people just don't seem to care as much either. Next time, I will be sure to do what I need to solve the issue.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Loyalism vs. Patriotism by: Paul Headman and Brittany Scudder
March 13, 1774
Dear Cousin Maryanne,
I thought I’d write and see how things have been. It has been a while since we last spoke. How have you been? You still a farmer way out there in the country? I just recently became a royal governor. So as you could probably guess, things are going quite well for me. Have you heard recently of this rebellion of the colonists against the Crown? Apparently they want liberty and freedom from our glorious government. Siding with the British crown and King George III, I believe, is the only way to end this conflict. As you can guess, I have sided already with my fellow loyal Brit’s. I do not know whom you have sided with, but it is my hope that you will remain loyal to the crown. I offer my best wishes to you and your family in this time of struggle.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
March 25, 1774
Dearest William,
Things have been quite well here on the farm. Indeed it has been quite a while, I’m glad to hear from you. I’m also happy to hear about your position in government. I have heard about the rebellion and how the colonists are feeling about this, and I’m sorry the see the position you’ve taken on this matter. In this time of war, the best for everyone in the end is liberation from the British. How can you question the want for liberty and freedom? This is exactly why we were proud of being British. Our fellow Brit’s, as you call them, have imposed on us taxes that they didn’t even consider asking you about. You are part of the British government and they do not consider what you want, as if you and I are not equal with them. Remember what your fellow colonists have said, “Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this his most ancient colony have enjoyed the right being thus governed by their own assembly, in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same have never been forfeited or any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the kind and people of Great Britain.”(1) The country seems to be moving forward and you do not seem to be moving with it. This I do not understand. I pray you reply with haste so we may continue this discussion.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 6, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I cannot understand why you have not sided with the other loyal British. You are British by birth, which makes me wonder why. You ask why I would question the want for liberty and freedom. We have the liberty to be British subjects. We have the freedom to live where we want and to do certain things. As well, the king and his military protect us. If it were not for such protection, many of us would have been killed long ago. Therefore, it is his right to tax us. I will agree that I do not like the fact that he did tax us without our consent. Regardless, these taxes help keep the military and other things going so that we are protected and secure. It is part of our living under this government that we are not completely equal. True British do not mind living under our king. We embrace it. The British see your kind as a mob. We see you as a mob who could take away our liberty and our property. We are afraid of being deprived of our personal peace and the loss of authority. (2) I am sure that your road of revolution will lead to chaos for colonists and British alike, now and in the future. It is my sincerest hope that you will come and ally yourself with us so that this turmoil may come to an end.
Your Cousin,
William Trenton
April 18, 1774
William,
Can you not see that we are on the brink of war? I am sorry to speak with such contempt, but has the British Parliament really clouded your mind so much? We must protect ourselves. I do not believe that by contributing to these taxes we are keeping our security in Britain . They do not have any respect for our government. They consider us to be lesser. I do believe that a revolution in the colonies and the right to liberty is worth the chaos that may be caused. Remember what has happened in Boston ? They have completely shut down the harbor and are leaving us to the cold and to starve. (3) They are the ones causing chaos if anyone. Dear cousin I beg of you, please reconsider your position. Ally yourself with who you came to this continent with, and with whom you know well. The turmoil is not likely to end as soon as you wish. You are not in Boston like I, and therefore do not have any idea of real turmoil. I will agree that without the British military we would be in great trouble, however, we are coming upon a time for change. They are more against us than they are for. They have supported us in the past in coming here, but now they ignore our voices. And so, dear cousin, we must stand together, not divided, or we will surely fall.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 30, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I can see that we are on the brink of war. The British Parliament has not clouded my mind. On the contrary, I am thinking clearer than ever before. They do have respect for the government because it is their government. We are British citizens; therefore follow their laws and are part of their government. We do not have a separate government just because we live so far away from Britain . Can you honestly say that the liberty you crave is really worth the death and chaos? Britain ’s mighty military will crush you like bugs. No one is happy about the harbor being shut down but if the tea had not been destroyed, and then the harbor would still be open. If you try to sever ties with Britain then, “There is an end to your trade, and a total loss of your property.”(4) If you must blame anyone, blame the ones who dumped the tea, not the British. If you and the other colonists you have sided with, would only follow British laws and obey the government, then all this trouble could have been avoided from the beginning. I have allied myself with the ones who are trying to keep the peace, not start conflict. Yes, I may not know of the turmoil you face but I have heard enough about it to know that you deserve it. You say we should stand together. I’m sorry my dear cousin, but that is just not possible.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
May 13, 1774
Dear Cousin,
We tried to follow their law, but they themselves are the ones who violate it. As I mentioned earlier, they are the ones who created the law of us governing ourselves in accordance of taxation and internal police. So if they would only follow their own law, we would not have all of this trouble. Since there is no war, or at least not yet, they do not even have the right to be present in our towns. Just a few weeks ago those bloody red coats came into my home without even knocking and asked for some food. I gave it to them of course, but they don’t even have manners. William they have taken our dignity, our respect, our money, our harbor… what are next, our lives? Indeed, they have already taken lives. Or have you forgotten about the Massacre down here in Boston ? William we must stand together. Not just as colonies, but remember we are family. Do not let the British Empire separate us. We can win if we only do this together.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
(1) http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir_res1765.htm
(2) Rankin, Hugh F. "Journal of Southern History." (1978): 106-107. JSTOR. 31 Oct. 2007.
(3) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/amerdocs/circ_let_boston_1774.htm
(4) Ferling, John E. The Loyalist Mind. The Pennsylvania State UP, 1977. 7-127.
Myspace links:
Paul: http://www.myspace.com/loveofloyalism
Brittany: http://www.myspace.com/patriotlove
Dear Cousin Maryanne,
I thought I’d write and see how things have been. It has been a while since we last spoke. How have you been? You still a farmer way out there in the country? I just recently became a royal governor. So as you could probably guess, things are going quite well for me. Have you heard recently of this rebellion of the colonists against the Crown? Apparently they want liberty and freedom from our glorious government. Siding with the British crown and King George III, I believe, is the only way to end this conflict. As you can guess, I have sided already with my fellow loyal Brit’s. I do not know whom you have sided with, but it is my hope that you will remain loyal to the crown. I offer my best wishes to you and your family in this time of struggle.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
March 25, 1774
Dearest William,
Things have been quite well here on the farm. Indeed it has been quite a while, I’m glad to hear from you. I’m also happy to hear about your position in government. I have heard about the rebellion and how the colonists are feeling about this, and I’m sorry the see the position you’ve taken on this matter. In this time of war, the best for everyone in the end is liberation from the British. How can you question the want for liberty and freedom? This is exactly why we were proud of being British. Our fellow Brit’s, as you call them, have imposed on us taxes that they didn’t even consider asking you about. You are part of the British government and they do not consider what you want, as if you and I are not equal with them. Remember what your fellow colonists have said, “Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this his most ancient colony have enjoyed the right being thus governed by their own assembly, in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same have never been forfeited or any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the kind and people of Great Britain.”(1) The country seems to be moving forward and you do not seem to be moving with it. This I do not understand. I pray you reply with haste so we may continue this discussion.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 6, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I cannot understand why you have not sided with the other loyal British. You are British by birth, which makes me wonder why. You ask why I would question the want for liberty and freedom. We have the liberty to be British subjects. We have the freedom to live where we want and to do certain things. As well, the king and his military protect us. If it were not for such protection, many of us would have been killed long ago. Therefore, it is his right to tax us. I will agree that I do not like the fact that he did tax us without our consent. Regardless, these taxes help keep the military and other things going so that we are protected and secure. It is part of our living under this government that we are not completely equal. True British do not mind living under our king. We embrace it. The British see your kind as a mob. We see you as a mob who could take away our liberty and our property. We are afraid of being deprived of our personal peace and the loss of authority. (2) I am sure that your road of revolution will lead to chaos for colonists and British alike, now and in the future. It is my sincerest hope that you will come and ally yourself with us so that this turmoil may come to an end.
Your Cousin,
William Trenton
April 18, 1774
William,
Can you not see that we are on the brink of war? I am sorry to speak with such contempt, but has the British Parliament really clouded your mind so much? We must protect ourselves. I do not believe that by contributing to these taxes we are keeping our security in Britain . They do not have any respect for our government. They consider us to be lesser. I do believe that a revolution in the colonies and the right to liberty is worth the chaos that may be caused. Remember what has happened in Boston ? They have completely shut down the harbor and are leaving us to the cold and to starve. (3) They are the ones causing chaos if anyone. Dear cousin I beg of you, please reconsider your position. Ally yourself with who you came to this continent with, and with whom you know well. The turmoil is not likely to end as soon as you wish. You are not in Boston like I, and therefore do not have any idea of real turmoil. I will agree that without the British military we would be in great trouble, however, we are coming upon a time for change. They are more against us than they are for. They have supported us in the past in coming here, but now they ignore our voices. And so, dear cousin, we must stand together, not divided, or we will surely fall.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
April 30, 1774
Dear Maryanne,
I can see that we are on the brink of war. The British Parliament has not clouded my mind. On the contrary, I am thinking clearer than ever before. They do have respect for the government because it is their government. We are British citizens; therefore follow their laws and are part of their government. We do not have a separate government just because we live so far away from Britain . Can you honestly say that the liberty you crave is really worth the death and chaos? Britain ’s mighty military will crush you like bugs. No one is happy about the harbor being shut down but if the tea had not been destroyed, and then the harbor would still be open. If you try to sever ties with Britain then, “There is an end to your trade, and a total loss of your property.”(4) If you must blame anyone, blame the ones who dumped the tea, not the British. If you and the other colonists you have sided with, would only follow British laws and obey the government, then all this trouble could have been avoided from the beginning. I have allied myself with the ones who are trying to keep the peace, not start conflict. Yes, I may not know of the turmoil you face but I have heard enough about it to know that you deserve it. You say we should stand together. I’m sorry my dear cousin, but that is just not possible.
Your cousin,
William Trenton
May 13, 1774
Dear Cousin,
We tried to follow their law, but they themselves are the ones who violate it. As I mentioned earlier, they are the ones who created the law of us governing ourselves in accordance of taxation and internal police. So if they would only follow their own law, we would not have all of this trouble. Since there is no war, or at least not yet, they do not even have the right to be present in our towns. Just a few weeks ago those bloody red coats came into my home without even knocking and asked for some food. I gave it to them of course, but they don’t even have manners. William they have taken our dignity, our respect, our money, our harbor… what are next, our lives? Indeed, they have already taken lives. Or have you forgotten about the Massacre down here in Boston ? William we must stand together. Not just as colonies, but remember we are family. Do not let the British Empire separate us. We can win if we only do this together.
Your Cousin,
Maryanne Withers
(1) http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir_res1765.htm
(2) Rankin, Hugh F. "Journal of Southern History." (1978): 106-107. JSTOR. 31 Oct. 2007.
(3) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerrev/amerdocs/circ_let_boston_1774.htm
(4) Ferling, John E. The Loyalist Mind. The Pennsylvania State UP, 1977. 7-127.
Myspace links:
Paul: http://www.myspace.com/loveofloyalism
Brittany: http://www.myspace.com/patriotlove
Sunday, November 4, 2007
#6 AoD
As you know, the National College Fair is this Sunday and Monday. As you also know, we have to go to it for College 100. Up until today I thought it was a complete waste of my time. I figure that all colleges are the same so going to this would be a waste. My pprents kept telling me how it was important for me to go to it. I wouldn't believe them, no matter what they said. They decided that we would go down on Sunday to help me get going on the assingment and hopefully make me see their point. For the first half hour or so, I continued to believe that I was just wasting my time and even more effort. After another half hour to an hour and one workshop, I started to see what they meant. There are many differences among colleges. There is also much that is needed to be done to get into one. After that period of time I started to see that my parents are right and that taking the time to look at colleges is important. I already knew that getting into college was no easy task, but I never knew that is was even harder than that. Going to the college fair has helped me to see that if I want to get into college, I need to get going now and quit screwing around. If I don't start seriously thinking now, I might never get anywhere. I am still annoyed at my parents for making me spend my day there but I know now that it will help me in the long run, no matter how much I may deny it.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Essay 2 Pair Update
After discussing with Craig, we have officially decided to create a Myspace for our essay. One of the Myspace's has been created thus far. Brittany is working on the annotation for her source. I am working on my annotation as well and I have found a possible second source that may work.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
#5 AoD
About one to two weeks ago, we had to do an essay on one aspect of Bacon's Rebellion. Government and politics played a large part in this rebellion. At first the rebellion was about fighting against the Indians but it soon turned into a battle between the poor farmers and the planter elite. Bacon ended up burning down Jamestown during this and also replaced many if not all of the old Burgesses. Bacon ended up dying and Berkeley soon returned to power. He was relieved of his position and returned to England while a more "fitting" governor took his place. This relates to Arts of Democracy because like many times in history, the people rebelled against a corrupt or "bad" government. Instead of a more political approach, people often rebell to change what they do not like. I personally think that Bacon would have gotten his point across when he burned Jamestown but perhaps some people are just harder to convince than others. The rebellion as a whole, failed, but tensions between the poor farmers and the planter elite lessened. Rebellion has always seemed to be the way that people have used to fight against their governments and I think that such a method is going to continue being used for years to come. Fighting and war does seem to be a large part of human nature after all.
Friday, October 26, 2007
#13 Mid-Term Practice
All things, somehow, are interconnected. One action stems from another. All things happen because of necessity. Fear and liberty all come from necessity as well. In the given quote, it says fear and liberty are consistent, while liberty and necessity are also consistent. Fear is connected to liberty and liberty is connected to necessity. I often find this to be true. Ofter people are loyal to their governments because of fear of that government. Yet, people are loyal to their governments because they need to be. People want protection so they turn to their government for it. Therefore, they must be loyal to that government.
The main issue is that all things are connected like a chain. Anything that happens is just another link in the chain. Hobbes is trying to say exactly what I said before. People are loyal out of fear but they are also loyal out of necessity. People need their governments to protect them. They are also loyal out of fear of what their governments may do to them. Hobbes says all of man's actions stem from fear of the law. Hobbes says that, "Every desire, and inclination proceeds from some cause, and that from another cause." Basically, the cause of one action becomes the cause of another action. Liberty is naturally a part of man so it is also necessity.
I believe this to be true because I have heard about it happening all over the world. This country was formed because people wanted liberty and freedom from their government. Because of this, we have no need to be fearful of our government but we do need the protection it gives us. In other countries though, I have heard that people have no choice but to be loyal to their governments. In some arab countries for example, people are loyal to the government because they are afraid of being killed. Yet, they are still lyal because they think that the government who rules them will give them protection. I say that such thinking is foolish. If people are afraid o their governments, then why would they think that the government would protect them? I believe that such fears have been a contributing factor in many rebellions in the past. People do notwant to be afraid, they want protection and security.
Liberty comes from necessity, and liberty from fear. They all are interconnected and are consistent with eachother in one way or another. People want liberty without fear.
The main issue is that all things are connected like a chain. Anything that happens is just another link in the chain. Hobbes is trying to say exactly what I said before. People are loyal out of fear but they are also loyal out of necessity. People need their governments to protect them. They are also loyal out of fear of what their governments may do to them. Hobbes says all of man's actions stem from fear of the law. Hobbes says that, "Every desire, and inclination proceeds from some cause, and that from another cause." Basically, the cause of one action becomes the cause of another action. Liberty is naturally a part of man so it is also necessity.
I believe this to be true because I have heard about it happening all over the world. This country was formed because people wanted liberty and freedom from their government. Because of this, we have no need to be fearful of our government but we do need the protection it gives us. In other countries though, I have heard that people have no choice but to be loyal to their governments. In some arab countries for example, people are loyal to the government because they are afraid of being killed. Yet, they are still lyal because they think that the government who rules them will give them protection. I say that such thinking is foolish. If people are afraid o their governments, then why would they think that the government would protect them? I believe that such fears have been a contributing factor in many rebellions in the past. People do notwant to be afraid, they want protection and security.
Liberty comes from necessity, and liberty from fear. They all are interconnected and are consistent with eachother in one way or another. People want liberty without fear.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
#12 Essay 1 Reflection
I honestly think that I did okay, not great but okay. At the most a pass, as the least a low pass. I made good use of my class time but not great use of the time I worked at home. I often got distracted and because of that I din't do the best work that I could have done. It would also have helped if I had spent some more time researching. I could have done much, much better but I did not put one hundred percent effort into it. That is the most likely the contribution to what I get for a grade.
During this essay I believe that I learned a lot about my writing process. The general format of a structured outline, a draft, corrections, and rewriting work fairly well for me. It can be frustrating but it help me to figure out what I am going to write and how I am going to write it. I learned that my writing philosophy has and will change. I learned that for my writing, just organizing my information is not enough. I learned that it has to be more structured and exact for me to write a decent to good essay. I also learned that my opinion is more important now. I learned that I have to start developing my own opinion as I go through lessons an such because it is going to start being more improtant than just facts. I also learned that templates for my drafts can be fairly helpful. Instead of just writing in a sloppy way, I can write in a way that makes and puts my information in a sensible order.
I learned that there is a very large difference between college writing and high school writing. In high school, I could wite two to three pages of semi mindless dribble and still get an A. In college though, writing has to be more focused and specific because getting good grades is at least twice as hard. College writing has to be good and thorough whereas in high school, writing just needs what the assingment asks and nothing more. In short, college writing is by far tougher, and if you don't give your full effort, you are going to fail.
For my next essay, I am going to make some big changes. Firstly, when the essay is assinged, I am not going to mess around. I am going to start reasearching right away so I don't have to do it all at once and have mediocre information. Also, I will take more time to wrok on my draft and make sure that when I work at home, I focus in so the work gets done and done good. I am not going to keep in the mind set that I can somewhat goof off and still do good. Finally I am goign to start planning ahead what part of the process I am going to do on a given day so the work gets done effeciently. I am going to start focusing and trying my hardest so that I can succeed in this school.
During this essay I believe that I learned a lot about my writing process. The general format of a structured outline, a draft, corrections, and rewriting work fairly well for me. It can be frustrating but it help me to figure out what I am going to write and how I am going to write it. I learned that my writing philosophy has and will change. I learned that for my writing, just organizing my information is not enough. I learned that it has to be more structured and exact for me to write a decent to good essay. I also learned that my opinion is more important now. I learned that I have to start developing my own opinion as I go through lessons an such because it is going to start being more improtant than just facts. I also learned that templates for my drafts can be fairly helpful. Instead of just writing in a sloppy way, I can write in a way that makes and puts my information in a sensible order.
I learned that there is a very large difference between college writing and high school writing. In high school, I could wite two to three pages of semi mindless dribble and still get an A. In college though, writing has to be more focused and specific because getting good grades is at least twice as hard. College writing has to be good and thorough whereas in high school, writing just needs what the assingment asks and nothing more. In short, college writing is by far tougher, and if you don't give your full effort, you are going to fail.
For my next essay, I am going to make some big changes. Firstly, when the essay is assinged, I am not going to mess around. I am going to start reasearching right away so I don't have to do it all at once and have mediocre information. Also, I will take more time to wrok on my draft and make sure that when I work at home, I focus in so the work gets done and done good. I am not going to keep in the mind set that I can somewhat goof off and still do good. Finally I am goign to start planning ahead what part of the process I am going to do on a given day so the work gets done effeciently. I am going to start focusing and trying my hardest so that I can succeed in this school.
#4 AoD
Lately my parents and their rules have been getting a little out of hand. Last week they decided that they would start eating healthy. They also think that my sibblings and I should have to eat healthy all the time too. I really do not think that is fair seeing as they tried to do this once before. I have been trying to get them to change their minds ever since they started. So far it has been a partial failure. I told them that I am almost seventeen so I should have some say in what I eat. I also told them that I am young enough to be able to handle junk food in the way that they cannot. They did not take the old joke quite as well as I had hoped but I did make them stop and think for a moment. I have been constantly negotiating with them to at least give me some leverage seeing as I am the oldest. They have bent a little in the past few days. They said they will let me have soda as long as I do not drink it in front of them. I'd call that a victory, a small victory, but a victory none the less. I know they are trying to improve the quality of my life but I am still young. I want to be able to enjoy what I want before I get to old to be able to anymore. Luckily they are starting to see my side even if it is only a little.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion Final Draft
Politics in bacon’s Rebellion
By: Paul Headman
When you hear about Bacon’s rebellion, at first you might think about a children’s story where an army of pigs fights back against humans. That of course is quite absurd. Bacon’s Rebellion was actually about the people of Jamestown rebelling against the town’s government. There were four factors that contributed to the rebellion: politics, economics, race, and class. I will be focusing on the political aspect of the rebellion. I will start with how politics were reflected in the rebellion itself and then how the resolution transformed Chesapeake society. Finally I will talk about how the political theme relates to my life today.
Very few know about Bacon’s Rebellion and even less about the factors that caused the rebellion. Indian raids on plantations forced colonists to call for action. The governor, William Berkeley, did nothing to solve the problem. He wanted to stay on good terms with the Indians and called for the colonists to restrain themselves. Berkeley wanted to continue being able to trade with the Indians. “Berkeley's policy was to preserve the friendship and loyalty of the subject Indians while assuring the settlers that they were not hostile.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I would think that if Indians were attacking the people that Berkeley governed over, he would have done something about it but perhaps he was just in it for is own gain. Of course, there is a chance Berkeley thought that the more allies he had the better. But then again what is the point of having allies if all one’s “underlings” are dead? Luckily though, Berkeley did do something. He took the Indians powder and ammunition away. He tried to set up a meeting with the chiefs of the tribes but it ended with many of them being killed. If the situation was not bad enough, it was going to become worse seeing as many of the chief’s were now dead. Berkeley tried to resolve the situation but everything just seemed to backfire.
The situation continued to decline after Nathaniel Bacon retaliated against the Indians. In his attempt to get back at the Indians, Bacon attacked the wrong Indians, which in turn caused large raids on both sides. I assume that Bacon accidentally attacked the wrong Indians because I would think that he did not want anymore Indians against him or the rest of the colonists. Usually in war, one would strive to keep away from gaining more enemies to help lessen problems. Bacon went to Berkeley to try and get a commission to lead the local forces against the Indians. Berkeley denied him the commission and Bacon accused Berkeley and the rest of the government of being corrupt. In The Declaration of the People, which Bacon later wrote, he said, “For having wronged his majesties prerogative and interest, by assuming monopoly of the Beaver trade, an for having in that unjust gain betrayed and sold his Majesties Country and the lives of his loyal subjects, to the barbarous heathens.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) Bacon finally had enough, surrounded the statehouse, and demanded that he get his commission or else he would shoot several of the Burgesses. Bacon, I feel, was a little too drastic in his actions to get a commission. A short time later, all of the old Burgesses were voted out and Bacon was brought in along with other “common” people. He was of course kicked out by Berkeley and branded a traitor. Bacon then issued The Declaration of the People. In article two it says, “For having abused and rendered contemptable the Magistrates of Justice, by advancing to places of Judicature, scandalous and ignorant favorites.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) I believe this means that Berkeley was playing favorites and I completely agree with it. After he captured Jamestown, Bacon wanted to make his success whole. I believe he wrote the Declaration of the People to get every person in Jamestown on his side who was not already. Bacon’s mistake though was letting Berkeley go free after the capture of Jamestown. In an act of rage, Bacon burned down Jamestown on September 19, 1676.
Not much later after Jamestown was burned, Bacon became ill and died. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley was able to regain control of the government. He hung all the major contributors of the rebellion. “All in all, twenty-three persons were hanged for their part in the rebellion.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I do not think that it was exactly twenty three people who were hanged. In one source I read it said that twenty one people were hanged and another said twenty two people were. I think he did this because he disliked having his power taken away from him and then went overboard when he got his power back. Berkeley, I feel, went out of line with how many people he hung. Very soon afterwards, an investigation committee arrived from England to look into the matter and relieved Berkeley of his position as governor. He was ordered to return to England but he died before he was able to give his report to the king about what happened. I find it ironic that Berkeley went so far to keep the power that he had and then did something foolish which lost him his power.
One would think that Bacon’s Rebellion would have transformed the society of the Chesapeake. In actuality, the resolution of the rebellion did very little or nothing to change Chesapeake society depending on how one looks at it. The only true benefit was that the Indians stopped attacking the colonists. I would say that the cease of Indian raids would be a great thing because the colonists would not have to worry as much about being attacked or killed by them. Politically, the Chesapeake was not transformed after the rebellion. Even though Berkeley was relieved as governor, the Tidewater aristocracy continued to maintain its power. I find it rather sad that the colonists had to trade one poorly run and at least semi corrupt government for another. Also, there was less of a need for the servant-labor system after the rebellion which was able to help stabilize the government. “In the long run, however, the most important contribution to political stability was the declining importance of the servant-labor system.” (The American Promise Volume A: To 1800 by James Roark, Micheal Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann) How it did this though, I am not sure. Maybe it was because permanent slaves were now easier to have instead of people who were only temporary servants. I think that in a political sense, more could have been done to change the Chesapeake but what exactly, I am not sure. As anyone can see, the resolution of Bacon’s Rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The few changes that were made though generally were not for the better.
Politics can be very hard thing to relate to in this day and age, especially seeing as how I am not officially an adult yet. Politics and the government seem almost as bad today as they were back before, during, and after Bacon’s Rebellion. Our government is almost, or just as corrupt, as it was back in Bacon’s time. As I said, in terms of personal experience, I am still too young to have the government affect me on a larger scale. I can though relate the theme of politics to what I know about and see in them today. Often it seems that the government raises taxes and grants favors only to give themselves more money and help themselves in any way they deem fit. They do not seem to care that regular, hard working adults do just as much work as themselves for only a portion of the pay. Government and political officials work just as hard as regular people so I believe that they should get no special treatment or privileges. As the government becomes more and more corrupt, society seems to get worse and worse. People do not seem to have respect for the laws nor do they seem to care. It seems to me, that the government severely punishes people who commit little crimes but let people who commit large crimes off easy. Eventually people are going to get tired of all the problems and take matter into their own hands. At least I think that is what is going to happen.
People do not like being treated unfairly. Our history and our society is proof of that. If our government keeps heading in the direction it is, people are going to start having a problem. Eventually the American people may rebel against the government, as they did in Bacon’s Rebellion, for their unequal and unjust ways. An example would be how we are giving illegal’s most or all services for free while we Americans having to pay and work for everything we want. If such a time comes, it may not be exactly like Bacon’s Rebellion but it will be similar. People will rise up because it is human nature to want better for themselves. I hope that it will not come to that but if it does I can only hope it ends for the better. Many believe that Bacon’s Rebellion was the starting point for what has become America today and this, I firmly believe to be true.
By: Paul Headman
When you hear about Bacon’s rebellion, at first you might think about a children’s story where an army of pigs fights back against humans. That of course is quite absurd. Bacon’s Rebellion was actually about the people of Jamestown rebelling against the town’s government. There were four factors that contributed to the rebellion: politics, economics, race, and class. I will be focusing on the political aspect of the rebellion. I will start with how politics were reflected in the rebellion itself and then how the resolution transformed Chesapeake society. Finally I will talk about how the political theme relates to my life today.
Very few know about Bacon’s Rebellion and even less about the factors that caused the rebellion. Indian raids on plantations forced colonists to call for action. The governor, William Berkeley, did nothing to solve the problem. He wanted to stay on good terms with the Indians and called for the colonists to restrain themselves. Berkeley wanted to continue being able to trade with the Indians. “Berkeley's policy was to preserve the friendship and loyalty of the subject Indians while assuring the settlers that they were not hostile.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I would think that if Indians were attacking the people that Berkeley governed over, he would have done something about it but perhaps he was just in it for is own gain. Of course, there is a chance Berkeley thought that the more allies he had the better. But then again what is the point of having allies if all one’s “underlings” are dead? Luckily though, Berkeley did do something. He took the Indians powder and ammunition away. He tried to set up a meeting with the chiefs of the tribes but it ended with many of them being killed. If the situation was not bad enough, it was going to become worse seeing as many of the chief’s were now dead. Berkeley tried to resolve the situation but everything just seemed to backfire.
The situation continued to decline after Nathaniel Bacon retaliated against the Indians. In his attempt to get back at the Indians, Bacon attacked the wrong Indians, which in turn caused large raids on both sides. I assume that Bacon accidentally attacked the wrong Indians because I would think that he did not want anymore Indians against him or the rest of the colonists. Usually in war, one would strive to keep away from gaining more enemies to help lessen problems. Bacon went to Berkeley to try and get a commission to lead the local forces against the Indians. Berkeley denied him the commission and Bacon accused Berkeley and the rest of the government of being corrupt. In The Declaration of the People, which Bacon later wrote, he said, “For having wronged his majesties prerogative and interest, by assuming monopoly of the Beaver trade, an for having in that unjust gain betrayed and sold his Majesties Country and the lives of his loyal subjects, to the barbarous heathens.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) Bacon finally had enough, surrounded the statehouse, and demanded that he get his commission or else he would shoot several of the Burgesses. Bacon, I feel, was a little too drastic in his actions to get a commission. A short time later, all of the old Burgesses were voted out and Bacon was brought in along with other “common” people. He was of course kicked out by Berkeley and branded a traitor. Bacon then issued The Declaration of the People. In article two it says, “For having abused and rendered contemptable the Magistrates of Justice, by advancing to places of Judicature, scandalous and ignorant favorites.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) I believe this means that Berkeley was playing favorites and I completely agree with it. After he captured Jamestown, Bacon wanted to make his success whole. I believe he wrote the Declaration of the People to get every person in Jamestown on his side who was not already. Bacon’s mistake though was letting Berkeley go free after the capture of Jamestown. In an act of rage, Bacon burned down Jamestown on September 19, 1676.
Not much later after Jamestown was burned, Bacon became ill and died. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley was able to regain control of the government. He hung all the major contributors of the rebellion. “All in all, twenty-three persons were hanged for their part in the rebellion.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I do not think that it was exactly twenty three people who were hanged. In one source I read it said that twenty one people were hanged and another said twenty two people were. I think he did this because he disliked having his power taken away from him and then went overboard when he got his power back. Berkeley, I feel, went out of line with how many people he hung. Very soon afterwards, an investigation committee arrived from England to look into the matter and relieved Berkeley of his position as governor. He was ordered to return to England but he died before he was able to give his report to the king about what happened. I find it ironic that Berkeley went so far to keep the power that he had and then did something foolish which lost him his power.
One would think that Bacon’s Rebellion would have transformed the society of the Chesapeake. In actuality, the resolution of the rebellion did very little or nothing to change Chesapeake society depending on how one looks at it. The only true benefit was that the Indians stopped attacking the colonists. I would say that the cease of Indian raids would be a great thing because the colonists would not have to worry as much about being attacked or killed by them. Politically, the Chesapeake was not transformed after the rebellion. Even though Berkeley was relieved as governor, the Tidewater aristocracy continued to maintain its power. I find it rather sad that the colonists had to trade one poorly run and at least semi corrupt government for another. Also, there was less of a need for the servant-labor system after the rebellion which was able to help stabilize the government. “In the long run, however, the most important contribution to political stability was the declining importance of the servant-labor system.” (The American Promise Volume A: To 1800 by James Roark, Micheal Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann) How it did this though, I am not sure. Maybe it was because permanent slaves were now easier to have instead of people who were only temporary servants. I think that in a political sense, more could have been done to change the Chesapeake but what exactly, I am not sure. As anyone can see, the resolution of Bacon’s Rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The few changes that were made though generally were not for the better.
Politics can be very hard thing to relate to in this day and age, especially seeing as how I am not officially an adult yet. Politics and the government seem almost as bad today as they were back before, during, and after Bacon’s Rebellion. Our government is almost, or just as corrupt, as it was back in Bacon’s time. As I said, in terms of personal experience, I am still too young to have the government affect me on a larger scale. I can though relate the theme of politics to what I know about and see in them today. Often it seems that the government raises taxes and grants favors only to give themselves more money and help themselves in any way they deem fit. They do not seem to care that regular, hard working adults do just as much work as themselves for only a portion of the pay. Government and political officials work just as hard as regular people so I believe that they should get no special treatment or privileges. As the government becomes more and more corrupt, society seems to get worse and worse. People do not seem to have respect for the laws nor do they seem to care. It seems to me, that the government severely punishes people who commit little crimes but let people who commit large crimes off easy. Eventually people are going to get tired of all the problems and take matter into their own hands. At least I think that is what is going to happen.
People do not like being treated unfairly. Our history and our society is proof of that. If our government keeps heading in the direction it is, people are going to start having a problem. Eventually the American people may rebel against the government, as they did in Bacon’s Rebellion, for their unequal and unjust ways. An example would be how we are giving illegal’s most or all services for free while we Americans having to pay and work for everything we want. If such a time comes, it may not be exactly like Bacon’s Rebellion but it will be similar. People will rise up because it is human nature to want better for themselves. I hope that it will not come to that but if it does I can only hope it ends for the better. Many believe that Bacon’s Rebellion was the starting point for what has become America today and this, I firmly believe to be true.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Second draft for Bacon's Rebellion
When you hear about Bacon’s rebellion, at first you might think about a children’s story where an army of pigs fights back against humans. This of course is quite absurd. Bacon’s Rebellion was actually about the rebellion of the people of Jamestown against the town’s government. There were four factors that contributed to the rebellion: politics, economics, race, and class. I will be focusing on the political aspect. I will discuss how politics were reflected in the rebellion itself and then how the resolution transformed Chesapeake society. Finally I will talk about how the political theme relates to my life today.
Very few know about Bacon’s Rebellion and even less about the factors that caused the rebellion. Indian raids on plantations forced colonists to call for action. The governor, William Berkeley, did nothing to solve the problem. He wanted to stay on good terms with the Indians and called for the colonists to restrain themselves. Berkeley wanted to continue being able to trade with the Indians which was why he wanted to maintain good relations. “Berkeley's policy was to preserve the friendship and loyalty of the subject Indians while assuring the settlers that they were not hostile.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I would think that if Indians were attacking the people that Berkeley governed over, he would have done something about it but maybe he was just in it for is own gain. Of course, perhaps Berkeley thought that the more allies he had the better. But then again what is the point of having allies if all one’s “underlings” are dead? Luckily though, Berkeley did do something and took the Indians powder and ammunition away. He tried to set up a meeting with the chiefs but it ended with many of them being killed. If the situation was not bad enough, it was going to become worse seeing as many of the chief’s were now dead. Berkeley tried to resolve the situation but he obviously did not try hard enough.
The situation continued to decline after Nathaniel Bacon retaliated against the Indians. In his attempt to get back at the Indians, Bacon attacked the wrong Indians, which in turn caused large raids on both sides. I assume that Bacon accidentally attacked the wrong Indians because I would think that he did not want anymore Indians against him or the colonists. Usually in war, one would strive to keep away from gaining more enemies to help lessen problems. Bacon went to Berkeley to try and get a commission to lead the local forces against the Indians. Berkeley denied him many times but Bacon accused Berkeley and the rest of the government to be corrupt. In The Declaration of the People, which Bacon later wrote, he said, “For having wronged his majesties prerogative and interest, by assuming monopoly of the Beaver trade, an for having in that unjust gain betrayed and sold his Majesties Country and the lives of his loyal subjects, to the barbarous heathens.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) Bacon finally had enough, surrounded the statehouse, and demanded that he get his commission or else he would shoot several of the Burgesses. Bacon I feel, was a little too drastic in his actions to get a commission. Berkeley had no choice but to give in. At a later time, all of the old Burgesses were voted out and Bacon was brought in. He was of course kicked out by Berkeley and branded a traitor. Bacon later issued The Declaration of the People. In article two it says, “For having abused and rendered contemptable the Magistrates of Justice, by advancing to places of Judicature, scandalous and ignorant favorites.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) After he captured Jamestown, Bacon wanted to make his success whole. I believe he wrote the Declaration of the People to get every person in Jamestown on his side who was not already. Bacon’s mistake though was letting Berkeley go free after the capture of Jamestown. On a later date, in an act of rage, Bacon burned down Jamestown on September 19, 1676.
Not much later after Jamestown was burned, Bacon became ill and died. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley was able to regain control of the government. He hung all the major contributors of the rebellion. “All in all, twenty-three persons were hanged for their part in the rebellion.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I think he did this because he disliked having his power taken away from him and then went overboard when he got his power back and I definitely do not agree with his actions. Berkeley, I feel, went way overboard with how many people he hung. Not much sooner, did an investigation committee arrive from England to look into the matter and relieved Berkeley of his position as governor. He was ordered to return to England. He died before he was able to give his report to the king about what happened. I find it ironic that Berkeley went so far to keep the power that he had and then did something foolish which lost him his power.
One would think that Bacon’s Rebellion would have transformed the society of the Chesapeake. In actuality, the resolution of the rebellion did very little or nothing to change Chesapeake society depending on how one looks at it. The only true benefit was that the Indians stopped attacking the colonists. I would say that the cease of Indian raids would be a great thing because the colonists would not have to worry as much about being attacked or killed. Politically, the Chesapeake was not transformed after the rebellion. Even though Berkeley was relieved as governor, the Tidewater aristocracy continued to maintain its power. I find it rather sad that the colonists had to trade one poorly run and at least semi corrupt government for another. Also, there was less of a need for the servant-labor system after the rebellion which was able to help stabilize the government for the long-run. “In the long run, however, the most important contribution to political stability was the declining importance of the servant-labor system.” (The American Promise Volume A: To 1800 by James Roark, Micheal Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann) How it did this though, I am not sure. Maybe it was because permanent slaves were now easier to have instead of white people who were only temporary servants. I think that in a political sense, more could have been done to change the Chesapeake but what exactly could have been done, I am not sure. As anyone can see, the resolution of Bacon’s Rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The few changes that were made though generally were not for the better.
The political theme can be related to my life, today. Politics seem almost as bad today as they were back before, during, and after Bacon’s Rebellion. Our government is almost or just as corrupt as it was back in Bacon’s time. In terms of personal experience though, I am still too young to have the government affect me on a larger scale. I can though relate the theme of politics to what I know about and see in them today. Often it seems that the government raises taxes and grants favors only to give themselves more money and help themselves in any way they deem fit. They do not seem to care that regular, hard working adults do just as much work as them for only a portion of the pay. Government and political officials work just as hard as regular people so I believe that they should get no special treatment or privileges. As the government becomes more and more corrupt, society seems to get worse and worse. People seem to have no respect for the laws nor do they seem to care. The government severely punishes people who commit little crimes but let people who commit large crimes off easy. Eventually people are going to get tired of all the problems and take matter into their own hands. At least I think that is what is going to happen.
As I said before, politics do not completely affect me just yet. In my school though, the political aspect is better by far. Like the government we are a democracy. Unlike the government though, we are not corrupt. Everyone in this school works just as hard as everyone else for equal reward. This of course differs from regular school which is run like a monarchy. The teachers told us what to do and that was it. We had no say in what went on in the school. As I get older, I see that politics begin to affect me more and become a more integral part of my life. As time goes on, the government and our politics are going to get worse. I hope that things start to turn for the better. I have a strong feeling though, that things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
Very few know about Bacon’s Rebellion and even less about the factors that caused the rebellion. Indian raids on plantations forced colonists to call for action. The governor, William Berkeley, did nothing to solve the problem. He wanted to stay on good terms with the Indians and called for the colonists to restrain themselves. Berkeley wanted to continue being able to trade with the Indians which was why he wanted to maintain good relations. “Berkeley's policy was to preserve the friendship and loyalty of the subject Indians while assuring the settlers that they were not hostile.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I would think that if Indians were attacking the people that Berkeley governed over, he would have done something about it but maybe he was just in it for is own gain. Of course, perhaps Berkeley thought that the more allies he had the better. But then again what is the point of having allies if all one’s “underlings” are dead? Luckily though, Berkeley did do something and took the Indians powder and ammunition away. He tried to set up a meeting with the chiefs but it ended with many of them being killed. If the situation was not bad enough, it was going to become worse seeing as many of the chief’s were now dead. Berkeley tried to resolve the situation but he obviously did not try hard enough.
The situation continued to decline after Nathaniel Bacon retaliated against the Indians. In his attempt to get back at the Indians, Bacon attacked the wrong Indians, which in turn caused large raids on both sides. I assume that Bacon accidentally attacked the wrong Indians because I would think that he did not want anymore Indians against him or the colonists. Usually in war, one would strive to keep away from gaining more enemies to help lessen problems. Bacon went to Berkeley to try and get a commission to lead the local forces against the Indians. Berkeley denied him many times but Bacon accused Berkeley and the rest of the government to be corrupt. In The Declaration of the People, which Bacon later wrote, he said, “For having wronged his majesties prerogative and interest, by assuming monopoly of the Beaver trade, an for having in that unjust gain betrayed and sold his Majesties Country and the lives of his loyal subjects, to the barbarous heathens.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) Bacon finally had enough, surrounded the statehouse, and demanded that he get his commission or else he would shoot several of the Burgesses. Bacon I feel, was a little too drastic in his actions to get a commission. Berkeley had no choice but to give in. At a later time, all of the old Burgesses were voted out and Bacon was brought in. He was of course kicked out by Berkeley and branded a traitor. Bacon later issued The Declaration of the People. In article two it says, “For having abused and rendered contemptable the Magistrates of Justice, by advancing to places of Judicature, scandalous and ignorant favorites.” (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/baconpeo.htm) After he captured Jamestown, Bacon wanted to make his success whole. I believe he wrote the Declaration of the People to get every person in Jamestown on his side who was not already. Bacon’s mistake though was letting Berkeley go free after the capture of Jamestown. On a later date, in an act of rage, Bacon burned down Jamestown on September 19, 1676.
Not much later after Jamestown was burned, Bacon became ill and died. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley was able to regain control of the government. He hung all the major contributors of the rebellion. “All in all, twenty-three persons were hanged for their part in the rebellion.” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html) I think he did this because he disliked having his power taken away from him and then went overboard when he got his power back and I definitely do not agree with his actions. Berkeley, I feel, went way overboard with how many people he hung. Not much sooner, did an investigation committee arrive from England to look into the matter and relieved Berkeley of his position as governor. He was ordered to return to England. He died before he was able to give his report to the king about what happened. I find it ironic that Berkeley went so far to keep the power that he had and then did something foolish which lost him his power.
One would think that Bacon’s Rebellion would have transformed the society of the Chesapeake. In actuality, the resolution of the rebellion did very little or nothing to change Chesapeake society depending on how one looks at it. The only true benefit was that the Indians stopped attacking the colonists. I would say that the cease of Indian raids would be a great thing because the colonists would not have to worry as much about being attacked or killed. Politically, the Chesapeake was not transformed after the rebellion. Even though Berkeley was relieved as governor, the Tidewater aristocracy continued to maintain its power. I find it rather sad that the colonists had to trade one poorly run and at least semi corrupt government for another. Also, there was less of a need for the servant-labor system after the rebellion which was able to help stabilize the government for the long-run. “In the long run, however, the most important contribution to political stability was the declining importance of the servant-labor system.” (The American Promise Volume A: To 1800 by James Roark, Micheal Johnson, Patricia Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan Hartmann) How it did this though, I am not sure. Maybe it was because permanent slaves were now easier to have instead of white people who were only temporary servants. I think that in a political sense, more could have been done to change the Chesapeake but what exactly could have been done, I am not sure. As anyone can see, the resolution of Bacon’s Rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The few changes that were made though generally were not for the better.
The political theme can be related to my life, today. Politics seem almost as bad today as they were back before, during, and after Bacon’s Rebellion. Our government is almost or just as corrupt as it was back in Bacon’s time. In terms of personal experience though, I am still too young to have the government affect me on a larger scale. I can though relate the theme of politics to what I know about and see in them today. Often it seems that the government raises taxes and grants favors only to give themselves more money and help themselves in any way they deem fit. They do not seem to care that regular, hard working adults do just as much work as them for only a portion of the pay. Government and political officials work just as hard as regular people so I believe that they should get no special treatment or privileges. As the government becomes more and more corrupt, society seems to get worse and worse. People seem to have no respect for the laws nor do they seem to care. The government severely punishes people who commit little crimes but let people who commit large crimes off easy. Eventually people are going to get tired of all the problems and take matter into their own hands. At least I think that is what is going to happen.
As I said before, politics do not completely affect me just yet. In my school though, the political aspect is better by far. Like the government we are a democracy. Unlike the government though, we are not corrupt. Everyone in this school works just as hard as everyone else for equal reward. This of course differs from regular school which is run like a monarchy. The teachers told us what to do and that was it. We had no say in what went on in the school. As I get older, I see that politics begin to affect me more and become a more integral part of my life. As time goes on, the government and our politics are going to get worse. I hope that things start to turn for the better. I have a strong feeling though, that things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
AoD #3
Lately, my grandparents have been having a lot of arguments. Almost everytime I see them, they are or end up fighting about something. These arguments do not last very long but they are very annoying. I have done this a few times, but late last week, I sat down with them and tried to figure out what the problems were and come up witha solution. My grandma's argument was that my grandpa constantly nags and complains about every little thing. My grandpa said that all my grandma ever does is yell at him and get upset. As they talked and argued, I did my best to keep the peace, and suprisingly, it worked for the most part. I suggested that maybe if my grandpa stopped complaining a bit perhaps my grandma would quit yelling and getting mad at him. This short session lasted only ten minutes or so but it resolved the problem a least for a while. This applies to Arts of Democracy because I sat down with my grandparent's and mediated between them while they tried to figure out, at best, a temporary solution. Instead of letting them continue on bickering, I tried to help solve the situation. I know that my grandparent's are getting older and therfore they are going to fight, but as their second oldest grandson, I feel it is my job to try and help them get along and not fight. I hope that the help I offered works so that there is no need to do it again.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Draft for Bacon's Rebellion Essay
As many know, politics was one of the major causes and issues in Bacon’s Rebellion. Indian raids on plantations forced colonists to call for action. The governor, William Berkeley, did nothing to solve the problem. He wanted to stay on good terms with the Indians and called for the colonists to restrain themselves. Berkeley wanted to continue being able to trade with the Indians which was why he wanted to maintain good relations. I would think that if Indians were attacking the people that Berkeley governed over, he would have done something about it but maybe he was just a really pitiful governor. Of course, perhaps Berkeley thought that the more allies he had the better. But then again what is the point of having allies if all one’s underlings are dead? Luckily though, Berkeley took the Indians powder and ammunition away. He tried to set up a meeting with the chiefs but it ended with many of them being killed. If the situation was not bad enough, I have a feeling it was going to become worse seeing as many of the chief’s were dead.
The situation continued to decline after Nathaniel Bacon retaliated against the Indians. In his attempt to get back at the Indians, Bacon attacked the wrong Indians causing raids on a large scale to commence. I assume that Bacon accidentally attacked the wrong Indians because I would assume that he did not want anymore Indians against him or the colonists. Usually in war, one would strive to keep away from gaining more enemies to help lessen problems. Bacon went to Berkeley to try and get a commission to lead the local forces against the Indians. Berkeley denied him many times but Bacon finally had enough, surrounded the statehouse, and demanded that he get his commission or he would shoot several of the Burgesses. Berkeley had no choice but to give in. I think that it was wise of Berkeley to give Bacon his commission because the last thing that was needed was more colonist bloodshed. Bacon though, I feel, was a little too drastic in his actions to get a commission. Bacon later issued The Declaration of the People. After he captured Jamestown, Bacon wanted to make his success whole. I believe he did this to every person in Jamestown on his side who was not already. Bacon’s mistake though was letting Berkeley go free after the capture of Jamestown. Later, in an act of rage, Bacon burned down Jamestown on September 19, 1676. The burning of Jamestown was a rather foolish choice I think because I feel that it would make the colonists more open for attack from Indians.
Not much later after Jamestown was burned, Bacon became ill. On October 26th, 1676 Bacon died of the Bloody Flux and Lousey Disease. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley was able to regain control. He hung all the major contributors of the rebellion. I think he did that because he disliked having his power taken away from him and then went overboard when he got that power back. Berkeley, I feel, went way overboard with how many people he hung instead of just accepting what happened and letting it go. Not much sooner, did an investigation committee arrive from England to look into the matter. Berkeley was relieved of his position as governor and was ordered to return to England. He died before he was able to give his report to the king about what happened. I find it ironic that Berkeley went so far to keep the power that he had and then did something foolish which lost him his power.
One would think that Bacon’s Rebellion would have transformed the society of the Chesapeake. In actuality, the resolution of the rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The only true benefit was that the Indians stopped attacking the colonists. I would say that the cease of Indian raids would be a great thing because the colonists would not have to worry about being attacked or killed. At the least, the colonists would not have to worry about the Indians as much, maybe not completely but less. Politically, the Chesapeake was not transformed after the rebellion. Even though Berkeley was relieved as governor, the Tidewater aristocracy continued to maintain its power. I find it rather sad that the colonists had to trade one poorly run and at least semi corrupt government for another. Also, there was less of a need for the servant-labor system after the rebellion. This was able to contribute to long-term political stability. Instead, slaves were imported making the need for short term servants smaller. I think that in a political sense, more could have been done to change the Chesapeake but what exactly could have been done, I do not know. As anyone can see, the resolution of Bacon’s Rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The changes that were made though generally were not for the better.
The political theme can be related to my life, today. Politics seem almost as bad today as they were back before, during, and after Bacon’s Rebellion. Our government is almost or just as corrupt as it was back in Bacon’s time. In terms of personal experience I am still too young to have the government affect me on a larger scale. I can though relate the theme of politics to what I know about and see in them today. Often it seems that the government raises taxes only to give themselves more money and larger salaries. They do not seem to care that regular, hard working adults do just as much work as them for only a portion of the pay. Government and political officials work just as hard as regular people so I believe that they should get no special treatment or privileges. From my point of view, political officials do not seem to care that much about the common people either. As the government becomes more and more corrupt, society seems to get worse and worse. People seem to have no respect for the laws nor do they seem to care. The government severely punishes people who commit little crimes but let people who commit large crimes off easy. Eventually people are going to get tired of all the problems and take matter into their own hands. At least I have a feeling that is what is going to happen.
As I said before, politics do not completely affect me just yet. In my school though, the political aspect is better by far. Like the government we are a democracy. Unlike the government though, we are not corrupt. Everyone in this school works just as hard as everyone else for equal reward. This of course differs from regular school which is run like a monarchy. The teachers told us what to do and that was it. We had no say in what went on in the school. As I get older, I see that politics begin to affect me more and become a more integral part of my life. As time goes on the government and our politics get worse. I hope that things start to turn for the better. I have a strong feeling though, that things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
The situation continued to decline after Nathaniel Bacon retaliated against the Indians. In his attempt to get back at the Indians, Bacon attacked the wrong Indians causing raids on a large scale to commence. I assume that Bacon accidentally attacked the wrong Indians because I would assume that he did not want anymore Indians against him or the colonists. Usually in war, one would strive to keep away from gaining more enemies to help lessen problems. Bacon went to Berkeley to try and get a commission to lead the local forces against the Indians. Berkeley denied him many times but Bacon finally had enough, surrounded the statehouse, and demanded that he get his commission or he would shoot several of the Burgesses. Berkeley had no choice but to give in. I think that it was wise of Berkeley to give Bacon his commission because the last thing that was needed was more colonist bloodshed. Bacon though, I feel, was a little too drastic in his actions to get a commission. Bacon later issued The Declaration of the People. After he captured Jamestown, Bacon wanted to make his success whole. I believe he did this to every person in Jamestown on his side who was not already. Bacon’s mistake though was letting Berkeley go free after the capture of Jamestown. Later, in an act of rage, Bacon burned down Jamestown on September 19, 1676. The burning of Jamestown was a rather foolish choice I think because I feel that it would make the colonists more open for attack from Indians.
Not much later after Jamestown was burned, Bacon became ill. On October 26th, 1676 Bacon died of the Bloody Flux and Lousey Disease. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley was able to regain control. He hung all the major contributors of the rebellion. I think he did that because he disliked having his power taken away from him and then went overboard when he got that power back. Berkeley, I feel, went way overboard with how many people he hung instead of just accepting what happened and letting it go. Not much sooner, did an investigation committee arrive from England to look into the matter. Berkeley was relieved of his position as governor and was ordered to return to England. He died before he was able to give his report to the king about what happened. I find it ironic that Berkeley went so far to keep the power that he had and then did something foolish which lost him his power.
One would think that Bacon’s Rebellion would have transformed the society of the Chesapeake. In actuality, the resolution of the rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The only true benefit was that the Indians stopped attacking the colonists. I would say that the cease of Indian raids would be a great thing because the colonists would not have to worry about being attacked or killed. At the least, the colonists would not have to worry about the Indians as much, maybe not completely but less. Politically, the Chesapeake was not transformed after the rebellion. Even though Berkeley was relieved as governor, the Tidewater aristocracy continued to maintain its power. I find it rather sad that the colonists had to trade one poorly run and at least semi corrupt government for another. Also, there was less of a need for the servant-labor system after the rebellion. This was able to contribute to long-term political stability. Instead, slaves were imported making the need for short term servants smaller. I think that in a political sense, more could have been done to change the Chesapeake but what exactly could have been done, I do not know. As anyone can see, the resolution of Bacon’s Rebellion did very little to change Chesapeake society. The changes that were made though generally were not for the better.
The political theme can be related to my life, today. Politics seem almost as bad today as they were back before, during, and after Bacon’s Rebellion. Our government is almost or just as corrupt as it was back in Bacon’s time. In terms of personal experience I am still too young to have the government affect me on a larger scale. I can though relate the theme of politics to what I know about and see in them today. Often it seems that the government raises taxes only to give themselves more money and larger salaries. They do not seem to care that regular, hard working adults do just as much work as them for only a portion of the pay. Government and political officials work just as hard as regular people so I believe that they should get no special treatment or privileges. From my point of view, political officials do not seem to care that much about the common people either. As the government becomes more and more corrupt, society seems to get worse and worse. People seem to have no respect for the laws nor do they seem to care. The government severely punishes people who commit little crimes but let people who commit large crimes off easy. Eventually people are going to get tired of all the problems and take matter into their own hands. At least I have a feeling that is what is going to happen.
As I said before, politics do not completely affect me just yet. In my school though, the political aspect is better by far. Like the government we are a democracy. Unlike the government though, we are not corrupt. Everyone in this school works just as hard as everyone else for equal reward. This of course differs from regular school which is run like a monarchy. The teachers told us what to do and that was it. We had no say in what went on in the school. As I get older, I see that politics begin to affect me more and become a more integral part of my life. As time goes on the government and our politics get worse. I hope that things start to turn for the better. I have a strong feeling though, that things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
