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