This quarter of Writing 101 was a very educational experience. I enjoyed having Craig as an instructor and I learned a lot of valuable information from him. The text that was required for this course was actually a very interesting and helpful aid for learning the rules and guidelines of writing well structured papers. I’m glad this program was set up the way it was because it was very helpful for me. I feel like I developed a lot of skills that I was missing in high school from this course. There is always room for improvement and although I still have some work to do, I have come a long way since my sophomore year.
My writing skills have improved quite a bit because of this course but, there are many things that I could improve on. First off, I didn’t truly capture the correct format of a hook. Like in my second essay, I started it with, “It is because of the cruel statements said and the harsh treatment received from the Patriots that I am a Rhode Island loyalist today in 1777”.Which was not a hook that would draw the reader in; instead I was just jumping right into the actual topic of the paper. Also, I had trouble constructing a well-written and straight to the point thesis for my papers. In my second essay my thesis was, “We deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and kept protected economically and with military strength; and Britain is the supporter that can meet and fulfill those requests”, which was unclear and hard to pull out my main idea for the paper. Most of my theses were vague or the reader didn't truly see the main points of my argument. So, it is clear that I have some things to improve on but I think I did well on a lot of other things throughout this writing course.
I think I did better in this writing course than any other writing class I have ever taken. I believe my writing quality has improved a lot since high school and I owe that to the “They say, I say” text book and Craig. Learning how to integrate quotes was a very important skill for this course. In my mid-term essay I integrated quotes well to show a point. For example I said, “But with the knowledge of history, people can try their hardest to not repeat history by making wise choices to help ‘determine how future events’ will play out in the end”. The book also taught about templates. The templates we had to integrate into our essays truly helped my writing quality improve. Also, by using the templates, I feel that the content of my essays was at a much higher level than compared to some of the papers I wrote in high school. For example in my second essay I said, “They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (Vernon 5), so by integrating quotes the content of my paper has grown to a new level. Before using the templates, my content was all over the place and not much of it was even useful; but now that I have templates to style my writing, the content of my papers makes sense and is very intellectual. I am proud of the way I worked throughout the quarter and I believe I did fairly well in this writing course.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Portfolio: Essay #2
The other day in the street, multiple patriots attacked a couple loyalists who were simply minding their own business. They only attacked the loyalists because they were loyalists and wanted to remain loyal to the king, which was the opposite of what the patriots wanted. So, it is because of the cruel statements said and the harsh treatment received from the Patriots that I am a Rhode Island loyalist today in 1777. I believe that the American colonies should remain loyal to the King. The patriots want to separate the colonies from the Crown, but I believe this to be an idea that would doom us all. Without the support and protection that the King and Britain so graciously offer us, I think the colonies would be in danger. It is with all good intentions that my view point is based. I would not be a loyalist if I thought staying loyal to the King would cause a fatal downfall for our beautiful colonies. We loyalists deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and kept protected economically and with militia; and Britain is the supporter that can meet and fulfill those requests and keep America a prospering country.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of the patriots trying to go against and separate the colonies from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions among the different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began, we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (Thompson 367). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason the patriots had an unfair advantage over us loyalists was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (Vernon 5). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards some of us were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Britain has a prosperous military that can be used to protect themselves and our colonies from any danger that may come. But without Britain there to act as our guardian, we will most likely fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World because we do not have a strong military force such as the one Britain acquires. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protection and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (Kling 77) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain, no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decision to give independence a try.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of the patriots trying to go against and separate the colonies from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions among the different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began, we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (Thompson 367). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason the patriots had an unfair advantage over us loyalists was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (Vernon 5). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards some of us were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Britain has a prosperous military that can be used to protect themselves and our colonies from any danger that may come. But without Britain there to act as our guardian, we will most likely fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World because we do not have a strong military force such as the one Britain acquires. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protection and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (Kling 77) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain, no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decision to give independence a try.
Portfolio: Essay from mid-term
Nobody is perfect, history is a learning guide, and giving up just for the fear of falling down is unacceptable. The main idea of this passage is saying that once you do something, it can not be undone and is therefore an event that will always be remembered in history. Gerda Lerner is trying to get the point across that what people do with their lives truly matters in the end because someone will always remember what others have done. The author always says that “those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”. She believes this to be true but when an event is repeated it does not necessarily occur exactly the same as the first time it happened.
Lerner’s viewpoints seem like the logical ones that most people would agree with. Once something is done, it is impossible to undo. Choices must be made wisely so that there are not any regrets left in the end. More often, people remember the bad events in history over the good and joyful ones. So, when people make mistakes that can not be undone, those memories are stuck in their minds to haunt them until the day they die. To be wise, it is best when committing an extreme action for it to be one that would make a good memory, instead of a bad one for people to look back on in history.
The author states that people can learn from history, whether the events and people were good or bad. If they were good, the present generation can learn to follow the example from history to become as successful as the people were in the past. If the events and people were bad, the people of the present can learn to not do what those people did, and then not make the same dumb mistakes that would lead to a repeated historical event.
“The main thing history can teach [people] is that human actions have consequences”. By learning about other peoples mistakes throughout history, people that are living in the present will know not to do those things again. But sometimes, mistakes are unpreventable because everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes in life. People just have to be willing to accept the consequences and move on. But with the knowledge of history, people can try their hardest to not repeat history by making wise choices to help “determine how future events” will play out in the end.
Sometimes people can not help messing something up. For example, in gymnastics people practice multiple hours every day to become better and better. They spend their entire lives at the gym just so they can be called “the best”. But then, when a competition comes around everything that seemed perfect during practice falls apart in front of the judges. People can’t do everything perfect every time they do it because humans just don’t work that way, they screw up sometimes. People just have to be willing to accept that fact and move on because perfection is nonexistent. Everything happens for a reason. People can choose to learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others to improve or they can admit defeat. But, history is there to guide them if they choose to let it.
Lerner’s viewpoints seem like the logical ones that most people would agree with. Once something is done, it is impossible to undo. Choices must be made wisely so that there are not any regrets left in the end. More often, people remember the bad events in history over the good and joyful ones. So, when people make mistakes that can not be undone, those memories are stuck in their minds to haunt them until the day they die. To be wise, it is best when committing an extreme action for it to be one that would make a good memory, instead of a bad one for people to look back on in history.
The author states that people can learn from history, whether the events and people were good or bad. If they were good, the present generation can learn to follow the example from history to become as successful as the people were in the past. If the events and people were bad, the people of the present can learn to not do what those people did, and then not make the same dumb mistakes that would lead to a repeated historical event.
“The main thing history can teach [people] is that human actions have consequences”. By learning about other peoples mistakes throughout history, people that are living in the present will know not to do those things again. But sometimes, mistakes are unpreventable because everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes in life. People just have to be willing to accept the consequences and move on. But with the knowledge of history, people can try their hardest to not repeat history by making wise choices to help “determine how future events” will play out in the end.
Sometimes people can not help messing something up. For example, in gymnastics people practice multiple hours every day to become better and better. They spend their entire lives at the gym just so they can be called “the best”. But then, when a competition comes around everything that seemed perfect during practice falls apart in front of the judges. People can’t do everything perfect every time they do it because humans just don’t work that way, they screw up sometimes. People just have to be willing to accept that fact and move on because perfection is nonexistent. Everything happens for a reason. People can choose to learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others to improve or they can admit defeat. But, history is there to guide them if they choose to let it.
Portfolio: Final Exam, Frame 2
In the second frame, the writer is talking about a method that helps people improve their writing. This method is getting other people's thoughts and opinions on the idea to help add to the context of the paper. The writer thinks that sometimes when someone gets stuck in the middle of writing something, it helps to get other people's input on the topic to help the writer better understand the topic of discussion. Instead of just sitting there stuck, the writer can turn to peers with questions and for advice. The writer also encourages group work whenever possible because it truly helps students learn more when there are more minds working together to solve a problem. Without the input from friends and classmates, it is hard to write a paper alone because the only one thinking about the topic is the writer. Whenever something is being written, the best advice anyone can give the writer is to get other people to read through it and share their feelings on the topic.
"The writing process can be greatly improved if students have a group of peers with whom they can share their writing". This view point of writing applies to my own experiences of writing in this course. With every essay we wrote, we had peers review our papers before the final draft was due to the instructor. Most comments that were submitted were construction criticism and truly helped people's papers improve. The idea of peer editing is an educational one. By reading other people's papers, the reader can have a better understanding of what is going through the writer's head. The reader can also learn from what they have read to improve their own writing skills. Whenever I got comments from other people, they were all very helpful. They told me things I had done well in my essays and things I needed to improve. There was never a comment that I was offended by and I took all of the advice to heart. Many of my paper's best qualities came through because peers suggested I change something in my paper. Without peer editing, my essays would not have been so high in quality. Group work is what made my essays what they are and I think peer editing is necessary in all writing activities.
"If you are stuck writing or trying to figure something out, there is nothing better than finding one person, or more, to talk to". This view of writing matched my own experience because whenever I got stuck and got advice from someone it was helpful. The effort it takes to write a great essay is tiring and no one can write a great essay alone. Everyone needs help at least once throughout the process of writing an essay. The only way this writing experience did not match my experience in this course was that some people were closed minded to my opinions. Sometimes when I would give someone an idea on how to improve their paper, they would shoot it down. This was not offending to me because I knew I was not the one writing the actual paper. I just moved on and kept trying to make my paper better.
Everyone needs help in writing. No one can just jump right into a course and be perfect at everything. Working in groups truly helps writer's improve their pieces and they should never turn someones idea down before they even take a minute to consider it. Peer editing was one of the most helpful things for me in this course and I am glad everyone was required to help others. A paper is what you make it and you can't do it alone, that is why there are peers around you to help you achieve your best work possible.
"The writing process can be greatly improved if students have a group of peers with whom they can share their writing". This view point of writing applies to my own experiences of writing in this course. With every essay we wrote, we had peers review our papers before the final draft was due to the instructor. Most comments that were submitted were construction criticism and truly helped people's papers improve. The idea of peer editing is an educational one. By reading other people's papers, the reader can have a better understanding of what is going through the writer's head. The reader can also learn from what they have read to improve their own writing skills. Whenever I got comments from other people, they were all very helpful. They told me things I had done well in my essays and things I needed to improve. There was never a comment that I was offended by and I took all of the advice to heart. Many of my paper's best qualities came through because peers suggested I change something in my paper. Without peer editing, my essays would not have been so high in quality. Group work is what made my essays what they are and I think peer editing is necessary in all writing activities.
"If you are stuck writing or trying to figure something out, there is nothing better than finding one person, or more, to talk to". This view of writing matched my own experience because whenever I got stuck and got advice from someone it was helpful. The effort it takes to write a great essay is tiring and no one can write a great essay alone. Everyone needs help at least once throughout the process of writing an essay. The only way this writing experience did not match my experience in this course was that some people were closed minded to my opinions. Sometimes when I would give someone an idea on how to improve their paper, they would shoot it down. This was not offending to me because I knew I was not the one writing the actual paper. I just moved on and kept trying to make my paper better.
Everyone needs help in writing. No one can just jump right into a course and be perfect at everything. Working in groups truly helps writer's improve their pieces and they should never turn someones idea down before they even take a minute to consider it. Peer editing was one of the most helpful things for me in this course and I am glad everyone was required to help others. A paper is what you make it and you can't do it alone, that is why there are peers around you to help you achieve your best work possible.
Monday, December 8, 2008
reflective letter: revised
This quarter of Writing 101 was a very educational experience. I enjoyed having Craig as an instructor and I learned a lot of valuable information from him. The text that was required for this course was actually a very interesting and helpful aid for learning the rules and guidelines of writing well structured papers. I’m glad this program was set up the way it was because it was very helpful for me. I feel like I developed a lot of skills that I was missing in high school from this course. There is always room for improvement and although I still have some work to do, I have come a long way since my sophomore year.
My writing skills have improved quite a bit because of this course but, there are many things that I could improve on. First off, I did not truly capture the correct format of a hook. Like in my second essay, I started it with, “It is because of the cruel statements said and the harsh treatment received from the Patriots that I am a Rhode Island loyalist today in 1777”.Which was not a hook that would draw the reader in; instead I was just jumping right into the actual topic of the paper. Also, I had trouble constructing a well-written and straight to the point thesis for my papers. In my second essay my thesis was, “We deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and kept protected economically and with military strength; and Britain is the supporter that can meet and fulfill those requests”, which was unclear and hard to pull out my main idea for the paper. Most of my theses were vague or the reader didn't truly see the main points of my argument. So, it is clear that I have some things to improve on but I think I did well on a lot of other things throughout this writing course.
I think I did better in this writing course than any other writing class I have ever taken. I believe my writing quality has improved a lot since high school and I owe that to the “They say, I say” text book and Craig. Learning how to integrate quotes was a very important skill for this course. In my mid-term essay I integrated quotes well to show a point. For example I said, “But with the knowledge of history, people can try their hardest to not repeat history by making wise choices to help ‘determine how future events’ will play out in the end”. The book also taught about templates. The templates we had to integrate into our essays truly helped my writing quality improve. Also, by using the templates, I feel that the content of my essays was at a much higher level than compared to some of the papers I wrote in high school. For example in my second essay I said, “They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (Vernon 5), so by integrating quotes the content of my paper has grown to a new level. Before using the templates, my content was all over the place and not much of it was even useful; but now that I have templates to style my writing, the content of my papers makes sense and is very intellectual. I am proud of the way I worked throughout the quarter and I believe I did fairly well in this writing course.
My writing skills have improved quite a bit because of this course but, there are many things that I could improve on. First off, I did not truly capture the correct format of a hook. Like in my second essay, I started it with, “It is because of the cruel statements said and the harsh treatment received from the Patriots that I am a Rhode Island loyalist today in 1777”.Which was not a hook that would draw the reader in; instead I was just jumping right into the actual topic of the paper. Also, I had trouble constructing a well-written and straight to the point thesis for my papers. In my second essay my thesis was, “We deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and kept protected economically and with military strength; and Britain is the supporter that can meet and fulfill those requests”, which was unclear and hard to pull out my main idea for the paper. Most of my theses were vague or the reader didn't truly see the main points of my argument. So, it is clear that I have some things to improve on but I think I did well on a lot of other things throughout this writing course.
I think I did better in this writing course than any other writing class I have ever taken. I believe my writing quality has improved a lot since high school and I owe that to the “They say, I say” text book and Craig. Learning how to integrate quotes was a very important skill for this course. In my mid-term essay I integrated quotes well to show a point. For example I said, “But with the knowledge of history, people can try their hardest to not repeat history by making wise choices to help ‘determine how future events’ will play out in the end”. The book also taught about templates. The templates we had to integrate into our essays truly helped my writing quality improve. Also, by using the templates, I feel that the content of my essays was at a much higher level than compared to some of the papers I wrote in high school. For example in my second essay I said, “They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (Vernon 5), so by integrating quotes the content of my paper has grown to a new level. Before using the templates, my content was all over the place and not much of it was even useful; but now that I have templates to style my writing, the content of my papers makes sense and is very intellectual. I am proud of the way I worked throughout the quarter and I believe I did fairly well in this writing course.
reflective letter: rough draft 1
This quarter of Writing 101 was a very educational experience. I enjoyed having Craig as an instructor and I learned a lot of valuable information from him. The text that was required for this course was actually a very interesting and helpful aid for learning the rules and guidelines of writing well structured papers. At the very beginning of the quarter we started annotating documents and at first I thought that just meant highlighting, but I was wrong. Once I actually started adding little notes into the margins I started to learn more from the documents and texts that we were reading. I’m glad this program was set up the way it was because it was very helpful for me. I feel like I developed a lot of skills that I was missing in high school. Although I still have some work to do, I have come a long way since my sophomore year.
I have improved quite a bit from this course but I still have room for improvement. First off, I need to work on speaking up in class. Throughout the quarter I rarely contributed in class discussions and I regret that now. Speaking in front of large groups is just something I am not very comfortable with, but I will be working on that for the future. Also, I didn’t truly capture the correct format of a hook and thesis, like in my first and second essays. I wasn’t drawing the reader in; I was just jumping right into the actual topics for the papers. Another thing that I think I need to improve on in the future is annotating every document. At first I annotated all of the documents once I understood how to actually annotate. But then I started slacking off and just reading the documents and not annotating. This was really stupid on my part because the annotations helped me understand the documents better. So, in the future I will annotate everything that should be so I have a better understanding of the topic. I have some things to improve on but I think I did well on a lot of other things throughout this course.
I think I did better in this writing than any other writing class I have taken. I believe my writing quality has improved a lot since high school and I owe that to the “They say, I say” text book. The templates we had to integrate into our essays truly help my writing improve. Also, by using the templates, I feel that the content of my essays was of a much higher level than compared to papers I wrote in high school. Another thing that I think I did well throughout the quarter was getting all my work done on time. I don’t recall ever having a late assignment or skipping an assignment, which shows my responsibility. I very rarely missed class, so I was usually there and ready to learn. In class I was there to learn and pay attention to the instructors. I tried not to get distracted or doze off in the middle of lectures because I knew they were probably important to hear about. Also, whenever we were broken up to work in smaller groups, I think I worked really well with the people I was grouped with and we always got our assignments done when they needed to be done. I am proud of the way I worked throughout the quarter and I believe I did fairly well in this writing course.
I have improved quite a bit from this course but I still have room for improvement. First off, I need to work on speaking up in class. Throughout the quarter I rarely contributed in class discussions and I regret that now. Speaking in front of large groups is just something I am not very comfortable with, but I will be working on that for the future. Also, I didn’t truly capture the correct format of a hook and thesis, like in my first and second essays. I wasn’t drawing the reader in; I was just jumping right into the actual topics for the papers. Another thing that I think I need to improve on in the future is annotating every document. At first I annotated all of the documents once I understood how to actually annotate. But then I started slacking off and just reading the documents and not annotating. This was really stupid on my part because the annotations helped me understand the documents better. So, in the future I will annotate everything that should be so I have a better understanding of the topic. I have some things to improve on but I think I did well on a lot of other things throughout this course.
I think I did better in this writing than any other writing class I have taken. I believe my writing quality has improved a lot since high school and I owe that to the “They say, I say” text book. The templates we had to integrate into our essays truly help my writing improve. Also, by using the templates, I feel that the content of my essays was of a much higher level than compared to papers I wrote in high school. Another thing that I think I did well throughout the quarter was getting all my work done on time. I don’t recall ever having a late assignment or skipping an assignment, which shows my responsibility. I very rarely missed class, so I was usually there and ready to learn. In class I was there to learn and pay attention to the instructors. I tried not to get distracted or doze off in the middle of lectures because I knew they were probably important to hear about. Also, whenever we were broken up to work in smaller groups, I think I worked really well with the people I was grouped with and we always got our assignments done when they needed to be done. I am proud of the way I worked throughout the quarter and I believe I did fairly well in this writing course.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Text Analysis: Alien and Sedition Acts
1. who is writing?
- The house of representatives of the U.S.A and Congress are the writers.
2. who is the audience?
- The audience is all people, citizens and aliens of the United States.
3. who do the writers represent?
- The writers represent the people of the United States because the representatives are representing all the different states and the people living in them.
4. what is being said, argued, and/or requested?
- The Alien Act document is talking about the illegal aliens in the United States. The document says that because the aliens do not legally belong in America that they will either be put in to prison or sent back to their homeland. The Sedition Act document is talking about what happens to people when they decide to go against the government. For the most part, there were very serious consequences for anyone who thought to go against the government because people were very fortunate to be living in the U.S. and going against the government just showed that those people were not thankful for what they had.
5. how is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
- The tone of these documents is a very serious one because the issues that are being dicussed are extremely important to the United States. If the people were to ignore the requests sent out by the government then the country would fall apart. So, the writers are very serious and concentrated on what they are saying and they want the people to really listen.
6. what proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- These documents were written by the House of Representatives and Congress so therefore these documents are legitimate because the House of Representatives and Congress were very important groups of people and had very important jobs. So, the fact that those groups wrote the documents gives the documents justification.
- The house of representatives of the U.S.A and Congress are the writers.
2. who is the audience?
- The audience is all people, citizens and aliens of the United States.
3. who do the writers represent?
- The writers represent the people of the United States because the representatives are representing all the different states and the people living in them.
4. what is being said, argued, and/or requested?
- The Alien Act document is talking about the illegal aliens in the United States. The document says that because the aliens do not legally belong in America that they will either be put in to prison or sent back to their homeland. The Sedition Act document is talking about what happens to people when they decide to go against the government. For the most part, there were very serious consequences for anyone who thought to go against the government because people were very fortunate to be living in the U.S. and going against the government just showed that those people were not thankful for what they had.
5. how is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
- The tone of these documents is a very serious one because the issues that are being dicussed are extremely important to the United States. If the people were to ignore the requests sent out by the government then the country would fall apart. So, the writers are very serious and concentrated on what they are saying and they want the people to really listen.
6. what proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- These documents were written by the House of Representatives and Congress so therefore these documents are legitimate because the House of Representatives and Congress were very important groups of people and had very important jobs. So, the fact that those groups wrote the documents gives the documents justification.
Monday, November 24, 2008
essay #2 reflection
Essay #2 starter out harder than our first essay because we had to research all the information ourselves rather than have it handed to us in multiple documents. Once I found some valuable information it was easier to get started writing because I had some foundation to build off of. For this particular essay the outline was the hardest part for me. For some reason the outline for essay #1 seemed a lot easier. Once I had an outline it was pretty much easy sailing for me. Rough drafts came easily once I had a solid outline. Editing was pretty easy because I got some good advice from other people. Also, this time around I had both Craig and Ben look at it rather than just Craig like last time. With their advice and the tips from my classmates, I was able to complete this essay and feel good about the final product. Once it was turned in, I was extremely relieved because with essay #2 we didn't have nearly as much time to complete it as essay #1. But I think the smaller amount of time inspired me to work harder to get everything done, therefore making my essay better in content and quality. I definitely feel that I have improved since my last essay in more ways than one.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Essay #2: FINAL draft
It is because of the cruel statements said and the harsh treatment received from the Patriots that I am a Rhode Island loyalist today in 1777. I believe that the American colonies should remain loyal to the King. The patriots want to separate the colonies from the Crown, but I believe this to be an idea that would doom us all. Without the support and protection that the King and Britain so graciously offer us, I think the colonies would be in danger. It is with all good intentions that my view point is based. I would not be a loyalist if I thought staying loyal to the King would cause a fatal downfall for our beautiful colonies. We deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and kept protected economically and with military strength; and Britain is the supporter that can meet and fulfill those requests.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of the patriots trying to go against and separate the colonies from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions among the different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began, we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (Thompson 367). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason the patriots had an unfair advantage over us loyalists was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (Vernon 5). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards some of us were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Britain has a prosperous military that can be used to protect themselves and our colonies from any danger that may come. But without Britain there to act as our guardian, we will most likely fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World because we do not have a strong military force such as the one Britain acquires. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protection and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (Kling 77) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain, no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decision to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we would fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. This truly is a small price to pay when we will practically be guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder providing us support when necessary. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists, we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Roark 229) and we do not need to change anything by trying to become an independent country, when it is clearly not necessary.
Works Cited:
1. Kling, Andrew. The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc, 2002.
2. Roark, James. The American Promise. 4. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009.
3. Thompson, Mack. "The Ward-Hopkins Controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island." v.16, no.3Jul. 1959 363-375. 11 Nov 2008 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1916950.
4. Vernon, Thomas. "The Diary of Thomas Vernon." Google Books. 2006. 16 Nov 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=clqxUiI0fKoC.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of the patriots trying to go against and separate the colonies from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions among the different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began, we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (Thompson 367). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason the patriots had an unfair advantage over us loyalists was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (Vernon 5). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards some of us were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Britain has a prosperous military that can be used to protect themselves and our colonies from any danger that may come. But without Britain there to act as our guardian, we will most likely fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World because we do not have a strong military force such as the one Britain acquires. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protection and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (Kling 77) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain, no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decision to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we would fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. This truly is a small price to pay when we will practically be guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder providing us support when necessary. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists, we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Roark 229) and we do not need to change anything by trying to become an independent country, when it is clearly not necessary.
Works Cited:
1. Kling, Andrew. The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc, 2002.
2. Roark, James. The American Promise. 4. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009.
3. Thompson, Mack. "The Ward-Hopkins Controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island." v.16, no.3Jul. 1959 363-375. 11 Nov 2008 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1916950.
4. Vernon, Thomas. "The Diary of Thomas Vernon." Google Books. 2006. 16 Nov 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=clqxUiI0fKoC.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
text analysis: the whiskey rebellion
1. who is writing?
George Washington, the first President of the United States is writing this document.
2. who is the audience?
The audience is the government in general and the people of the United States of America.
3. who do the writers represent?
The writer represents the United States of America.
4. what is being said, argued and/or requested?
George Washington is saying that if the people don't stop rebellion, then the military will be called in to stop those who are rebelling. He is saying that this rebellion really isn't necessary and the people just need to be thankful for what they have. When he feels it is necessary he will call foward the militia to control the rebellion if it becomes to much to control without using violent forces.
5. how is it being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said in a kind of urgent matter because he is saying that he will send the militia out if the need comes. He is being straight forward and telling those rebelling to stop now.
6. what proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof that this document is legitimate is that the President wrote it and he was a very important figure in government and is trustworthy with what he is saying and isn't going to lie to get the people's attention.
George Washington, the first President of the United States is writing this document.
2. who is the audience?
The audience is the government in general and the people of the United States of America.
3. who do the writers represent?
The writer represents the United States of America.
4. what is being said, argued and/or requested?
George Washington is saying that if the people don't stop rebellion, then the military will be called in to stop those who are rebelling. He is saying that this rebellion really isn't necessary and the people just need to be thankful for what they have. When he feels it is necessary he will call foward the militia to control the rebellion if it becomes to much to control without using violent forces.
5. how is it being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said in a kind of urgent matter because he is saying that he will send the militia out if the need comes. He is being straight forward and telling those rebelling to stop now.
6. what proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof that this document is legitimate is that the President wrote it and he was a very important figure in government and is trustworthy with what he is saying and isn't going to lie to get the people's attention.
essay #2: rough draft #4
It is because of the cruel statements said and the harsh treatment received from the Patriots that I am a Rhode Island loyalist today in 1777. I believe that the American colonies should remain loyal to the King. The patriots want to separate the colonies from the Crown, but I believe this to be an idea that would doom us all. Without the support and protection that the King and Britain so graciously offer to us, I think the colonies would be in danger. It is with all good intentions that my view point is based. I would not be a loyalist if I thought staying loyal to the King would cause a fatal downfall for our beautiful colonies. We deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and kept protected economically and with military strength; Britain is the supporter that can meet and fulfill those requests.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of going against and separating themselves from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions between different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (The Ward-Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason it was kind of unfair was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (The Diary of Thomas Vernon). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards we were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Britain has a prospering military that can be used to protect themselves and our colonies from any danger that may come into action. But without Britain there to act as our guardian we will most likely slowly fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World because we do not have a strong military force such as the one Britain aquires. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protections and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decisions to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we will slowly fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. This truly is a small price to pay when we will practically be guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists, we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Textbook) and we do not need to change anything.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of going against and separating themselves from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions between different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (The Ward-Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason it was kind of unfair was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (The Diary of Thomas Vernon). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards we were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Britain has a prospering military that can be used to protect themselves and our colonies from any danger that may come into action. But without Britain there to act as our guardian we will most likely slowly fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World because we do not have a strong military force such as the one Britain aquires. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protections and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decisions to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we will slowly fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. This truly is a small price to pay when we will practically be guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists, we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Textbook) and we do not need to change anything.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Essay #2: rough draft #3
I am a Rhode Island loyalist. I believe that the American colonies should remain loyal to the King to stay as successful as we are now. The patriots want to separate the colonies from the Crown, but I believe this to be an idea that would doom us all. Without the support and protection that the King and Britain offer us so graciously from the bottom of their hearts, I think the colonies would be on their way to extinction. It is with all good intentions that my view point is based. I would not be a loyalist if I thought staying loyal to the King would cause a fatal downfall for our beautiful colonies. We deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and Britain is the supporter that can offer us that treatment.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of going against and separating themselves from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions between different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (The Ward-Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason it was kind of unfair was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (The Diary of Thomas Vernon). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards we were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Without Britain there to act as our guardian we will most likely slowly fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protections and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decisions to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we will slowly fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. This truly is a small price to pay when we will practically be guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists, we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Textbook) and we do not need to change anything.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of going against and separating themselves from the Crown. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive thus far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions between different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (The Ward-Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to discuss and create new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason it was kind of unfair was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (The Diary of Thomas Vernon). Patriots were allowed to try to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards we were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Without Britain there to act as our guardian we will most likely slowly fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protections and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island) to fit in and still be connected to and working with Britain. Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decisions to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we will slowly fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. This truly is a small price to pay when we will practically be guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists, we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Textbook) and we do not need to change anything.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
essay #2: rough draft #2
I am a Rhode Island loyalist. I believe that the American colonies should remain loyal to the King to stay as successful as we are now. The patriots want to separate themselves from the Crown, but I believe this to be an idea that would doom us all. Without the support and protection that the King and Britain offer to us so graciously from the bottom of their hearts, I think the colonies would be on their way to extinction. It is with all good intentions that my view point is based. I would not be a loyalist if I thought staying loyal to the King would cause a fatal downfall for our beautiful colonies. We deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and Britain is the supporter that can offer us that treatment.
We, the loyalists of the colonies were not treated as we should have been by the colonies. Our opinions were never heard and many of us decided to emigrate so that we would not have to deal with the drama of going against the colonial government. I do not see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive this far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions between different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island was not a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (The Ward-Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence were not all located in the same county. Because they were located so close to each other, they did not have to travel far to try to make new laws and they did not need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. This provided the Rhode Island patriots with an unfair advantage over us loyalists.
Another reason it was kind of unfair was because the Patriots did not trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (The Diary of Thomas Vernon). Patriots were allowed to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards we were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we did not want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Without Britain there to act as our guardian we will most likely slowly fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protections and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island). Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decisions to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we will slowly fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. This truly is a small price to pay when we will be practically guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Textbook) and we do not need to change anything.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
essay #2: rough draft numbero uno
The loyalists of all the colonies were not treated as they should have been. Our opinions were never heard and many of us just decided to emigrate so that we wouldn’t have to deal with the drama of going against the colonial government. I don’t see why so many people were against staying loyal to the King. Our loyalty to Britain is what kept our relationship so healthy over all these years. By trying to change the laws and become independent, our relationship with Britain and the King of England will fall apart. Loyalty is what has kept us alive this far. Rhode Island may have been somewhat divided before, but by trying to make our own laws there will probably be more disagreements and divisions between different groups of people.
Even before the American Revolution began we were a divided colony. Whether it was by economic class or patriotism and loyalists, Rhode Island wasn’t a united colony. Some counties believed that staying loyal to the King was the best idea, while others thought that trying to become an independent colony would be a wise decision. “Newport and the Narragansett counties remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island’s independence of Britain” (The Ward-Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island). We may have had a better chance of staying loyal if all government officials that were for independence weren’t all located in the same county. When they were located so close to each other, they didn't have to travel far to try to make new laws and they didn't need to wait for responses from any other government figures because they were all in the same general area. Another reason it was kind of unfair was because the Patriots didn’t trust anyone but themselves. They passed the Test Act in 1776 that “empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration” (The Diary of Thomas Vernon). Patriots were allowed to turn loyalists in to the government for punishment. Afterwards we were forced to support the Declaration for Independence, which is something we didn't want to have anything to do with. We wanted to keep connections with Britain, which would prevent selfish colonial government leaders from creating unnecessary acts that would basically only affect us loyalists in a bad way.
The only way we are going to keep our strength as a colony is to keep connections and ties with Britain. We need to remain under the King’s watchful eye for our own protection. Without Britain there to act as our guardian we will most likely slowly fade to failure and become no longer a colony of the New World. Many of our loyalists have already decided to emigrate because they felt that independence from Britain was an extremely bad choice. We loyalists feel that we need the protections and already written out laws that Britain offers to remain happy and successful. Of those loyalists that emigrated “many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects” (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island). Because so many loyalists were deciding to emigrate, the population of loyalists in Rhode Island decreased rapidly. Without a stable relationship with Britain no one will want to wait around to see what happens with the decisions to give independence a try.
We need to keep a stable society and that all depends on staying loyal to the King of England. If we decided to go against the King and become independent, I believe we will slowly fall apart and become a non-existent colony. Remaining loyal will help us stay stable, secure, and happy, just under the King’s control. Which truly is a small price to pay when we will be practically guaranteed a good life with the mother-land watching over our shoulder. With the laws of Britain already being followed by the colonists we are stable. There is no point in waiting for the colonial government to create their own laws for us to learn and follow when we already have laws in place from Britain. “[We have] strong cultural and economic ties to England” (Textbook) and we don’t need to change anything.
[conclusion to be added later]
Friday, November 14, 2008
Essay #2: Rhode Island Loyalists: Outline
I. We were divided before the revolution so one side shouldn't have to convert for our colony to cooperate after the revolution.
---1. divided by economic class lines.
-----a. some counties remained loyal while others didn't.
-------1. "Newport and the Narragansett county remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island's independence of Britain two months before the radical party was able to achieve that end in the continental congress"(The Ward Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island).
---2. Patriots were unfair and didn't trust us.
-----a. "The assembly passed an act at its June session, 1776, which became known as the Test Act. This extraordinary piece of legislation empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration" (The Diary of Thomas Vernon).
II. Us loyalists wanted to keep contact and connections with Britain.
---1. would benefit the colony and make us stronger.
-----a. but because the colony was made up of more colonists for independence many loyalists emigrated.
-------1. "Throughout the state, the character of communities had changed. Families who had remained loyal to the king had emigrated; many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects" (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island).
---------a. "The population of Rhode Island had been about 58 thousand in 1774. Eight years later in 1782, it was only 52 thousand" (The thirteen colonies: Rhode Island).
III. A stable society depends on staying loyal to the King.
---1. If we go against the King, then our society with slowly crumble. But if we remain loyal we will remain stable and secure under the King.
-----a. Following British law provided stability for the colony.
-------1. "Loyalists had strong cultural and economic ties to england; they thought that social stability depended on a government anchored by monarchy and aristocracy, perhaps most of all, they feared democratic tyranny" (Textbook).
works cited:
- kling, andrew. The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc, 2002.
-Roark, James. The American Promise. 4. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009.
-Thompson, Mack. "The Ward-Hopkins Controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island." v.16, no.3Jul. 1959 363-375. 11 Nov 2008 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1916950.
-Vernon, Thomas. "The Diary of Thomas Vernon." Google Books. 2006. 16 Nov 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=clqxUiI0fKoC.
---1. divided by economic class lines.
-----a. some counties remained loyal while others didn't.
-------1. "Newport and the Narragansett county remained loyal, whereas the agrarian north, which was in control of the government, declared Rhode Island's independence of Britain two months before the radical party was able to achieve that end in the continental congress"(The Ward Hopkins controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island).
---2. Patriots were unfair and didn't trust us.
-----a. "The assembly passed an act at its June session, 1776, which became known as the Test Act. This extraordinary piece of legislation empowered any member of the Assembly who suspected his neighbor of being unfriendly to the cause of the United American colonies, to summon such neighbor before him, and demand that he should subscribe to the Declaration" (The Diary of Thomas Vernon).
II. Us loyalists wanted to keep contact and connections with Britain.
---1. would benefit the colony and make us stronger.
-----a. but because the colony was made up of more colonists for independence many loyalists emigrated.
-------1. "Throughout the state, the character of communities had changed. Families who had remained loyal to the king had emigrated; many chose to live in Canada among other loyal British subjects" (The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island).
---------a. "The population of Rhode Island had been about 58 thousand in 1774. Eight years later in 1782, it was only 52 thousand" (The thirteen colonies: Rhode Island).
III. A stable society depends on staying loyal to the King.
---1. If we go against the King, then our society with slowly crumble. But if we remain loyal we will remain stable and secure under the King.
-----a. Following British law provided stability for the colony.
-------1. "Loyalists had strong cultural and economic ties to england; they thought that social stability depended on a government anchored by monarchy and aristocracy, perhaps most of all, they feared democratic tyranny" (Textbook).
works cited:
- kling, andrew. The Thirteen Colonies: Rhode Island. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc, 2002.
-Roark, James. The American Promise. 4. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009.
-Thompson, Mack. "The Ward-Hopkins Controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island." v.16, no.3Jul. 1959 363-375. 11 Nov 2008 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1916950.
-Vernon, Thomas. "The Diary of Thomas Vernon." Google Books. 2006. 16 Nov 2008 http://books.google.com/books?id=clqxUiI0fKoC
Monday, November 3, 2008
Continental Congress/PSEC synthesis:
The students at PSEC should be able to come together from different feeder schools just like the 12 different colonies came together to create one continental congress. Although it may not be as extreme as a nation of multiple colonies becoming one working unit, it is still a significant change for everyone to adjust to. I think it has worked so far because the students that applied to and got accepted to PSEC are mature enough to realize that no matter our differences we can come together and and work as one cooperative group of people to form a better learning environment than our home high schools would. The structure of PSEC's government is slightly flustered. Community meetings are held every other week but not everyone attends them. Some students wander off to get food or just hang out and take a break from classes for 45 minutes. I think the community meetings should become a requirement so that everyone attends and everyone knows what is going on at the school. Also, attendance should be required so that when an important issue comes up or there is an issue to vote on every is there to give their own personal opinion on the issue. Otherwise, I think the meetings are spaced out well enough so that students won't feel tied down, unlike if the meetings were held every other day or once a week. The members who are leading the meetings should be a variety of juniors and seniors so that everyone has a similar view on the topics that are being discussed. Relating this to the quote by Gerda Lerner, just because something didn't work in the past, doesn't mean we can't try it again because it would work for this group of students even it if didn't work for a different group. We shouldn't be afraid to use old ideas for new groups because the ideas may work better for us than it did for them. We also shouldn't be afraid of trying new things. New ideas may be uncommon and a little intimidating to some people, but they are fresh and new and make people's imaginations run wild.
text analysis 11/4: The Olive Branch Petition, Continental Congress
1. Who is writing?
-The faithful subjects of the colonies New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Province Plantations Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are the writers.
2. Who is the audience?
-The King of England and his Ministers are the audience.
3. Who do the writers represent?
-The writers represent the inhabitants of the colonies stated in the answer displayed in number 1.
4. What is being said, argued, and/or requested?
-The writers of this petition were basically stating all the things that the King and England said the colonists had done wrong. The colonists then explained how they never really did any of those things to prove that they were right. The colonies still wanted to have a connection with England so they were trying to find some kind of 'happy medium' so that both England and the colonies were happy and so that they both could get along with each other and not become total enemies. In the next letter that was writen to Great Britain, the colonies described all of the rights they had been denied by England. They feel that their friendship with England was violated when the King decided to deny them certain rights. They then started asking the king all sorts of questions and answered them to show the King that he was wrong. Towards the end the colonists stated how they would have given anything up except for their liberty.
5. How is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
-The delegates stated their thoughts in a bold way. They weren't nice and thoughtful about it. They got straight to the point and didn't hold back their feelings. They were honest and smart with the way they said everything.
6. What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
-This information is legitimate because all of the delegates helped write the letters to the King. They all gave their input for the journal and the fact that so many people agreed on what to say makes this a legitimate text reading.
-The faithful subjects of the colonies New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Province Plantations Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are the writers.
2. Who is the audience?
-The King of England and his Ministers are the audience.
3. Who do the writers represent?
-The writers represent the inhabitants of the colonies stated in the answer displayed in number 1.
4. What is being said, argued, and/or requested?
-The writers of this petition were basically stating all the things that the King and England said the colonists had done wrong. The colonists then explained how they never really did any of those things to prove that they were right. The colonies still wanted to have a connection with England so they were trying to find some kind of 'happy medium' so that both England and the colonies were happy and so that they both could get along with each other and not become total enemies. In the next letter that was writen to Great Britain, the colonies described all of the rights they had been denied by England. They feel that their friendship with England was violated when the King decided to deny them certain rights. They then started asking the king all sorts of questions and answered them to show the King that he was wrong. Towards the end the colonists stated how they would have given anything up except for their liberty.
5. How is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
-The delegates stated their thoughts in a bold way. They weren't nice and thoughtful about it. They got straight to the point and didn't hold back their feelings. They were honest and smart with the way they said everything.
6. What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
-This information is legitimate because all of the delegates helped write the letters to the King. They all gave their input for the journal and the fact that so many people agreed on what to say makes this a legitimate text reading.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Stamp Act Synthesis
The issues of the Stamp Act can be considered very controversial. Many people believed different things and had different reasons for their beliefs. Some people thought the Stamp Act was a terrible idea because they would be charged more on basically everything that had a stamp on it. Most of the people that didn't agree with it were the people that had to pay the taxes, but those who weren't charged with the taxes didn't really care about the Stamp Act.
Personally, I think the Stamp Act was a good idea. It would help pay off some of the debt that the colonies had built up over the years. Because the Stamp Act applied to many of the things that people use on a regular basis, the debt would be paid off quickly because a lot of money would be coming in fast resulting in less debt owed to England. The Stamp Act should have made the colonists happy because it would lead to them not being financially bonded to England after a while, meaning they would be closer to their freedom from the mainland. The colonists shouldn't have been so against the idea of taxes because in the end they really benefited from them.
Personally, I think the Stamp Act was a good idea. It would help pay off some of the debt that the colonies had built up over the years. Because the Stamp Act applied to many of the things that people use on a regular basis, the debt would be paid off quickly because a lot of money would be coming in fast resulting in less debt owed to England. The Stamp Act should have made the colonists happy because it would lead to them not being financially bonded to England after a while, meaning they would be closer to their freedom from the mainland. The colonists shouldn't have been so against the idea of taxes because in the end they really benefited from them.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
10/30 Text Analysis-Letter from the New York Committee of Fifty-one to the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 23, 1774
Letter from the New York Committee of Fifty-one to the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 23, 1774:
Who is writing?
Members of the New York Committee of Fifty-one are writing.
Who is the audience?
The audience is the members of the Boston Committee of Correspondence.
Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the people of New York.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
The New York Committee is saying how sorry they are for the harsh treatment that the people of Boston received during their 'lockdown'. They also inform them of their plan to form a committee with representatives from all of the colonies and request their opinion on the idea. They also inform them of their goal to maintain their common rights. The New York committee also presented their dream of American freedom for the future.
How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
The document is apologetic towards the Boston Committee because of all that they went through. Also, the message is being said with meaning but the New York Committee wasn't being forceful in any way, so it was polite.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
This document is legitimate because it is persuasive and has all the colonies best interest in mind. It is also written in the first person so it is pretty obvious that some one or a few people of the New York Committee actually wrote it to the Boston Committee.
Who is writing?
Members of the New York Committee of Fifty-one are writing.
Who is the audience?
The audience is the members of the Boston Committee of Correspondence.
Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the people of New York.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
The New York Committee is saying how sorry they are for the harsh treatment that the people of Boston received during their 'lockdown'. They also inform them of their plan to form a committee with representatives from all of the colonies and request their opinion on the idea. They also inform them of their goal to maintain their common rights. The New York committee also presented their dream of American freedom for the future.
How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
The document is apologetic towards the Boston Committee because of all that they went through. Also, the message is being said with meaning but the New York Committee wasn't being forceful in any way, so it was polite.
What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
This document is legitimate because it is persuasive and has all the colonies best interest in mind. It is also written in the first person so it is pretty obvious that some one or a few people of the New York Committee actually wrote it to the Boston Committee.
Text Analysis summaries
Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 13, 1774:
This document talks about the harsh treatment that the town of Boston received that was completely cruel and unjust. They were only provided with enough to make them survive through the cold and not starve to death. The Boston port was entirely shut down so no one could leave or come into the port to bring them goods or somethings they may have needed to remain healthy through the hard times. This lockdown encouraged the individual colonies to unite and go against Britains goal to keep the colonies divided. Trade with Britain was suspended while deciding what to do. This was a sacrifice for liberty and the chance to become an independent nation, apart from Britain.
Letter from the New York Committee of Fifty-One to the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 23, 1774:
This document is from the New York Committee to the Boston Committee apologizing for their misfortunes. The New York Committee tells the Boston Committee about their committee of 51 people and how they just had their first meeting. They request Boston's opinion on the committee and wonder if they wouldn't be interested in joining them at one of their future meetings. New York thinks they need to be aware of whats going on to be sure to secure their common rights. If they don't pay attention, soon enough Britain will not allow them to do anything they want to.
Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress; October 14, 1774:
This document is about the First Continental Congress. All colonies were asked to select representatives that would represent each colony well. They all met in Philadephia to discuss plans for the near future. They made several resolves which would benefit the colonies. Some of those resolves included keeping an army ready for battle, being entitled to life, liberty, and property, and that the colonies are entitled to the common law of England.
This document talks about the harsh treatment that the town of Boston received that was completely cruel and unjust. They were only provided with enough to make them survive through the cold and not starve to death. The Boston port was entirely shut down so no one could leave or come into the port to bring them goods or somethings they may have needed to remain healthy through the hard times. This lockdown encouraged the individual colonies to unite and go against Britains goal to keep the colonies divided. Trade with Britain was suspended while deciding what to do. This was a sacrifice for liberty and the chance to become an independent nation, apart from Britain.
Letter from the New York Committee of Fifty-One to the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 23, 1774:
This document is from the New York Committee to the Boston Committee apologizing for their misfortunes. The New York Committee tells the Boston Committee about their committee of 51 people and how they just had their first meeting. They request Boston's opinion on the committee and wonder if they wouldn't be interested in joining them at one of their future meetings. New York thinks they need to be aware of whats going on to be sure to secure their common rights. If they don't pay attention, soon enough Britain will not allow them to do anything they want to.
Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress; October 14, 1774:
This document is about the First Continental Congress. All colonies were asked to select representatives that would represent each colony well. They all met in Philadephia to discuss plans for the near future. They made several resolves which would benefit the colonies. Some of those resolves included keeping an army ready for battle, being entitled to life, liberty, and property, and that the colonies are entitled to the common law of England.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Essay #1 Reflection
When first starting this essay I wasn't completely clear on the assignment. I knew it was an essay but I didn't really understand the structure that was to be presented. Once the class got started on the actual process of constructing their essays, I started to understand more of what was being asked. When we got started I realized this would be a rather important essay for the class I knew it was one of few that would probably majorly affect my grade. Just choosing a topic was difficult for me because there were so many to choose from. The class brainstormed a few common main ideas that people could use. I then decided to use the topic of hero or villain, bacon or berkeley. The usual topic that is chosen from this idea is that Bacon is the hero, But I decided to go in the other direction and portray Berkeley as the hero because he seemed more like the hero in my mind. Once I had my main idea I had to write a thesis that was straight to the point and a statement from my head. It took me a couple times to get a good thesis because I wasn't putting my opinion into it at first. After the thesis was the outline. This seemed like the easiest step of the essay for me. It pulled together the main ideas that connected to the thesis and then I added quotes and facts to those ideas. Once I had a good outline I started my first rough draft. This included the body of my essay and my thesis. I integrated some quotes but needed to find more so I went back to my documents and found more that connected to my topic. I believe I wrote four rough drafts before I edited it to become my final. Throughout the drafts I added more and more details, quotes and my opinions, to support my main ideas. Editing was an easy process for me. I believe my final draft shows my ability to write an intellectual and interesting essay. I think this essay is one of my best essays because this process seemed a lot more organized, helpful and informational than in my high school english and history classes.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Rhetorical Analysis for Bacon's Rebellion
Title: Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of Colonial Virginia
Author: Warren M. Billings
Audience: Anyone interested in learning about Colonial Virginia, Bacon's Rebellion, and William Berkeley.
Tone: The author's tone is informative because the book is full of information for the reader to learn and use for themselves in some way. There are dozens of interesting facts throughout the pages and this book was very useful.
Purpose: The purpose of this book was to inform the readers about Bacon's Rebellion and how Berkeley relates to everything that happened in Virginia throughout the Rebellion.
Ethos: This book is credible or believable because it has many facts that I have seen in multiple other documents. This shows that everyone knows the same details so they must be true facts. It is also very detailed and shows the readers many new things that weren't found in other documents.
Pathos: The emotion in this book was boring. The author didn't include stupid little phrases to make the reader laugh. He stayed serious with his writing because he probably wanted it to come across as a formal piece. It was also not very entertaining because it was just a lot of facts that were important to Bacon's Rebellion but not interesting to read about with no real emotion present in the writing.
Logos: This document gives support to how William Berkeley was a better man than Nathanial Bacon. It gives a lot of details and facts that prove that Berkeley wasn't the villain to the colonists and really in the end he helped Virginia.
Author: Warren M. Billings
Audience: Anyone interested in learning about Colonial Virginia, Bacon's Rebellion, and William Berkeley.
Tone: The author's tone is informative because the book is full of information for the reader to learn and use for themselves in some way. There are dozens of interesting facts throughout the pages and this book was very useful.
Purpose: The purpose of this book was to inform the readers about Bacon's Rebellion and how Berkeley relates to everything that happened in Virginia throughout the Rebellion.
Ethos: This book is credible or believable because it has many facts that I have seen in multiple other documents. This shows that everyone knows the same details so they must be true facts. It is also very detailed and shows the readers many new things that weren't found in other documents.
Pathos: The emotion in this book was boring. The author didn't include stupid little phrases to make the reader laugh. He stayed serious with his writing because he probably wanted it to come across as a formal piece. It was also not very entertaining because it was just a lot of facts that were important to Bacon's Rebellion but not interesting to read about with no real emotion present in the writing.
Logos: This document gives support to how William Berkeley was a better man than Nathanial Bacon. It gives a lot of details and facts that prove that Berkeley wasn't the villain to the colonists and really in the end he helped Virginia.
Bacon's Rebellion Essay: Final Draft
In history, heroes are most commonly considered the protagonists of stories, while the villains and enemies are the antagonists. But in some stories this is not the case. Take for example, Adolf Hitler. He was probably the worst villain of all time and in the story of the Holocaust, he appears to be the protagonists because everyone was more concerned about him that the people that were trying to stop the Holocaust. He was the one person that everyone kept their eye on and wanted exterminated. Also, in the Spider-man trilogy, Peter Parker, Spider-man, starts out as the courageous hero of New York City in the first two movies. But in the third and final movie, he becomes a villainous snake to the community. Sometimes the expected hero in the beginning of a story doesn’t turn out to be the hero in the end. This is also true in the case of Bacon’s rebellion. The people thought Nathanial Bacon would be the hero that would help them defend themselves and take their land back from the Natives, but he was truly evil and was only interested in helping them to take their land for himself. So in the case of Bacon’s Rebellion, the villain got more attention than the hero like Hitler did during the Holocaust, thus making Bacon the villain and the main character or protagonist. Berkeley on the other hand was in the right and was still placed as the antagonist. In the classic interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion people considered Nathanial Bacon to be the hero, but truly, Berkeley was the hero throughout Bacon’s Rebellion while Bacon was the rebel villain of Virginia.
Sir William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia in 1676. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes did not really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by the new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but did not decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were there first so they deserved the land over the colonists. Or he may have just thought nothing could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small period of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and do something to try and help the poorer colonists that would not be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they could not invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So Bacon, being the law-breaking citizen that he was, decided to start a rebellion. “He gathered his militia [of poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley] and began raiding the Indians [to attempt to get their land back]” (Zinn, p. 38). From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Native, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not obey the laws. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and did not care what others thought of him.
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to be sent to the New World to help him and his people defend themselves against the Natives and one of their own people, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand, could not handle being unsuccessful. No matter what the situation, he found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he could not succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans so that they would stop stealing land from the colonists. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them with their problems like getting their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to, but they were incredibly wrong. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for himself would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. He never truly cared about helping the poor colonists get their land back and improve the way they lived their lives. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be, therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Nathanial Bacon’s decision to use violent methods to solve his problems in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students at PSEC. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon did not have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government would not grant him the commission he asked for. There were many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished without having to create unnecessary violence. One way would have been to go to the government and propose an amendment to the laws. This would not guarantee the results Bacon was hoping for, but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of innocent colonists and Natives being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would have been to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some sort of agreement so that the Natives would not kill innocent colonists and the colonists would not lose any of their land that they had worked so hard to receive in the first place. It may have been a struggle because they did not speak the same languages but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to communicate his ideas across to the Natives without having to use violence. But of course Bacon went with the violent method and sent “his men [to] surround the statehouse, and threaten to shoot several on looking Burgesses if Bacon was not given his commission [and soon after the violent raid] Berkeley gave in to Bacon's demands for campaigns against the Indians without government interference” (Bacon’s Rebellion, globalsecurity.org).
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just did not listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the government decisions that were made, does not mean he had to start a violent rebellion that caused multiple deaths among the colonists and Natives. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserved to “[fall] sick and [die] at the age of twenty-nine” (Zinn, p.38). Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall resulted in a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was a completely unnecessary event that only happened because one selfish colonist had to have what he wanted. This colonist was Nathanial Bacon. He was one of the first colonists to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and did not really care who he hurt as long as the result benefited him. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful and happy in life. He thought he was better and smarter than all others but really “[was] a person of little experience and but of two years [residence] in the country, thinking himself wiser than the law” (document #15). Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. Berkeley was “a good and just man” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and the right man for the job of Governor of Virginia. “Bacon’s Rebellion was the most troublesome incident Berkeley ever faced” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and he handled it with his knowledge and dignity. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and brought them back into the light as a prosperous colony.
Works Cited:
-"A Young People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn
-44 documents provided in class
-"A Note on Historical Interpretation" (Washburn's book) by Leon J. Goldstein
-"Bacon's Rebellion" http://www.globalsecurity.org/
-"Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of colonial Virginia" by Warren M. Billings
Sir William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia in 1676. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes did not really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by the new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but did not decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were there first so they deserved the land over the colonists. Or he may have just thought nothing could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small period of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and do something to try and help the poorer colonists that would not be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they could not invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So Bacon, being the law-breaking citizen that he was, decided to start a rebellion. “He gathered his militia [of poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley] and began raiding the Indians [to attempt to get their land back]” (Zinn, p. 38). From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Native, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not obey the laws. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and did not care what others thought of him.
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to be sent to the New World to help him and his people defend themselves against the Natives and one of their own people, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand, could not handle being unsuccessful. No matter what the situation, he found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he could not succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans so that they would stop stealing land from the colonists. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them with their problems like getting their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to, but they were incredibly wrong. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for himself would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. He never truly cared about helping the poor colonists get their land back and improve the way they lived their lives. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be, therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Nathanial Bacon’s decision to use violent methods to solve his problems in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students at PSEC. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon did not have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government would not grant him the commission he asked for. There were many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished without having to create unnecessary violence. One way would have been to go to the government and propose an amendment to the laws. This would not guarantee the results Bacon was hoping for, but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of innocent colonists and Natives being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would have been to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some sort of agreement so that the Natives would not kill innocent colonists and the colonists would not lose any of their land that they had worked so hard to receive in the first place. It may have been a struggle because they did not speak the same languages but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to communicate his ideas across to the Natives without having to use violence. But of course Bacon went with the violent method and sent “his men [to] surround the statehouse, and threaten to shoot several on looking Burgesses if Bacon was not given his commission [and soon after the violent raid] Berkeley gave in to Bacon's demands for campaigns against the Indians without government interference” (Bacon’s Rebellion, globalsecurity.org).
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just did not listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the government decisions that were made, does not mean he had to start a violent rebellion that caused multiple deaths among the colonists and Natives. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserved to “[fall] sick and [die] at the age of twenty-nine” (Zinn, p.38). Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall resulted in a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was a completely unnecessary event that only happened because one selfish colonist had to have what he wanted. This colonist was Nathanial Bacon. He was one of the first colonists to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and did not really care who he hurt as long as the result benefited him. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful and happy in life. He thought he was better and smarter than all others but really “[was] a person of little experience and but of two years [residence] in the country, thinking himself wiser than the law” (document #15). Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. Berkeley was “a good and just man” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and the right man for the job of Governor of Virginia. “Bacon’s Rebellion was the most troublesome incident Berkeley ever faced” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and he handled it with his knowledge and dignity. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and brought them back into the light as a prosperous colony.
Works Cited:
-"A Young People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn
-44 documents provided in class
-"A Note on Historical Interpretation" (Washburn's book) by Leon J. Goldstein
-"Bacon's Rebellion" http://www.globalsecurity.org/
-"Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of colonial Virginia" by Warren M. Billings
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
essay rough draft #3
The events of Bacon’s Rebellion have led many people to have different views and opinions on what really happened. For example, some may think one thing while others think the complete opposite. One issue that many people are biased over is the decision to name Bacon the hero or if Berkeley should be called the hero. More often people lean towards Bacon as the hero. But Bacon did so many things to disrupt the colony of Virginia that he does not really fit the title of a ‘hero’. Berkeley however, did everything he could to keep the colony under control and with that, Berkeley was the hero throughout Bacon's Rebellion while Bacon was the rebel villain of Virginia.
Sir William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia in 1676. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes did not really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by these new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but did not decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were here first so they deserved the land over the colonists or he just did not think anything could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small period of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and did something to try and help the poorer colonists that would not be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they could not invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So, Bacon being the law-breaking citizen that he was decided to start a rebellion. “He gathered his militia [of poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley] and began raiding the Indians [to attempt to get their land back]” (Zinn, p. 38). From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Natives, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not obey the laws. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and did not care what others thought of him.
This in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students at PSEC. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon did not have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government would not grant him the commission he asked for. There were many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished without having to create unnecessary violence. One way would have been to go to the government and propose an amendment to the laws. This would not guarantee the results Bacon was hoping for but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of innocent colonists and Natives being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would have been to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some sort of agreement so that the Natives would not kill innocent colonists and the colonists would not lose any of their land that they had worked so hard to receive in the first place. It may have been a struggle because they did not speak the same languages but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to communicate his ideas across to the Natives without having to use violence. But of course Bacon went with the violent method and sent “his men [to] surround the statehouse, and threaten to shoot several on looking Burgesses if Bacon was not given his commission [and soon after the violent raid] Berkeley gave in to Bacon's demands for campaigns against the Indians without government interference” (Bacon’s Rebellion, globalsecurity.org).
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to help him and his people defend themselves against the Natives and one of their own people, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand could not handle being unsuccessful. No matter the situation, he found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he could not succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans so that they would stop stealing land from the colonists. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them with their problems and get their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to, but they were incredibly wrong. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for himself would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. He never truly cared about helping the poor colonists get their land back and improve the way they lived their lives. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be, therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just did not listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the governmental decisions that were made, does not mean he had to start a violent rebellion that caused multiple deaths among the colonists and the Natives. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserved to “[fall] sick and [die] at the age of twenty-nine” (Zinn, p.38). Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall was a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event caused by the people being upset by the government. Nathanial Bacon was one of the first to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and did not really care who he hurt. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful. He thought he was better and smarter than all others and but really “[was] a person of little experience and but of two years [residence] in the country, thinking himself wiser than the law” (document #15). Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. Berkeley was “a good and just man” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and the right man for the job of Governor of Virginia. “Bacon’s Rebellion was the most troublesome incident Berkeley ever faced” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and he handled it with his knowledge and dignity. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and brought them back into the light as a prosperous colony.
Sir William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia in 1676. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes did not really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by these new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but did not decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were here first so they deserved the land over the colonists or he just did not think anything could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small period of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and did something to try and help the poorer colonists that would not be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they could not invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So, Bacon being the law-breaking citizen that he was decided to start a rebellion. “He gathered his militia [of poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley] and began raiding the Indians [to attempt to get their land back]” (Zinn, p. 38). From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Natives, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not obey the laws. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and did not care what others thought of him.
This in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students at PSEC. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon did not have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government would not grant him the commission he asked for. There were many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished without having to create unnecessary violence. One way would have been to go to the government and propose an amendment to the laws. This would not guarantee the results Bacon was hoping for but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of innocent colonists and Natives being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would have been to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some sort of agreement so that the Natives would not kill innocent colonists and the colonists would not lose any of their land that they had worked so hard to receive in the first place. It may have been a struggle because they did not speak the same languages but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to communicate his ideas across to the Natives without having to use violence. But of course Bacon went with the violent method and sent “his men [to] surround the statehouse, and threaten to shoot several on looking Burgesses if Bacon was not given his commission [and soon after the violent raid] Berkeley gave in to Bacon's demands for campaigns against the Indians without government interference” (Bacon’s Rebellion, globalsecurity.org).
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to help him and his people defend themselves against the Natives and one of their own people, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand could not handle being unsuccessful. No matter the situation, he found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he could not succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans so that they would stop stealing land from the colonists. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them with their problems and get their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to, but they were incredibly wrong. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for himself would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. He never truly cared about helping the poor colonists get their land back and improve the way they lived their lives. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be, therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just did not listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the governmental decisions that were made, does not mean he had to start a violent rebellion that caused multiple deaths among the colonists and the Natives. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserved to “[fall] sick and [die] at the age of twenty-nine” (Zinn, p.38). Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall was a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event caused by the people being upset by the government. Nathanial Bacon was one of the first to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and did not really care who he hurt. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful. He thought he was better and smarter than all others and but really “[was] a person of little experience and but of two years [residence] in the country, thinking himself wiser than the law” (document #15). Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. Berkeley was “a good and just man” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and the right man for the job of Governor of Virginia. “Bacon’s Rebellion was the most troublesome incident Berkeley ever faced” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and he handled it with his knowledge and dignity. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and brought them back into the light as a prosperous colony.
Monday, October 20, 2008
essay rough draft # 2
The events of Bacon’s Rebellion have led many people to have different views and opinions on what really happened. Some may think one thing while others think the complete opposite. One issue that many people are biased about is the decisions to name Bacon the hero or if Berkeley should be called the hero. More often people lean towards Bacon as the hero. But Bacon did so many things to disrupt the colony of Virginia that he doesn’t really fit the title of ‘hero’. Berkeley however, did everything he could to keep the colony under control and with that, Berkeley was the hero throughout Bacon's Rebellion while Bacon was the rebel villain of Virginia.
William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes didn't really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by these new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but didn’t decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were here first so they deserved the land over the colonists or he just didn’t think anything could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small amount of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and did something to try and help the poorer colonists that wouldn't be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they couldn’t invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So, Bacon being the law-breaking citizen that he was decided to start a rebellion. He recruited all of those poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley and started an army of colonists. From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Natives, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not obey the laws. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and didn’t care what others thought of him.
This in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students at PSEC. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon didn’t have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government wouldn’t grant him the commission he asked. There are many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished. One way would have been to go to the government and propose an amendment to the law. This wouldn’t guarantee the result Bacon was hoping for but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of innocent people being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would be to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some agreement so that the Natives wouldn’t kill innocent colonists and the colonists wouldn’t lose any of their land. It may have been a struggle because they didn’t speak the same language but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to get his ideas across to the Natives without violence. But of course Bacon went with the violent method and sent “his men [to] surround the statehouse, and threaten to shoot several on looking Burgesses if Bacon was not given his commission [and soon after the violent raid] Berkeley gave in to Bacon's demands for campaigns against the Indians without government interference” (Bacon’s Rebellion, globalsecurity.org).
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to help him and his people through the rebellion, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand couldn't handle being unsuccessful. He found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he couldn't succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them get their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for him would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be and therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just didn’t listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the governmental decisions that were made, doesn't mean he had to start a rebellion. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserves what he got. Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall was a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event caused by the people being upset by the government. Nathanial Bacon was one of the first to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and didn’t really care who he hurt. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful. Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. Berkeley was “a good and just man” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and the right man for the job of Governor of Virginia. “Bacon’s Rebellion was the most troublesome incident Berkeley ever faced” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and he handled it with dignity. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and came out to become once again a prosperous colony.
William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes didn't really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by these new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but didn’t decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were here first so they deserved the land over the colonists or he just didn’t think anything could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small amount of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and did something to try and help the poorer colonists that wouldn't be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they couldn’t invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So, Bacon being the law-breaking citizen that he was decided to start a rebellion. He recruited all of those poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley and started an army of colonists. From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Natives, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not obey the laws. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and didn’t care what others thought of him.
This in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students at PSEC. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon didn’t have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government wouldn’t grant him the commission he asked. There are many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished. One way would have been to go to the government and propose an amendment to the law. This wouldn’t guarantee the result Bacon was hoping for but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of innocent people being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would be to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some agreement so that the Natives wouldn’t kill innocent colonists and the colonists wouldn’t lose any of their land. It may have been a struggle because they didn’t speak the same language but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to get his ideas across to the Natives without violence. But of course Bacon went with the violent method and sent “his men [to] surround the statehouse, and threaten to shoot several on looking Burgesses if Bacon was not given his commission [and soon after the violent raid] Berkeley gave in to Bacon's demands for campaigns against the Indians without government interference” (Bacon’s Rebellion, globalsecurity.org).
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to help him and his people through the rebellion, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand couldn't handle being unsuccessful. He found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he couldn't succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them get their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for him would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be and therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just didn’t listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the governmental decisions that were made, doesn't mean he had to start a rebellion. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserves what he got. Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall was a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event caused by the people being upset by the government. Nathanial Bacon was one of the first to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and didn’t really care who he hurt. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful. Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. Berkeley was “a good and just man” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and the right man for the job of Governor of Virginia. “Bacon’s Rebellion was the most troublesome incident Berkeley ever faced” (Sir William Berkeley and the forging of colonial Virginia, Warren M. Billings) and he handled it with dignity. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and came out to become once again a prosperous colony.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
essay rough draft
The events of Bacon’s Rebellion have led many people to have different views and opinions on what really happened. Some may think one thing while others think the complete opposite. One issue that many people are biased about is the decisions to name Bacon the hero or if Berkeley should be called the hero. More people lean towards Bacon as the hero but, Berkeley was the hero throughout Bacon's Rebellion while Bacon was the rebel villain of Virginia.
William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes didn't really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by these new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but didn’t decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were here first so they deserved the land over the colonists or he just didn’t think anything could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small amount of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and did something to try and help the poorer colonists that wouldn't be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they couldn’t invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So, Bacon being the law-breaking citizen that he was decided to start a rebellion. He recruited all of those poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley and started an army of colonists. From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Natives, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not have to obey them. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and didn’t care what others thought of him.
This in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon didn’t have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government wouldn’t grant him the commission he asked for one time. There are many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished. One way would be to go to the government and propose an amendment to the law. This wouldn’t guarantee the result Bacon was hoping for but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of people being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would be to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some agreement so that the Natives wouldn’t kill innocent colonists and the colonists wouldn’t lose any of their land. It may have been a struggle because they didn’t speak the same language but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to get his ideas across to the Natives without violence.
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to help him and his people through the rebellion, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand couldn't handle being unsuccessful. He found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he couldn't succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them get their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for him would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be and therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just didn’t listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the governmental decisions that were made, doesn't mean he had to start a rebellion. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserves what he got.
Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall was a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event caused by the people being upset by the government. Nathanial Bacon was one of the first to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and didn’t really care who he hurt. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful. Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and came out to become once again a prospering colony.
William Berkeley was the governor of the colony of Virginia. He was sent to the New World by the King of England to make sure the colonists stayed in line and under control of the King. Berkeley enforced many laws that were unknown to the colonists before Berkeley arrived. The middle and upper classes didn't really have a problem with his new laws but the lower class and poor farmers were seriously disturbed by these new rules that the governor had put in place. The governor was aware that the Natives were invading and taking land from the colonists but didn’t decide to do anything about it. This may have been because he figured that the Natives were here first so they deserved the land over the colonists or he just didn’t think anything could be done about it because the Natives were savage beings that could probably overtake their entire town in a small amount of time. One middle class citizen of Virginia was strongly against the government and their new plan for the colony, his name was Nathanial Bacon. Bacon decided to step up to the job and did something to try and help the poorer colonists that wouldn't be able to survive the Native invasions and the new laws that Berkeley had put into action that stated that they couldn’t invade the Native lands. He was a rebel and truly hated the governmental system. He went against everything that was supposed to be solid law in Virginia. So, Bacon being the law-breaking citizen that he was decided to start a rebellion. He recruited all of those poor colonists who disagreed with Berkeley and started an army of colonists. From that point on Bacon was considered a “traitor” and a “rebel”.
First, Bacon asked the government to provide him commission to help aid his army against the Natives, but Berkeley would not agree to help him get rid of the Native Americans because he was a governor that stuck to his oath to keep the colonists under his control. This showed great leadership skills and the ability to do what seemed wrong at the time, but what was truly right in the end. Since Berkeley would not supply Bacon with commission, Bacon demanded "forced commission [which] was delivered to [him]" (document #29) with no questions asked after he had decide to raid the town and burn down multiple buildings and homes. He was very rude and forceful with his demands and didn't stop until he got what he wanted. Many colonists and people involved in the government considered Bacon to be a traitor because he went against the laws that were enforced by the government and he was doing everything he could to not have to obey them. Bacon was arrested for his foul behavior and failure to abide by the laws. Bacon was a proud rebel and didn’t care what others thought of him.
This in a way connects to the Arts of Democracy class that is taught to students. Basically, violence is not always the answer. Bacon didn’t have to resort to starting a rebellion right after the government wouldn’t grant him the commission he asked for one time. There are many other ways Bacon could have gone about getting what he wanted accomplished. One way would be to go to the government and propose an amendment to the law. This wouldn’t guarantee the result Bacon was hoping for but it would have saved numerous amounts of innocent bloodshed. This choice may have also elongated the amount of time Bacon would have to wait to get results but still a long period of time is better than a large amount of people being killed. Another way Bacon could have gone about this issue would be to try to create a negotiation with the Natives. They could have come to some agreement so that the Natives wouldn’t kill innocent colonists and the colonists wouldn’t lose any of their land. It may have been a struggle because they didn’t speak the same language but it would have been worth it in the end if Bacon could have figured out some way to get his ideas across to the Natives without violence.
Berkeley made the right choice when he "sent [a letter] to the King for two thousand Redcoats" (document #39). He may have thought it shameful to have to write to the King for back-up soldiers to help him and his people through the rebellion, but it was in his best interest to save the colony and defeat Bacon. Bacon on the other hand couldn't handle being unsuccessful. He found some way to blame his failures on others. He even tried to blame God for his wrong-doings. He said "God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty days he never washed his shirts but burned them" (document #44). It was not God's fault that he couldn't succeed with his 'brilliant' plans to get rid of the Native Americans. He should not have been such a coward, and should have taken the blame for his actions. Many colonists thought that they had “found a leader in Nathanial Bacon” (Zinn, p. 37) and that he was there to help them prevent the Natives from taking more of their land but really he was just "interested in destroying the Indians so he could claim their land [for himself]" (Washburn's book, p. 105). The colonists could not see through Bacon’s act of lies because he seemed sincere and willing to help them get their land back. They just thought he was a man who was willing to help others live their lives the way they wanted to. Bacon was selfish and immature. Helping the colonists get their land back and then taking it from them for him would be like ‘stabbing them in the back’ just to get what he wanted. With this, it is clear that Bacon was not who he displayed himself to be and therefore making him a villain to the colonists.
Bacon was without a doubt the villain in this historical happening. He was a traitor to his own followers and he went against everything the government had put into action. He did everything he was told not to do and just didn’t listen to anyone but his own conscience. Just because he was upset with the governmental decisions that were made, doesn't mean he had to start a rebellion. There were many other ways he could have gotten his opinions out in the open. He could have gone directly to the governor or someone close to him and asked to make some revisions to the laws and they may have taken them into consideration. But, starting a rebellion without trying another method of changing things was just plain stupid. Nathanial Bacon was a failure and deserves what he got.
Berkeley was the clear and obvious hero of this event. He helped the Indians keep their land, he got rid of the violent Nathanial Bacon, and he kept the colony under control. He was a skilled man and knew what he was doing. He was willing to admit he needed help and called in back-up soldiers himself. Honestly, Berkeley seemed like a very genuine man who only had the peoples' best interest in mind. Even though the poorer people may have suffered more because of his decisions as governor, the colony overall was a better community.
Bacon’s Rebellion was an event caused by the people being upset by the government. Nathanial Bacon was one of the first to go against the Virginian government. He caused a monumental amount of trouble for Virginians and didn’t really care who he hurt. Bacon only did the things he did to help himself become more successful. Governor Berkeley was the hero that stepped up and saved the colony of Virginia. He did what he had to and kept his people safe through a dark time and came out to become once again a prospering colony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
