The Declaration of Independence

1.    What is the author arguing?

The authors of the declarations of independence weren’t so much as debating as they were writing a revolutionary statement and the reason behind the statement. The declaration of independence was written to declare the separation from Great Britain. Up until now King George the III was the “tyrant” ruling the American Colonies and according to the authors, he wasn’t a good leader. In the D.O.I (Declaration of Independence), the author lists 27 specific abuses committed by King George III which can be summarized into three basic parts. The first twelve dealt with King Georg III’s dictatorship like rule over the colony because he wouldn’t let them rule themselves but at the same time, he didn’t care about them at all to make laws that would help the people. He did this by hand picking the governors of the colonies, and by presenting a strong military presence in every colony. The next nine talk about how parliament (the British government) was backing up the King in knocking the colonies to the ground and not letting them self rule. The parliament made the colonist pay high taxes, they wouldn’t let them trade with any country therefore making money was nearly impossible. This also made it easier for the government to make things more expensive for the colonist. The last five abuses were about the king’s neglect of the colony. What the king would do is send in his troops to attack the colonist for the simplest of reasons, burn there towns, sink their ships and kill there people. Not only did he do it with his milta, he also would hire foreign private armies to attack the colonist. He would kidnap the colonies young men and would force them into his army which he would later use to attack their own homes. To add to the list, he also refused to help the colonist fight the Indians off. He treated them like a dog he hated but wished to keep on a short leash

(The colonists wanted to separate from Great Britain but were afraid because if they lost the war then they would be in even more trouble but realized they were already in deep waters so they might as well just go for it.)

2.    How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

Logos:  This piece of writing was not a rant or a vent on how the colonist felt. It wasn’t them being rebellions or ignorant. They strongly believed that they were being treated unfairly and they had a list of facts to back it up. The DOI begins with

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to break up the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal position to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a polite respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

You see here that they come right out and clearly state the purpose of the writing. To separate from Great Britain. The reason shortly follows: “All men are created equal… with certain unalieble rights.” This is probably the most notorious line in American writing. Many people think they were talking about races or religion. They were actually talking about their equality to Great Britain and how they believed that they had the same exact right as any other country to self govern and trade with anyone as they saw fit. They also stated that it isn’t right to separate for just any reason but after quite a few abuses it becomes necessary.

This is proof that they colonist were think logically. They were thinking about what would be better for them and there children’s future

Ethos: The emotion comes from the anger they feel toward the king’s neglect and ruthlessness toward them. They were from Great Britain but treated like out castes. You can especially hear the emotions in this particular paragraph

“We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.”

Pathos: the writers see only one way out of their misery: “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.” The character that the author plays can be compared to a flag. A flag is a representation of a unit, of a team. It is suppose to symbolize what that team stands for. These bent-out-of-shape and abused people decided to raise up a flag before themselves and call themselves free people

3.    What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

This is the founding grounds of our great nation. It like the base of a new home that was just laid, everything else that we’ve done these past centuries was laid on this document/base. The declaration of independence is more than just “we-are-free-people” speech. It is the standards of a new country that was being born.

4.    Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

After reading the list of abusive, I thought it was more than just convincing. I felt like I was looking through the eyes of the people themselves. How would I feel if my son was kidnapped by the man I call king? Not only is he kidnapped, but he will be ordered to burn out neighboring colony. Things were very personal for these people. They needed a back brace to help them grow and they got one with spikes: one that would only say it was there to help them but would actually hurt them. I also appreciated the very logical argument. It seemed very cool headed, calm, composed and well thought out. I feel like they observed and studied every angle before putting this together.

Give me Liberty or give me Death

1.    What is the author arguing?

The author is attempting to persuade the House to fight the British off in order to claim complete independence from England. At the time England had their armies and navy watching over the colonist to make sure they follow and live by the standards set up by England. The author states that there will never be a better time to fight than now because if they wait any longer there will be guards “stationed at every home.” The author believes that they will never have the freedom they are hungry for until they drive the British out of America

2.    How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

Henrys logic was that if they didn’t win their freedom now they would never get it. He believed that if they waited any longer to try to obtain it, it will be too late. However, Henry was much more skilled at using emotions to prove his point than logic. For example, in the very first paragraph he states,

“Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. [Rm1] “

He uses such passionate expressions, saying should I keep silent when my country needs me most. I cheat it in its most desperate time. I dishonor my country and God by holding back. You can almost feel his passion and desire for freedom throughout the whole speech.

Henry was a lawyer and was known for being a great speaker. Also historians say that he was being extremely polite while giving this speech always addressing the president as sir and the members of the house as gentlemen. I can only imagine what kind of effect this had on the members. He was passionate but never overstepping his bounds and doing all this with all the respect he could give

3.    What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

Henry’s speech convinced the members of the house that the best move was to fight and so they did. If it wasn’t for Henrys encouraging and impassioning words, it could be very possible that the USA wouldn’t be as it is today if it would ever be the USA.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

Yes and no. no because the written speech said little about the pros and cons of fighting. It was a one sided argument. Yes because I understand that this isn’t the actual speech. This document was put together after the death of Patrick by a journalist who pieced it together by talking to various member of the House that heard the speech. I also understand that maybe the pros and cons were discussed just they weren’t written down in this document or are found elsewhere. Other than that he had a convincing argument mainly because I felt his passion through his word choice. There were times were I could imagine how his blood boiled at the thought of his freedom being just inches out of his reach. I am most impressed at the respect he showed. Though his words were sharp and piercing, I can imagine him saying it in a very calm fashion, assuring the audience through the peace and passion expressed through his words that this was truly there last option

---

 [Rm1]I love our heart after freedom and im gunna give my opinion right now, respectfully because if I stay scilent now, I would be betraying my country. We don’t have much time to waste, we need to defend our country n honor God

How Long Did the Seven Years' War Last in Indian Country?

1. How was the relationship between the British and American colonists during the war?

-  Though they went back and forth a lot, they still had mutual respect for each other. They handled situations especially when I came down to dealing with the natives. There was an incident where a colony in Pennsylvania wanted to attack natives. The British told them not to but they still did it and went away unpunished. This shows that though there was tension, they still had mutual respect. Though they didn’t like each other, they would rather fight for each other than against each other.


2. Explain the tension between the British and Americans, on one side, and Indians, on the other side. For what reasons were these three groups--the British, the colonists, and Indians--fighting? Why did more Indian tribes side with the French than with the British?
- Between the natives and colonist: the Indians were there before the colonist and the Indians believed that they had full rights to the land. Also the natives saw gift giving as a sign of dominance while the colonist saw it a submission. That led to a lot of miss communication. The French however understood that. The French better communicated with the natives

3. How did Indians, led by Pontiac, justify their "rebellion” against British forces and forts?
- The natives didn’t feel respected by the colonist and thought that they should be punished for that. Also the natives were upset that their land. The land that was handed down from their ancestors was being stolen. This would have been fine if there was a treaty or respect (gifts) but there was none, this enraged the Indians and started the rebellion

4. What were the outcomes of the Seven Years’ War and how was that result important to British colonists and Indians?

-  At the end, the new British leader befriended with the natives and they got on the same page, together they ganged up for the revolutionary war.

Newspapers: "The Spring of Knowledge"

1.     Why would the governor want the colonial’s newspaper copy submitted for “official approval” and what did the colonists gain by not yielding to that demand?

-       The government wanted to be able to filter what the people were getting. They can in a way control how they are thinking. For example, if a child is told since the day he is born the trees are bad and they are haunted and he gets bad information about them every day, chances are that we won’t like trees and wont come near them because his environment instilled into him the that thought. That is what the government was doing, making sure the colonist were only thinking what they wanted them to think

2.Why was the New England Courant paper successful even though it turned its nose up at the religious and government institutions that the majority of the people followed?

- It was entertaining, it had comic, real life stories and fairy tales, news and tragic events while the government paper never let out that kind of information. People felt like they were in control of what they read and because it was so different and it had so much more in it, they felt like they were getting the truth out everything

3.List some of influences these news papers or printings had on the population?

- it informed people of what was coming up and what was going on

- brought people together

- helped them sell and trade

4. How did what James Franklin do by starting another paper help what is published in the news now?

- He made the newspaper a form of entertainment instead of a dreary update on political events! It had emotions in it. It touched on what people really wanted to know about.

Why Were Some New Englanders Accused of Being Witches?

1. What percentage of individuals accused of witchcraft were women? Men? Is there significance to this?

- about 80% of the victims were witches, most of which were over 40 and couldn’t have children anymore, the 20% victims that were men were usually related in some way to the accused witch. The significant in this is that the women were more likely to be accused for mainly two reasons. Women were thought to be weaker than meant mentally as well as physically and could easily be swayed by the devil. Also the men would accuse the women who did something that they didn’t like. Most of the people who were accused were people who stood out, who didn’t stick to the status quote. People who spoke there mind and were bold.

2. Is it significant that Puritans accused neighbors, not strangers, of witchcraft?

- yes because people just wanted to get rid of the people they didn’t like, rubbed them wrong or had something they wanted. Often times, people with money or land were accused because then there property would be divided amongst the people by the sheriff.

3. Do you think people would have still accused each other of witchcraft if the Puritan religion wasn’t so embedded in everyone’s lives?

- I personally think that yes people would still accuse each other of witch craft because the colonist just came from England and in England, witch craft was very real and very very feared by all. The puritans were trying to build a utopia with no blemish like the ones they saw in England and when they found “witches”, they were very afraid because they didn’t want it to effect their community. If they weren’t puritans, something like this could still have happened. If they were catholic, it could have been worse. Maybe if there was no overly zealous religion, that massacre wouldn’t have happened but accusation would always be there

4. Why did Puritans find it necessary to burn alleged witches at the stake? What was the symbolism of this?

- they believed they were sending the witches back to Satan through the fire because they believed that Satan was burning in hell

Why Did English Colonists Consider Themselves Superior to Indians and Africans?

1)    How did the English colonist get the idea of colored people being cursed by God, and how did many colonist believe that it is the right thing to say and believe in?

Back then, people believed that that the color white stood for purity and grace and goodness. It meant righteous, so it would be logical for them to think that darker skinned people are evil and bad. That’s why they were slaved to white people and that’s why they had to work so hard in the sun.

2)    How did the English colonists handle the act of another colonist fornicating with an African?

They created a law in 1622 that said if u fornicates with a African then you had to pay a double fine. Which is kind of funny that the punishment was financially based, it’s almost like prostitution. In the north, it probably would be much more looked down upon then it was in the south

3)    How did the English colonists manage to gain both peace and land from the Native Americans?

-       The colonist believed they were superior to the Indians and this gave them the courage to fight, they were not afraid of taking what was “rightfully theirs”. The Indians would usually be killed in a fight or because of a disease which just naturally gave more room for the colonist

4)    Do you think that the fact that English colonist believed they were superior to the Indians gave them courage and strength to fight Indians for more and more land?

-       They thought they were better than the Indians because of their skin color and there God. They believed they were favored by God to take the land because there skin was purer than the Indians so to them the land was like an unopened present, they just had to unwrap it and claim it.

 

 

“…we shall be as a city upon the hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”?

1.     What was John Winthrop’s intention in using the phrase “…we shall be as a city upon the hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”?

-       People will see the that the collinies are going good and they will see that what they are doing is “godly” and this will give glory to God because of that

2.     What were some goals of John Winthrop and other Puritans in establishing the Massachusetts Bay Colony?

-       They wanted to sepertae from the church of England because they believed it to be very corrupt to the point of no return. They wanted a safe place where they could worship the way they wanted to without the inense persecutions

3.     The Puritans sought only to refresh and rebuild the church, not to create a new religious sect. Were they successful in establishing Church of England doctrine in the new colonies?

-in a way yes because it became sort of a bible belt but they were also different from the church in England. This did make them there own sect

4.     Compare and contrast the New England colonies with the Virginia colonies. What was their motivation? Who comprised their community? How do you think they interacted with the native Americans?

-       The other colonies were after money by growing tobacco. This made them fight with the Indians for recourses. The pilgrams just wanted a peacefull life were they could worship the way they wanted to. Because of this, they say the Indians as friendly neighbors that they could work with and help protect each other

American Tobacco

1.     What do you think would be different about North American colonies and the rest of the world, if tobacco wasn’t as popular as it was/is?

-       It would be completely different because tobacco was the reason that people stick around for. The first few groups of people there were barely surviving, after a while, if there was no real profit made, they would call it quits and turn around. After there were less noble men (who didn’t want to work) and more working men, the northern “new world” began to serve a purpose. If the English men didn’t make use of the land and quit, I think Spain would try to reclaim the land as rightfully theirs and eventually do something useful with it.

2.     If the protestations of the King had been more heeded by the masses and tobacco gone out of fashion, would the English colonies have remained as strong?

-       No because the English colonies had absolutely nothing else to offer other than tobacco. I think the English colonies would eventually have died out because they were so hungry, there were a lot of diseases and Indian attacks.

Why Did Cortez Win?

1. Why were the Mexica’s discouraged from fighting well even though they far outnumbered Cortes’ men?
- because in the beginning they thought they were deities. Cortes tried to keep them thinking that way by hiding their bodies if they died. Also they thought that if something bad happened it was because their god had forsaken/ abandoned them. That made them give up and think that they cant wins.

2. How did the Spaniards and the Mexicas differ in their religious practices during the battle?
- the Mexicas would stop to sacrifice captives during battle to honor their god. Also they thought that if they were loosing it was because their god was no longer with them. The Spaniards were Christian. They believed they needed to conquer all, and they didn’t stop to sacrifice.

3. Why do you think the Mexica held onto their religious beliefs and traditions so tightly, even when it appeared their traditions did not produce the results they wanted and it seemed like their “gods had abandoned them”?
- because everyone worships something no matter what they say they believe. You can worship science, God, the sun, ect. They happened to worship this certain god. Another reason I think they held on to their beliefs is because they grew up with it. Its everything they knew. Everything in there whole lives revolved around that. There belief system answered all there “how” and “why” questions. It explained the nature around them and even in there own hearts. It resolved problems and situations. How can you give that up?

4. Why were the Spanish so adept at conquering greater numbers of native forces?

- they were all rich young Christian men who wanted to get richer and have fame. Their Christianity made them zealous for God. They were doing it for them. They wanted to be honored by nobility and they wanted to reap more rewards than they could carry home with them