Monday, November 2, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
News During the French and Indian War
Newspaper coverage was essential to the unification of the thirteen colonies. The main focus of this intercolonial communication was, of course, the French and Indian War. Newspapers were a way for everyone to know what was going on everywhere, be it in the North or South, East or West. This knowledge of what was going on in the surrounding colonies brought a sense of community that would tie together the people that would soon create the United States of America.
Newspapers provided a common enemy, a common world, and through this, a common nation. The realization that every colony was fighting France and the Native Americans turned into a realization that every colony had some common ground. Through this the colonists were able to see a reason to work together, and eventually they were able to come together into the one nation that we now know as America.
Newspapers provided a common enemy, a common world, and through this, a common nation. The realization that every colony was fighting France and the Native Americans turned into a realization that every colony had some common ground. Through this the colonists were able to see a reason to work together, and eventually they were able to come together into the one nation that we now know as America.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
"Join or Die" Analysis
Benjamin Franklin's famous cartoon "Join or Die" strongly displays his views on the colonies during the French and Indian war. Franklin believed that the colonies stood little chance against the French, as the French had "the very great advantage of being under one Direction, with one Council, and one Purse." Franklin declared that 13 individual and disunited colonies, even with the help of their beloved Britain, stood no chance against a powerful and united mass of French and Indians who were completely capable of coming to common agreements, working together, and following one law. Also, the distance from North America to Europe was a great danger for the colonists; with so far between the two, the French felt that they could break all treaties held by France and Britain, seeing them as canceled out by the distance.Indeed, the distance did add a great danger for the colonists. The French were killing, siezing, and imprisoning British traders, taking their belongings, murdering and scalping farmers, and taking over whatever parts of the British colonies they desired. Franklin's cartoon depicts that disunited, the colonies were incapable of fighting back. Joined together, they could effectively battle to defend their own rights, beliefs, and even lives.
The "Join or Die" cartoon was created by Benjamin Franklin to portray to the colonies the importance of unification. Each colony was represented (Though four colonies were combined into New England, and Delaware and Georgia were completely left out for unknown reasons). At about this time there was a superstition that if a snake was cut up, then the parts put back together before sunset, the snake would come back to life. Franklin wished to portray that the same went for the colonies: if they united before the war ended, they could succeed. If they didn't unite, they would be murdered by the French. This same cartoon was later used during the American Revolution to portray the same message.
Benjamin Franklin also created another political cartoon, this one entitled Magna Britania: Her Colonies Reduc'd.
This cartoon depicts Britain as a young woman, with her limbs cut off and spread out around her. This cartoon was intended to display that if the colonies were destroyed, Britain would be, too.Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The French and Indian War
Previous to the French and Indian War, there was very limited tension between the British and the colonists. Indeed, there was no real difference between the two terms yet; the colonists were British! However, the fact that some level of tension had begun cannot be denied. The British, looking for total profit from the colonies, put a ban on trade with other countries in 1651, called the Naviagation Acts. When in 1684 King Charles realized that as things were the colonies were not going to obey him, he revoked their corporate charter, putting Massachusetts back under the strict control of England. These were the beginnings of the hostilities between the colonies and Britain.
With the war came many new problems for the colonies and England. The most prominant of these newfound issues was the realization on the parts of the colonies that independence from England was not impossible to maintain. As England left them with fewer boundries in order to deal with the War, the colonies were not left desolute. On the contrary, they found themselves joined into something closer to resembling one colony than thirteen. Furthermore, financial disagreements were surfacing. With the war, Britain was in an incredible amount of debt, and wanted the colonies to pay off alot of it as the war had been to protect the colonies. However, the colonies felt that Britain was cheating them, as they had little or no say in any political decisions. This would be a major cause for the upcoming revolution.
If the colonies had not united, it is highly unlikely that they would have won the war against the French. It is immensly difficult to imagine what would have occured had the outcome been different, as I am not certain of France's intentions for the New World. It is highly probable, however, that there would have been much more peace with the Native Americans, and much less forest destroyed. However, eventually the fur trade would not have sufficed and, more likely than not, the eventual outcome would have become the same that it is now, but with some alterations (language etc.). It is honestly impossible for me to judge whether the political position of what is currently known as America would have been the same, or different. It is my guess that not too much would have been changed, as no one not looking for opportunity would have bothered to come to the New World in the first place, and most of this opportunity was in freedom. In short, I can not offer a valid explaination for where America would (in my estimation) be if the outcome of the war had been different.
With the war came many new problems for the colonies and England. The most prominant of these newfound issues was the realization on the parts of the colonies that independence from England was not impossible to maintain. As England left them with fewer boundries in order to deal with the War, the colonies were not left desolute. On the contrary, they found themselves joined into something closer to resembling one colony than thirteen. Furthermore, financial disagreements were surfacing. With the war, Britain was in an incredible amount of debt, and wanted the colonies to pay off alot of it as the war had been to protect the colonies. However, the colonies felt that Britain was cheating them, as they had little or no say in any political decisions. This would be a major cause for the upcoming revolution.
If the colonies had not united, it is highly unlikely that they would have won the war against the French. It is immensly difficult to imagine what would have occured had the outcome been different, as I am not certain of France's intentions for the New World. It is highly probable, however, that there would have been much more peace with the Native Americans, and much less forest destroyed. However, eventually the fur trade would not have sufficed and, more likely than not, the eventual outcome would have become the same that it is now, but with some alterations (language etc.). It is honestly impossible for me to judge whether the political position of what is currently known as America would have been the same, or different. It is my guess that not too much would have been changed, as no one not looking for opportunity would have bothered to come to the New World in the first place, and most of this opportunity was in freedom. In short, I can not offer a valid explaination for where America would (in my estimation) be if the outcome of the war had been different.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Beginning of Slavery
Contrary to what many assume, slavery was not originally based on race. In fact, slavery was a new idea when it began to grow in America; indeed, this developement was far more detailed than we genearlly guess.
The beginning of slavery based on race did not begin with the comoing of Africans to America and the arrival of the Dutch ship that carried them in 1619; it did not really begin with the need for labor when Jamestown realized that selling tobacco could save their colony; it did not even truly begin with indentured servitude. Of course, all of these events made the slavery we shudder to remember possible; but the true beginning was much slower coming.
Especially in the Southern states of America, where the land was perfect for farming, laborers were coming into greater and greater demand. Plantations were going up, and they needed workers to maintain them. So it was that indentured servitude came to America. Anyone of any race could enter a contract of indentured servitude. This included pledging a specified amount of time (often 5-7 years) someone who would then feed, clothe, and provide shelter for them, while the servant would spend these years laboring for their master. At the end of their time they were freed, with some form of reward (land, money, or some other form of opportunity). Indentured servitude was very popular for some time, until people realized that the harsh physical labor was not worth the limited rewards, while meanwhile the demand for workers grew. Then, in the 1640s, things began to change.
At aout this time, two white men and one African man ran away from their servitude. The two white men were sentenced to return to their positions to complete their contract, with another year added to their required time there. The African man, however, was sentenced to a lifetime of servitude. Not only did this bring about the idea of a lifetime servitude (soon to become slavery), but it also began racism. Soon, laws were being changed. Though at one time requirements stated that anyone not Christian could be a slave, it did not take long for the law to change, making it simply anyone not white could be forced into slavery. Of course, this made trials simpler; Africans, being of different color, were easilly identified as slaves. Indeed, many "free" Africans became "slaves" simply because no one would believe they were free!
And so it was that our "free" country turned to a land of indentured servitude which transformed into a world of slavery which reached a climax of slavery based on race.
The beginning of slavery based on race did not begin with the comoing of Africans to America and the arrival of the Dutch ship that carried them in 1619; it did not really begin with the need for labor when Jamestown realized that selling tobacco could save their colony; it did not even truly begin with indentured servitude. Of course, all of these events made the slavery we shudder to remember possible; but the true beginning was much slower coming.
Especially in the Southern states of America, where the land was perfect for farming, laborers were coming into greater and greater demand. Plantations were going up, and they needed workers to maintain them. So it was that indentured servitude came to America. Anyone of any race could enter a contract of indentured servitude. This included pledging a specified amount of time (often 5-7 years) someone who would then feed, clothe, and provide shelter for them, while the servant would spend these years laboring for their master. At the end of their time they were freed, with some form of reward (land, money, or some other form of opportunity). Indentured servitude was very popular for some time, until people realized that the harsh physical labor was not worth the limited rewards, while meanwhile the demand for workers grew. Then, in the 1640s, things began to change.
At aout this time, two white men and one African man ran away from their servitude. The two white men were sentenced to return to their positions to complete their contract, with another year added to their required time there. The African man, however, was sentenced to a lifetime of servitude. Not only did this bring about the idea of a lifetime servitude (soon to become slavery), but it also began racism. Soon, laws were being changed. Though at one time requirements stated that anyone not Christian could be a slave, it did not take long for the law to change, making it simply anyone not white could be forced into slavery. Of course, this made trials simpler; Africans, being of different color, were easilly identified as slaves. Indeed, many "free" Africans became "slaves" simply because no one would believe they were free!
And so it was that our "free" country turned to a land of indentured servitude which transformed into a world of slavery which reached a climax of slavery based on race.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Themes of the Early Colonial Period
Some definite themes of the Early Colonial Period were a mission for equality, a dream of religious freedom, a desire for a Utopian society, and conflict. From the begining of the colonization of the New World, each of these themes was clear, be it through Penn's unique Quakerly quest, or Winthrop's religious reprimands, or the confounding conflicts with the Native Americans, or even the revolutionary religious views. Each of these was a theme throughout this fascinating period of our history.
Equality and religion were major themes from the very beginning of the colonization of the New World. Although the definition of equality at that time was different (slaves and women were not generally included), it was the main purpose of coming to the New World. Within Europe, the People had no say in their own religious beliefs. If they upheld any view that was not the view of the King, they were shunned, and in many circumstances even in real danger of physical harm. In the New World there was a hope of equality, where one's beliefs would not make one more or less worthy of being a part of the society than anyone else. Unfortunately this dream was not fully realized in some societies. For example, Winthrop and the Mass. Bay Colony banished Anne Hutchinson simply because she spoke out against their preachings of salvation by works rather than salvation by grace. However, in other circumstances this quest was, to a certain point, successful. William Penn's image of equality, for example, was mostly successful, although some of his ideas were ahead of his time. He successfully established a civilization where Quakers could live peacefully, and because of his purely good intentions, people of other religions and nationalities also came to Pennsylvania. However, his preachings of freedom for slaves was too far ahead of his time, and thus largely unsuccessful. On the part of religious freedom and equality, it is clear that there were some instances of success and some instances of at least partial failure, during that time at least. Thankfully, with this foundation for our country, we have eventually reached something that is, in general, successful in both respects.
Everyone who came to the New World had hopes for a sort of Utopia. Winthrop held hopes of a "city on a hill", a role model for the rest of the world to follow. Penn visualized a paradise based on Quaker beliefs and peaceful acceptance. The puritans pictured a land where their beliefs were pure and based strictly on the teachings of the Bible. Beyond this, ever colonist had some high hope for a new, ideal life. There are ways that we can still see success; we are still free, we are still equal, and we still have the right to our own religious beliefs. However, in other ways what success there may have been did not last; Winthrop's hopes of a "city on a hill" stand true in that the rest of the world still notices us; however, we are not the perfect colony that he had intended. There is still a religious freedom, but no one expected this freedom to be used by some to eliminate religion entirely. As for the land of opportunity that America once was, this opportunity is deteriorating, though it undoubtedly still shines through in less obvious ways. Judgement of a success or a failure on this count can not truly be judged, as different expectations lead to different conclusions. However, it is my guess that few would call our world today a "Utopia".
Finally, conflict was an immense part of the early colonies, mostly between the Native Americans and the colonists. Although Penn's colony went 50 years before any considerable conflict with the Natives, this was unusual. Penn made a specific point of observing others' mistakes, and learning from them. He sent word ahead to the Indians before even coming to America, sending a message of peace and camaraderie. He specifically set down rules that would protect the rights of the Indians, and prevent any conflict. Other colonists were not so intelligent. A fear of the Natives led to an incomparable imagination. As is demonstrated not only through their treatment of the Natives but also through literature of the time, colonists visualized violent kidnappings and horrific torture. The natives were an unknown, and thus something to fear. Because of this fear and this rapid imagination, there was little or no peace between the Indians and the colonists. Fear led to defensiveness, and defensiveness led to battles, wars, and deaths. This is perhaps the most regrettable aspect of our ancestors' actions.
Overall, America can not be labled as a success or a failure. We have our virtues, but we also have our faults. It is important for us to see both sides of our country; if we blind ourselves to our faults we will never improve, but if we ignore our strengths we will feel purpose in defending what we do have. Love has been defined as knowing someone's faults but caring deeply for them anyway; this is what we must feel for our country. A loyalty for what we have is what can unite us, and what can bring us to improvement; a knowledge of what we can improve will make this unity worthwhile. So honestly, who can say if America has been a success or a failure? We're still finding out.
The use of twitter during history class is, beyond a doubt, one of the best methods of reflection and review in the learning process that I have ever encountered. By posing a question that would require some level of thought and provide for a lively discussion, all students were able to come up with a unique answer, as well as to comment on the observations of their peers. Unlike a verbal discussion, everyone got the chance to have their say on ever aspect mentioned without being interrupted, stopped, or distracted. It was certainly the best method of reflecting that I have ever encountered.
Equality and religion were major themes from the very beginning of the colonization of the New World. Although the definition of equality at that time was different (slaves and women were not generally included), it was the main purpose of coming to the New World. Within Europe, the People had no say in their own religious beliefs. If they upheld any view that was not the view of the King, they were shunned, and in many circumstances even in real danger of physical harm. In the New World there was a hope of equality, where one's beliefs would not make one more or less worthy of being a part of the society than anyone else. Unfortunately this dream was not fully realized in some societies. For example, Winthrop and the Mass. Bay Colony banished Anne Hutchinson simply because she spoke out against their preachings of salvation by works rather than salvation by grace. However, in other circumstances this quest was, to a certain point, successful. William Penn's image of equality, for example, was mostly successful, although some of his ideas were ahead of his time. He successfully established a civilization where Quakers could live peacefully, and because of his purely good intentions, people of other religions and nationalities also came to Pennsylvania. However, his preachings of freedom for slaves was too far ahead of his time, and thus largely unsuccessful. On the part of religious freedom and equality, it is clear that there were some instances of success and some instances of at least partial failure, during that time at least. Thankfully, with this foundation for our country, we have eventually reached something that is, in general, successful in both respects.
Everyone who came to the New World had hopes for a sort of Utopia. Winthrop held hopes of a "city on a hill", a role model for the rest of the world to follow. Penn visualized a paradise based on Quaker beliefs and peaceful acceptance. The puritans pictured a land where their beliefs were pure and based strictly on the teachings of the Bible. Beyond this, ever colonist had some high hope for a new, ideal life. There are ways that we can still see success; we are still free, we are still equal, and we still have the right to our own religious beliefs. However, in other ways what success there may have been did not last; Winthrop's hopes of a "city on a hill" stand true in that the rest of the world still notices us; however, we are not the perfect colony that he had intended. There is still a religious freedom, but no one expected this freedom to be used by some to eliminate religion entirely. As for the land of opportunity that America once was, this opportunity is deteriorating, though it undoubtedly still shines through in less obvious ways. Judgement of a success or a failure on this count can not truly be judged, as different expectations lead to different conclusions. However, it is my guess that few would call our world today a "Utopia".
Finally, conflict was an immense part of the early colonies, mostly between the Native Americans and the colonists. Although Penn's colony went 50 years before any considerable conflict with the Natives, this was unusual. Penn made a specific point of observing others' mistakes, and learning from them. He sent word ahead to the Indians before even coming to America, sending a message of peace and camaraderie. He specifically set down rules that would protect the rights of the Indians, and prevent any conflict. Other colonists were not so intelligent. A fear of the Natives led to an incomparable imagination. As is demonstrated not only through their treatment of the Natives but also through literature of the time, colonists visualized violent kidnappings and horrific torture. The natives were an unknown, and thus something to fear. Because of this fear and this rapid imagination, there was little or no peace between the Indians and the colonists. Fear led to defensiveness, and defensiveness led to battles, wars, and deaths. This is perhaps the most regrettable aspect of our ancestors' actions.
Overall, America can not be labled as a success or a failure. We have our virtues, but we also have our faults. It is important for us to see both sides of our country; if we blind ourselves to our faults we will never improve, but if we ignore our strengths we will feel purpose in defending what we do have. Love has been defined as knowing someone's faults but caring deeply for them anyway; this is what we must feel for our country. A loyalty for what we have is what can unite us, and what can bring us to improvement; a knowledge of what we can improve will make this unity worthwhile. So honestly, who can say if America has been a success or a failure? We're still finding out.
The use of twitter during history class is, beyond a doubt, one of the best methods of reflection and review in the learning process that I have ever encountered. By posing a question that would require some level of thought and provide for a lively discussion, all students were able to come up with a unique answer, as well as to comment on the observations of their peers. Unlike a verbal discussion, everyone got the chance to have their say on ever aspect mentioned without being interrupted, stopped, or distracted. It was certainly the best method of reflecting that I have ever encountered.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Anne Hutchinson and the Massachusetts Bay Colony
When Anne Hutchinson arrived in Boston in 1634, John Winthrop was working to develop the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He intended this to be "a city upon a hill"--an example to the rest of the world of what society ought to be. He told his people that "When God gives a special commission he looks to have it strictly observed in every article," encouraging a "bond of love" where they must "love brotherly without dissimulation...love one another with pure heart fervently...bear one another's burdens." In short, he was using a fear of God and a pressure of the world to encourage a loving society based around team work and equality. He wanted the New World to become a sort of Utopia, where a team effort and mutual trust in God would prevail to keep a general peace and hope that could eventually spread throughout the world.
Unfortunately for Winthrop, Anne Hutchinson did not quite agree with his claims. She said that you could not win salvation by good works as Winthrop claimed, but purely by the grace of God. She said that one's final fate is predecided by the Lord, and your behavior on Earth could not alter His decision. Further than this, she claimed that all of this had been told to her by God, and that He would punish those who opposed her. This contradicted everything that Winthrop had said, and threatened the success of the colony. Hutchinson began to hold meetings in her home with as many as sixty people, most of whom were women, to spread her beliefs. She was becoming more and more dangerous. Just the fact that she was a woman standing up for herself was threat enough, but she took it further; she spread the word, and the majority of her audience was women. Women had very limited rights, and were also the ones that raised children. Hutchinson's daring threatened to rub off, which could have led to uprisings from women, or even simply the raising of children under Hutchinson's beliefs rather than Winthrop's. This threatened the success of the colony; if Winthrop lost power and importance due to a woman, all of his intentions would be destroyed. Hutchinson would have to go.
Personally I find it difficult to disagree with Winthrop's decision, not because I find it just, but because I find it logical. Winthrop's goal was a Utopian colony; he was basing this on a trust and fear in God and a hope that success in his teachings would lead to salvation after death. Hutchinson's beliefs were a threat to his success, which seems to have been mostly well-intentioned. Everyone wants to have an impact on the world; Winthrop's cause was noble. He wished to set an example of peace, love, and equality to the world. If the requirement to make this possible was to banish one rebel, I can follow the reasoning. It really comes down to a question of whether Utopia is worth banishing a single colonist for. I prefer to believe that Winthrop had good intentions than to believe that he wished to be the hypocrite that he was. The purpose of the New World was religious freedom; this was what he preached and what he expressed a belief in. Why, then, should he have found himself justified to banish a woman for enjoying this so-called freedom? In short, I can easily sympathize with Winthrop, but I can also see his mistakes.
Being very religious myself, I attended Church this morning and was assigned the Second Reading. Interestingly enough, it happened to be about this exact discussion, and I would like to include it:
Jas 2:14-18
Unfortunately for Winthrop, Anne Hutchinson did not quite agree with his claims. She said that you could not win salvation by good works as Winthrop claimed, but purely by the grace of God. She said that one's final fate is predecided by the Lord, and your behavior on Earth could not alter His decision. Further than this, she claimed that all of this had been told to her by God, and that He would punish those who opposed her. This contradicted everything that Winthrop had said, and threatened the success of the colony. Hutchinson began to hold meetings in her home with as many as sixty people, most of whom were women, to spread her beliefs. She was becoming more and more dangerous. Just the fact that she was a woman standing up for herself was threat enough, but she took it further; she spread the word, and the majority of her audience was women. Women had very limited rights, and were also the ones that raised children. Hutchinson's daring threatened to rub off, which could have led to uprisings from women, or even simply the raising of children under Hutchinson's beliefs rather than Winthrop's. This threatened the success of the colony; if Winthrop lost power and importance due to a woman, all of his intentions would be destroyed. Hutchinson would have to go.
Personally I find it difficult to disagree with Winthrop's decision, not because I find it just, but because I find it logical. Winthrop's goal was a Utopian colony; he was basing this on a trust and fear in God and a hope that success in his teachings would lead to salvation after death. Hutchinson's beliefs were a threat to his success, which seems to have been mostly well-intentioned. Everyone wants to have an impact on the world; Winthrop's cause was noble. He wished to set an example of peace, love, and equality to the world. If the requirement to make this possible was to banish one rebel, I can follow the reasoning. It really comes down to a question of whether Utopia is worth banishing a single colonist for. I prefer to believe that Winthrop had good intentions than to believe that he wished to be the hypocrite that he was. The purpose of the New World was religious freedom; this was what he preached and what he expressed a belief in. Why, then, should he have found himself justified to banish a woman for enjoying this so-called freedom? In short, I can easily sympathize with Winthrop, but I can also see his mistakes.
Being very religious myself, I attended Church this morning and was assigned the Second Reading. Interestingly enough, it happened to be about this exact discussion, and I would like to include it:
Jas 2:14-18
What good is it, my brothers and sisters,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear
and has no food for the day,
and one of you says to them,
“Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ”
but you do not give them the necessities of the body,
what good is it?
So also faith of itself,
if it does not have works, is dead.
Indeed someone might say,
“You have faith and I have works.”
Demonstrate your faith to me without works,
and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
This struck me as being directly related to the question that Anne Hutchinson and John Winthrop so strongly disagreed with, and based on this excerpt (as well as my own general beliefs and interpretations) I find myself more inclined to agree with Winthrop on the works vs. grace debate. Personally I consider it somewhat unimportant whether our fate is set already or not (okay, so Heaven or Hell. Big deal. Do your best while you're on Earth, be the best person you can be, and maybe it will help you in the end, maybe it won't. We're not going to prove either case before we reach that point, and does it honestly matter? For now isn't it more important that we make the world a little better while we can? What comes next will come next!), but the belief that we can improve our position by being the best we can be will only lend hope, and reason, and general goodness to our lives. Winthrop was giving the colony a hope and a reason to push on through each struggle that they faced. Hutchinson, on the other hand, was snatching this away. Whether my opinion is righteously justified or not, I believe that Winthrop's words and actions were better for the colony than Anne's would have been, and though I can not call banishing her righteous, I do feel it had the better overall effect. I suppose this is really a matter of opinion, and it is difficult to choose one, but at this point in my understanding of the circumstances this is where I stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
