Dear Highline Writing Department,
When I began the course of writing 101 this quarter, I must admit that I was hesitant about the style of writing that was proposed. Since I was a child I have dreamed about being a writer and have always challenged myself to improve my writing. On the other hand, I have always been very wary about adopting or implementing other people's ideas or styles of writing for fear that they would damage the creative honesty and integrity of my own writing. However, I will admit that my own initial decision to be open to new ideas during this course has broadened and, or at least I hope, strengthened my writing. I have never been an individual to believe that writing can be something taught, but also have not been certain if it is inane either. This course has definitely helped me come to a more clear conclusion about my writing philosophy and my writing process. [As an individual, I have progressed and improved greatly concerning my writing philosophy and my writing style during this course.]
[Previous to this course, I had a very specific, yet unstructured writing process that I used for my writing.] For any sort of writing that I did, whether it was creative, academic or personal, I approached what I had to write the same. Generally speaking, I never did very much formal preparation before I began writing and rarely did I thoroughly edit my writing in a fashion that the end result was very different from the beginning. I despised the idea of outlining previous to this course because I thought it distracted from my stream of thoughts as they were flowing from my mind. I also disliked the idea of templates or any sort of implementation of another individual's ideas because I felt that it constricted the creativity of my own writing. So, in that respect, I think in retrospect, one of my greatest weaknesses was my lack of a proper writing process or my fear of other people's ideas. However, at the same time, my writing in clarity or organization in my final draft was one of my strongest points in my writing.
[For my portfolio, I chose two of the essays I have written this quarter that I feel best reflect my improvement and progress, as well as my own personal strength as a writer.] The first essay that I chose was one that I wrote on the topic of Bacon's Rebellion, which I personally was very proud of and felt that the implementation of new ideas in it really produced an end result that was unlike any other that I had had before. This first essay that I wrote was a real exploration in my writing ability where I experimented with ideas and styles I had not before. For instance, for this essay I completed a detailed outline, something I have never done for a paper, and I believe that it really helped organize my thoughts in a cohesive and concise manner. Additionally, the amount and type of research that I did for this paper was very different than any history type research paper I have done in the past. The level of intensity that was put into this paper was vastly more than any other paper that I had ever worked on in the past. The writing style that I used for this paper was intensely different and I was really proud of the end result that I came up with because of the level of effort that I put into this. This was an essay that I really felt accomplished on because of this.
[The second essay that I chose was one that reflected my ability to write creatively and persuasively.] It was one that showed my ability to collaborate with another individual, since it was a partner assignment where I was required to speak on the part of a loyalist. Because this essay required taking on the personification of a character, it was one that needed creativity and well-research. I was very proud of this essay because I felt that it really demonstrated my creative talent as a writer, one of my greatest strengths in writing. Additionally, it taught me how to work and prepare collaboratively for an essay and really fostered a strong working relationship with my partner and I. Because of the preperation that I did for this essay with outlining and drafting, I was able to produce an end result unlike I might have otherwise.
[Because of these two essays that I wrote, I feel that I really progressed and improved as a writer.] The reasons for this was the level of intensity and exploration that I put into writing these papers. I really made an effort because of this course to experiment with new styles and ideas to incorporate into my writing style. For instance, the way that I prepared for an essay was vastly different with writing an outline and doing several drafts for my Bacon's Rebellion Essay. Additionally, it helped the way I quickly think, which would be the opposite of the first, and am still able to produce a solid, well-structured essay. So, I built upon one former strength that I had previous to this class and really developed the second one, which would be the preparation before the essay.
[Because of this class I feel that as a writer I have really progressed in several ways.] I have become more organized and learned to outline in a way that makes my essay better structured. I have learned to research in a way that makes my essay credible and intelligent as it should be. I have learned how to write several drafts, to edit and to decide what is necessary and what is not. I am really proud of the struggle that I put forth to experiment with my writing and the decision I made at the beginning to allow myself to be immersed with new ideas. Because of this course, I feel that I am much stronger as a writer in many ways and that I have progressed a lot. I've learned to write not just from my heart, but from my mind as well, which I think is what I can say that this course has helped the most with.
Sincerely,
Ashley Burman
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
PORTFOLIO: 1ST ESSAY
Nathaniel Bacon was referred to as being "of a most imperious and dangerous hidden pride of heart... very ambitious and arrogant", and yet this would be the individual who would lead the first rebellion against the government in America. He led the period between 1676 and 1677 in the Virginia Colony, which was the timeframe of a remarkable and fascinating episode in American history. This was an uprising of the lower class of colonists against the Governor, which in many ways would resemble the American Revolution that would occur a hundred years later. The ringleader and instigator of this Rebellion would be Nathaniel Bacon, a wealthy and well-educated young man who had recently immigrated to Virginia. While the premise in the hearts of his followers would be for economic and social reasons, Nathaniel Bacon ignited the Rebellion solely for his own political gain and his wish to stir up trouble in the colony. However, despite the fact that Bacon’s Rebellion was led by the political hungry Nathaniel Bacon, it resulted in a political change for the better for Chesapeake Society.
[At the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was searching for an opportunity to gain political control.] Bacon was a greedy and arrogant man who was withdrawn from Cambridge University and sent to the New World by his father after he was discovered in a plan to defraud a neighbor of his inheritance.[1] Bacon had a wealthy and well-connected uncle, also named Nathaniel Bacon, who was a member of the Governor’s Council. Using his connections, his uncle presented him with a position on the Governor’s Council and soon had a reputation as “the most accomplished man in the colony.”[2] He was described by the Royal Commissioners’ Report to be “of a most imperious and dangerous hidden pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.”[3] However, this distinguished position was not enough for him and he made the decision to exploit the frustrations of poorer farmers against the social elite using the political system for their own benefits rather than protecting them against attacking Indians. Nathaniel Bacon is described by one historian as being one “who then held arms in his hands for love of the new country”[4]. I believe that this sort of opinion is predominant because rebellion is an American ideal cemented by our pride in the American Revolution. However, it is important to make clear that at that time there was no identity or idea of a “new country”, it was simply an extension of England. One historian actually referred to Bacon as though being “called”[5] to the actions that he took in Virginia however it is also false to be believe that Bacon’s actions were in any way patriotic since they were to fill his own personal desires rather than trying to improve society as a whole.
[Despite the fact that William Berkeley was a controversial governor, he was openly respected by the people of Virginia, which is why it is likely without Nathaniel Bacon, direct confrontation with the Governor may never have occurred.] Evidence shows that William Berkeley was a governor that showed favoritism to his close friends and family, an example of how he failed to set up a government that was accessible to all colonists. This trend can be seen clearly when in 1724, all twelve members of the Virginia’s Royal Council were all related by blood or marriage.[6] This was a precedent that would be cemented by Berkeley himself, seen when he, which would prove to be his mistake, gave his own cousin Nathaniel Bacon a position on the council. However, despite the fact that Berkeley was obviously a partial and perhaps even biased governor, he was referred to as “the darling of the people”[7] by early Virginian historian Robert Beverley. It is argued by David Hackett Fischer, a Professor of History at Brandeis University, that Berkeley “bent the young sapling of its [Virginia’s] social system and made it grow in the direction that he wished”.[8] While it is obvious that Berkeley was biased towards himself in his governing of Virginia, I believe that it is unfair to suppose that he was unjust or without good intentions in his governing over the people of Virginia. The reason for this is because Virginia’s government was in many ways based upon the English system of government, which was far from democratic, and while it certainly needed reforming, it is unfair to say that Berkeley was a corrupt or poor governor because of his actions. It is also unreasonable to then assume, I believe, that if Berkeley had been as loved a governor as he is depicted by historian Robert Beverley, that the colonists would have so directly confronted him with a rebellion as they did. Instead I believe that it was purely Nathaniel Bacon that was the incendiary for the Rebellion and that it would not have occurred in such a manner of absolute defiance against the governor had it not been for the urging of its ringleader Bacon.
[The aftermath of the rebellion resulted in a change in the political make-up of Chesapeake Society.] Bacon’s Rebellion collapsed when the instigator of the rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon, died of fever in October 1676. Without the support of the power-seeking Bacon to fuel his rebellious band of followers, the rebellion simply lost its determination, which would be evidence for the idea that the cause behind the Rebellion was purely magnified and distorted by the powerful orator, Bacon. The laws that were enacted during Bacon’s short stint in the House of Burgesses remained a permanent part of the Virginia Colony despite attempts by Governor Berkeley to repeal the laws. They were actually repealed by Governor Berkeley for a short time after the collapse of Bacon’s Rebellion, but most were restored in the February of 1677.[9] The laws known as “Bacon’s Laws” were reforms to the political system that improved the political power of the lower classes and reduced the power of the social elite.[10] They guaranteed rights such as voting for all freemen, the election of the vestry, representation in taxation and the abolishment of holding more than one office. Ironically, it is very doubtful that Bacon had any influence or decision making with these laws; rather they were likely written by Richard Lawrence and William Drummond, who were two supporters of Bacon that were elected to the House of Burgesses in 1676.[11] Before these laws had been put in place, the political system had been dominated by the social elite, namely the very wealthy farmers, and there had been little outlet for the voice of the common class. It proves that, despite the fact that Bacon had rallied up the rebellion for the improvement of his own political situation, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in the improvement of the entire colony’s political situation and made the government more accessible and adjustable to the public. While it is true that many of these laws never guaranteed Virginians the freedoms they were supposed to, it set a precedent for the future. Additionally, Bacon’s Rebellion caused the British Crown to order a royal investigation of the colony’s affairs, which eventually led to the termination of William Berkeley, who had been such a biased and partial leader, as the Governor of Virginia. In many respects however, the rebellious nature displayed by the colonists served as a prelude to the American Revolution which would not occur for another hundred years. Some of the same issues that plagued colonists that participated in Bacon’s Rebellion, such as taxation without representation and a lack of involvement in their government, would fuel the revolutionaries one hundred years later.
Bacon’s Rebellion was a unique and fascinating period in the colony of Virginia’s history. It represented a situation where an individual exploits the frustrations of other people in order to gain power, in this case political, for himself. It is a plot which can be seen throughout history, even today, however in the case of Bacon’s Rebellion, it can be argued that it served in the end a beneficial situation for Virginia and its people. Bacon’s laws which granted Virginia’s citizens more political power and lessened the handle of the social elite on the political system were kept despite the fact that the government attempted to repeal these laws. Additionally, this poor and biased government, led by Governor William Berkeley was replaced by a different government system that granted political access to more than just friends and family of social elitists like Berkeley and rather created a more fair and accessible government. While Nathaniel Bacon the man may have been an arrogant and corrupt individual that sought for only his own personal gain, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in a situation for the better of the Virginia colony, despite the sacrifices that were made because of it. While similar episodes in history do not always result in such a positive outcome, Bacon’s Rebellion was and served as a prelude to a similar episode in history that would take place a hundred years later. This episode, known as the American Revolution, also was a rebellion, while its motivations may be different in nature than Nathaniel Bacon’s might have been, served to create a better political system and government for the people that it served.
[1] Encyclopedia Brittanica; Nathaniel Bacon
[2] Richmond Then and Now Newspaper; Nathaniel Bacon
[3] Encyclopedia Brittanica; Nathaniel Bacon
[4] William Alexander MacCorkie; Some Southern Questions
[5] Mary Newton Stanard; The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion
[6] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[7] Robert Beverley; On Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704
[8] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[9] New River Newspaper; Nathaniel Bacon
[10] Robert Beverley; On Bacon's Rebellion, 1704
[11] The Settling of Jamestown by Janet Riehecky
[At the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was searching for an opportunity to gain political control.] Bacon was a greedy and arrogant man who was withdrawn from Cambridge University and sent to the New World by his father after he was discovered in a plan to defraud a neighbor of his inheritance.[1] Bacon had a wealthy and well-connected uncle, also named Nathaniel Bacon, who was a member of the Governor’s Council. Using his connections, his uncle presented him with a position on the Governor’s Council and soon had a reputation as “the most accomplished man in the colony.”[2] He was described by the Royal Commissioners’ Report to be “of a most imperious and dangerous hidden pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.”[3] However, this distinguished position was not enough for him and he made the decision to exploit the frustrations of poorer farmers against the social elite using the political system for their own benefits rather than protecting them against attacking Indians. Nathaniel Bacon is described by one historian as being one “who then held arms in his hands for love of the new country”[4]. I believe that this sort of opinion is predominant because rebellion is an American ideal cemented by our pride in the American Revolution. However, it is important to make clear that at that time there was no identity or idea of a “new country”, it was simply an extension of England. One historian actually referred to Bacon as though being “called”[5] to the actions that he took in Virginia however it is also false to be believe that Bacon’s actions were in any way patriotic since they were to fill his own personal desires rather than trying to improve society as a whole.
[Despite the fact that William Berkeley was a controversial governor, he was openly respected by the people of Virginia, which is why it is likely without Nathaniel Bacon, direct confrontation with the Governor may never have occurred.] Evidence shows that William Berkeley was a governor that showed favoritism to his close friends and family, an example of how he failed to set up a government that was accessible to all colonists. This trend can be seen clearly when in 1724, all twelve members of the Virginia’s Royal Council were all related by blood or marriage.[6] This was a precedent that would be cemented by Berkeley himself, seen when he, which would prove to be his mistake, gave his own cousin Nathaniel Bacon a position on the council. However, despite the fact that Berkeley was obviously a partial and perhaps even biased governor, he was referred to as “the darling of the people”[7] by early Virginian historian Robert Beverley. It is argued by David Hackett Fischer, a Professor of History at Brandeis University, that Berkeley “bent the young sapling of its [Virginia’s] social system and made it grow in the direction that he wished”.[8] While it is obvious that Berkeley was biased towards himself in his governing of Virginia, I believe that it is unfair to suppose that he was unjust or without good intentions in his governing over the people of Virginia. The reason for this is because Virginia’s government was in many ways based upon the English system of government, which was far from democratic, and while it certainly needed reforming, it is unfair to say that Berkeley was a corrupt or poor governor because of his actions. It is also unreasonable to then assume, I believe, that if Berkeley had been as loved a governor as he is depicted by historian Robert Beverley, that the colonists would have so directly confronted him with a rebellion as they did. Instead I believe that it was purely Nathaniel Bacon that was the incendiary for the Rebellion and that it would not have occurred in such a manner of absolute defiance against the governor had it not been for the urging of its ringleader Bacon.
[The aftermath of the rebellion resulted in a change in the political make-up of Chesapeake Society.] Bacon’s Rebellion collapsed when the instigator of the rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon, died of fever in October 1676. Without the support of the power-seeking Bacon to fuel his rebellious band of followers, the rebellion simply lost its determination, which would be evidence for the idea that the cause behind the Rebellion was purely magnified and distorted by the powerful orator, Bacon. The laws that were enacted during Bacon’s short stint in the House of Burgesses remained a permanent part of the Virginia Colony despite attempts by Governor Berkeley to repeal the laws. They were actually repealed by Governor Berkeley for a short time after the collapse of Bacon’s Rebellion, but most were restored in the February of 1677.[9] The laws known as “Bacon’s Laws” were reforms to the political system that improved the political power of the lower classes and reduced the power of the social elite.[10] They guaranteed rights such as voting for all freemen, the election of the vestry, representation in taxation and the abolishment of holding more than one office. Ironically, it is very doubtful that Bacon had any influence or decision making with these laws; rather they were likely written by Richard Lawrence and William Drummond, who were two supporters of Bacon that were elected to the House of Burgesses in 1676.[11] Before these laws had been put in place, the political system had been dominated by the social elite, namely the very wealthy farmers, and there had been little outlet for the voice of the common class. It proves that, despite the fact that Bacon had rallied up the rebellion for the improvement of his own political situation, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in the improvement of the entire colony’s political situation and made the government more accessible and adjustable to the public. While it is true that many of these laws never guaranteed Virginians the freedoms they were supposed to, it set a precedent for the future. Additionally, Bacon’s Rebellion caused the British Crown to order a royal investigation of the colony’s affairs, which eventually led to the termination of William Berkeley, who had been such a biased and partial leader, as the Governor of Virginia. In many respects however, the rebellious nature displayed by the colonists served as a prelude to the American Revolution which would not occur for another hundred years. Some of the same issues that plagued colonists that participated in Bacon’s Rebellion, such as taxation without representation and a lack of involvement in their government, would fuel the revolutionaries one hundred years later.
Bacon’s Rebellion was a unique and fascinating period in the colony of Virginia’s history. It represented a situation where an individual exploits the frustrations of other people in order to gain power, in this case political, for himself. It is a plot which can be seen throughout history, even today, however in the case of Bacon’s Rebellion, it can be argued that it served in the end a beneficial situation for Virginia and its people. Bacon’s laws which granted Virginia’s citizens more political power and lessened the handle of the social elite on the political system were kept despite the fact that the government attempted to repeal these laws. Additionally, this poor and biased government, led by Governor William Berkeley was replaced by a different government system that granted political access to more than just friends and family of social elitists like Berkeley and rather created a more fair and accessible government. While Nathaniel Bacon the man may have been an arrogant and corrupt individual that sought for only his own personal gain, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in a situation for the better of the Virginia colony, despite the sacrifices that were made because of it. While similar episodes in history do not always result in such a positive outcome, Bacon’s Rebellion was and served as a prelude to a similar episode in history that would take place a hundred years later. This episode, known as the American Revolution, also was a rebellion, while its motivations may be different in nature than Nathaniel Bacon’s might have been, served to create a better political system and government for the people that it served.
[1] Encyclopedia Brittanica; Nathaniel Bacon
[2] Richmond Then and Now Newspaper; Nathaniel Bacon
[3] Encyclopedia Brittanica; Nathaniel Bacon
[4] William Alexander MacCorkie; Some Southern Questions
[5] Mary Newton Stanard; The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion
[6] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[7] Robert Beverley; On Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704
[8] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[9] New River Newspaper; Nathaniel Bacon
[10] Robert Beverley; On Bacon's Rebellion, 1704
[11] The Settling of Jamestown by Janet Riehecky
PORTFOLIO: 2ND ESSAY
A Petition to the Hearts and Minds of the People of Massachusetts
Dear Friends, it has come to my concern the nature and state of our colony. The recent events which have plagued us cannot be disguised under any mask that causes them to appear less dangerous. We must guard our colony, guard our thoughts, lest they soon become a hook in our sides. For those among us who have openly shown their beliefs in their actions, we must now as a body realizes the grievances we have committed. It is my firm belief that it is our utmost duty to remain loyal to our King and to England, for only with this can we as a people survive.
It is foolish to believe that our actions of rebellion are not treason against our king. We have tricked ourselves into believing that our actions have not crossed the line of open treason against our sovereign. We have, in our complaints, not only come against the British parliament, as we have supposed in our cries, but against the King himself. For our King is the guardian of Parliament and to commit crimes against parliament are to commit crimes against our King. I tell you, my friends that this is the most dangerous mistake that we can make, is to not realize the consequences and weight of our thoughts or our actions. Our actions are treason. Are we or are we not British? A house cannot stand divided; if we are as colonists, members of the British Empire, then it is our duty to act as members of the British Empire. And if we are in fact, members of the British Empire, then we are subject to the jurisdiction of this empire.
If we as colonists demand protection from our sovereign, we then also owe to our sovereign tribute. We cannot be quick to forget the sacrifices that our sovereign bore in order to protect us from our enemies. The burden that our sovereign took for us in our struggle was one that we as colonists have the right to demand from our protector. But, if we have this right, then so our protector has the right to demand tribute for their sacrifice. With the stamp act that was imposed against us as colonists was enacted for the British Empire to gain revenue for the loss they felt during the seven years war. Through our continuance of bickering over our rights for legislation, we have forgotten our duty that we have towards our protector. We have continued to argue our right for representation and forget so clearly the very nature of our situation. For a whole body of ocean rests between our colony and England, thus can we argue so for representation when nature so clearly has prevented this?
Finally, I must request of you, my friends, that we must remain steadfast to our mother country. We cannot forget our duty as Englishmen to our King and we must realize that our actions are leading us to treason against our sovereign. We cannot forget that our King was chosen by God and we must remain loyal to our country and to our King. I entreat ye, my fellow countrymen, let us not forget our place as Englishmen, let us not be taken away with these sweep of rebellious treason against our King, but let us remember who we are.
James Lewis
Dear Friends, it has come to my concern the nature and state of our colony. The recent events which have plagued us cannot be disguised under any mask that causes them to appear less dangerous. We must guard our colony, guard our thoughts, lest they soon become a hook in our sides. For those among us who have openly shown their beliefs in their actions, we must now as a body realizes the grievances we have committed. It is my firm belief that it is our utmost duty to remain loyal to our King and to England, for only with this can we as a people survive.
It is foolish to believe that our actions of rebellion are not treason against our king. We have tricked ourselves into believing that our actions have not crossed the line of open treason against our sovereign. We have, in our complaints, not only come against the British parliament, as we have supposed in our cries, but against the King himself. For our King is the guardian of Parliament and to commit crimes against parliament are to commit crimes against our King. I tell you, my friends that this is the most dangerous mistake that we can make, is to not realize the consequences and weight of our thoughts or our actions. Our actions are treason. Are we or are we not British? A house cannot stand divided; if we are as colonists, members of the British Empire, then it is our duty to act as members of the British Empire. And if we are in fact, members of the British Empire, then we are subject to the jurisdiction of this empire.
If we as colonists demand protection from our sovereign, we then also owe to our sovereign tribute. We cannot be quick to forget the sacrifices that our sovereign bore in order to protect us from our enemies. The burden that our sovereign took for us in our struggle was one that we as colonists have the right to demand from our protector. But, if we have this right, then so our protector has the right to demand tribute for their sacrifice. With the stamp act that was imposed against us as colonists was enacted for the British Empire to gain revenue for the loss they felt during the seven years war. Through our continuance of bickering over our rights for legislation, we have forgotten our duty that we have towards our protector. We have continued to argue our right for representation and forget so clearly the very nature of our situation. For a whole body of ocean rests between our colony and England, thus can we argue so for representation when nature so clearly has prevented this?
Finally, I must request of you, my friends, that we must remain steadfast to our mother country. We cannot forget our duty as Englishmen to our King and we must realize that our actions are leading us to treason against our sovereign. We cannot forget that our King was chosen by God and we must remain loyal to our country and to our King. I entreat ye, my fellow countrymen, let us not forget our place as Englishmen, let us not be taken away with these sweep of rebellious treason against our King, but let us remember who we are.
James Lewis
Monday, December 10, 2007
PORTFOLIO: FINAL EXAM
“Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present.” Michel Foucault
Michel Foucault said concerning the study of history, “why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present.” It is a deep, philosophical idea that Foucault is presenting, one that requires reflection and contemplation in order to understand. But, it is also in this question that Foucault gets at something that gnaws every student of history, why is that it is studied and why is it necessary? One would naturally think that a history of the past would prevent the present from ever progressing, however I believe that Foucault is presenting the counter-argument to this in his question. When studying American history myself this quarter, I believe that I now can come to a deeper understanding about this question. I believe that I can answer in such a way from my own experiences of studying history that might somehow scratch the surface of Foucault’s brilliant idea. [In essence, history does not prevent the present from progressing, but rather what enables the present to progress.]
[Foucault’s idea is the most proper explanation that can be had when asking why it is necessary to study history.] Foucault is expressing the idea that in order to understand the present, we must explore the past and how the present has come to be. Society did not suddenly appear, but rather it evolved. As an individual, I live in a society where every aspect of my life is surrounded by the past, and by the past I mean that I am dictated by the past. The past is inescapable; I cannot separate myself from history, as hard as I might try. In fact, to even properly understand why society has the status quo that it has, and understanding of the past is absolutely imperative. In this sense, studying the past is not a hobby or interest because an individual is curious or intrigued; it is so that society can understand why it functions as it does. So, in order to understand why the society in which I live in functions as it does, a study of the history of that society, or American history, is necessary.
[American history is an investigation of the present so that it becomes understandable and appreciated.] American society is dictated by the key principles outlined in the declaration of independence or the constitution, most principally the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These have been given as rights to Americans today, but rather in order to understand what a privilege it is as an American to be given what may be a God granted right, an understanding of the founding fathers who wrote that phrase is necessary. Had Spain continued its conquest of the Americas, it is very likely that the people living in the area known as the “United States” might be speaking Spanish, but a journey through American history reveals how the Spanish went in debt after conquering South America and England took up the fight of exploration. Or perhaps why the United States is an independent country and not colonies of Great Britain, to understand why we have a free democratic society, looking back at the Revolutionary period reveals the struggle that was fought for American liberties.
[However, despite personal interpretation, I do not believe that history is to be judged, simply understood so that unfortunate repetition does not occur.] This is a common explanation of why history is studied, so the past is not repeated, although this can easily be scoffed at. It seems fickle when people have been studying history and yet still, they make the same mistakes that they have in the past. However, I believe that Foucault allows for this as well in his philosophy. When he says a “history of the present”, it does not just mean the present in terms of the past, I believe. It means that history is continual. This moment in time will someday be history that will be studied and perhaps even eagerly gobbled up by future world leaders hoping to analyze the mistakes or successes Americans made as a society. Political convictions aside, the war in Iraq will someday be judged and it will be judged according to the outcome that we do not yet foresee, though perhaps it could be guessed. Someday in the history textbooks the current president will either be written off as a warmonger or a visionary, but it is history at this very moment.
[If I did not interpret Foucault’s philosophy as I do, I believe most certainly that my learning in history would be vastly different.] I believe the most effective way of studying history is to, with a comprehension of history as a whole, to connect and to relate to different periods of time, including the present. Although, the present is just another part of the world’s history as a whole. In Kurt Vonnegut’s classic, “Slaughterhouse-Five”, he presented the idea of a world of four dimensions, where time was relative. In it, the world could be seen in the terms of time as well, where a person could experience all of their life at once; a person was not pitied if their life was necessarily bad at the moment, because life was seen as a whole and not in pieces. And, I believe, even if it is a three-dimensional world that society lives in and not a four-dimensional like the aliens that Kurt Vonnegut’s main character, Billy Pilgrim, encountered, it is a philosophy that should absolutely be taken into mind. But, it should be in a different way, it should be a way that is mindful that present is also history and that our actions will be judged accordingly by the future. And in a way, if history was looked at as a song, an endless song perhaps, but as a song that was enjoyable to the ears, an individual does not like just one part of the song, usually. It is the entire song that is to their liking, so history is something that is an endless song, perhaps repetitive, perhaps sometimes dreary, but always, every part, absolutely necessary.
[With an understanding of the past, the present can progress to a future that reflects understanding.] It can not be guaranteed perhaps, that the future will be brighter than the present, besides that is a question of opinion anyways. It is doubtful that the British might have counted the loss of the colonies as a brighter future, though it is certain that many colonists felt that it was. However, with an understanding of the past we can progress and grow towards a future that reflects the past. And while history may eventually repeat itself, there is something that cannot be changed about the course of time. However, that does not mean that individuals are not obligated to understand the past, and though we may not be able to fix the past, we can fix the present. And it is that eternal struggle for the present, the one that I am present in at this very moment, is what makes the understanding of the past so vitally necessary.
Michel Foucault said concerning the study of history, “why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present.” It is a deep, philosophical idea that Foucault is presenting, one that requires reflection and contemplation in order to understand. But, it is also in this question that Foucault gets at something that gnaws every student of history, why is that it is studied and why is it necessary? One would naturally think that a history of the past would prevent the present from ever progressing, however I believe that Foucault is presenting the counter-argument to this in his question. When studying American history myself this quarter, I believe that I now can come to a deeper understanding about this question. I believe that I can answer in such a way from my own experiences of studying history that might somehow scratch the surface of Foucault’s brilliant idea. [In essence, history does not prevent the present from progressing, but rather what enables the present to progress.]
[Foucault’s idea is the most proper explanation that can be had when asking why it is necessary to study history.] Foucault is expressing the idea that in order to understand the present, we must explore the past and how the present has come to be. Society did not suddenly appear, but rather it evolved. As an individual, I live in a society where every aspect of my life is surrounded by the past, and by the past I mean that I am dictated by the past. The past is inescapable; I cannot separate myself from history, as hard as I might try. In fact, to even properly understand why society has the status quo that it has, and understanding of the past is absolutely imperative. In this sense, studying the past is not a hobby or interest because an individual is curious or intrigued; it is so that society can understand why it functions as it does. So, in order to understand why the society in which I live in functions as it does, a study of the history of that society, or American history, is necessary.
[American history is an investigation of the present so that it becomes understandable and appreciated.] American society is dictated by the key principles outlined in the declaration of independence or the constitution, most principally the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These have been given as rights to Americans today, but rather in order to understand what a privilege it is as an American to be given what may be a God granted right, an understanding of the founding fathers who wrote that phrase is necessary. Had Spain continued its conquest of the Americas, it is very likely that the people living in the area known as the “United States” might be speaking Spanish, but a journey through American history reveals how the Spanish went in debt after conquering South America and England took up the fight of exploration. Or perhaps why the United States is an independent country and not colonies of Great Britain, to understand why we have a free democratic society, looking back at the Revolutionary period reveals the struggle that was fought for American liberties.
[However, despite personal interpretation, I do not believe that history is to be judged, simply understood so that unfortunate repetition does not occur.] This is a common explanation of why history is studied, so the past is not repeated, although this can easily be scoffed at. It seems fickle when people have been studying history and yet still, they make the same mistakes that they have in the past. However, I believe that Foucault allows for this as well in his philosophy. When he says a “history of the present”, it does not just mean the present in terms of the past, I believe. It means that history is continual. This moment in time will someday be history that will be studied and perhaps even eagerly gobbled up by future world leaders hoping to analyze the mistakes or successes Americans made as a society. Political convictions aside, the war in Iraq will someday be judged and it will be judged according to the outcome that we do not yet foresee, though perhaps it could be guessed. Someday in the history textbooks the current president will either be written off as a warmonger or a visionary, but it is history at this very moment.
[If I did not interpret Foucault’s philosophy as I do, I believe most certainly that my learning in history would be vastly different.] I believe the most effective way of studying history is to, with a comprehension of history as a whole, to connect and to relate to different periods of time, including the present. Although, the present is just another part of the world’s history as a whole. In Kurt Vonnegut’s classic, “Slaughterhouse-Five”, he presented the idea of a world of four dimensions, where time was relative. In it, the world could be seen in the terms of time as well, where a person could experience all of their life at once; a person was not pitied if their life was necessarily bad at the moment, because life was seen as a whole and not in pieces. And, I believe, even if it is a three-dimensional world that society lives in and not a four-dimensional like the aliens that Kurt Vonnegut’s main character, Billy Pilgrim, encountered, it is a philosophy that should absolutely be taken into mind. But, it should be in a different way, it should be a way that is mindful that present is also history and that our actions will be judged accordingly by the future. And in a way, if history was looked at as a song, an endless song perhaps, but as a song that was enjoyable to the ears, an individual does not like just one part of the song, usually. It is the entire song that is to their liking, so history is something that is an endless song, perhaps repetitive, perhaps sometimes dreary, but always, every part, absolutely necessary.
[With an understanding of the past, the present can progress to a future that reflects understanding.] It can not be guaranteed perhaps, that the future will be brighter than the present, besides that is a question of opinion anyways. It is doubtful that the British might have counted the loss of the colonies as a brighter future, though it is certain that many colonists felt that it was. However, with an understanding of the past we can progress and grow towards a future that reflects the past. And while history may eventually repeat itself, there is something that cannot be changed about the course of time. However, that does not mean that individuals are not obligated to understand the past, and though we may not be able to fix the past, we can fix the present. And it is that eternal struggle for the present, the one that I am present in at this very moment, is what makes the understanding of the past so vitally necessary.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Reflective Letter Notes/Rough
Essays:
Bacon's Rebellion
Midterm Practice Essay
[intro: general feeling towards writing]
When I began the course of writing 101 this quarter, I must admit that I was hesitant about the style of writing that was proposed. Since I was a child I have dreamed about being a writer and have always challenged myself to improve my writing. On the other hand, I have always been very wary about adopting or implementing other people's ideas or styles of writing for fear that they would damage the creative honesty and integrity of my own writing. However, I will admit that my own initial decision to be open to new ideas during this course has broadened and, or at least I hope, strengthened my writing. I have never been an individual to believe that writing can be something taught, but also have not been certain if it is inane either. This course has definitely helped me come to a more clear conclusion about my writing philosophy and my writing process. [As an individual, I have progressed and improved greatly concerning my writing philosophy and my writing style during this course.]
[body-1st: writing process prior to course]
[Previous to this course, I had a very specific, yet unstructured writing process that I used for my writing.] For any sort of writing that I did, whether it was creative, academic or personal, I approached what I had to write the same. I do not wish to appear egotistical in saying this, however for nearly all of my writing the feedback that I have received have been strong and positive. However, at the same time I am unsure if my writing process really reflected the strength of the final result. While this may seem contradictory, if thought about, if I strengthened my writing process and improved upon it, the final result of my thoughts could be vastly superior. Generally speaking, I never did very much formal preparation before I began writing and rarely did I thoroughly edit my writing in a fashion that the end result was very different from the beginning. I despised the idea of outlining previous to this course because I thought it distracted from my stream of thoughts as they were flowing from my mind. I also disliked the idea of templates or any sort of implementation of another individual's ideas because I felt that it constricted the creativity of my own writing. So, in that respect, I think in retrospect, one of my greatest weaknesses was my lack of a proper writing process or my fear of other people's ideas. However, at the same time, my writing in clarity or organization in my final draft was one of my strongest points in my writing.
[body-2nd: examination of essays]
[For my portfolio, I chose two of the essays I have written this quarter that I feel best reflect my improvement and progress, as well as my own personal strength as a writer.] The first essay that I chose was one that I wrote on the topic of Bacon's Rebellion, which I personally was very proud of and felt that the implementation of new ideas in it really produced an end result that was unlike any other that I had had before. This first essay that I wrote was a real exploration in my writing ability where I experimented with ideas and styles I had not before. For instance, for this essay I completed a detailed outline, something I have never done for a paper, and I believe that it really helped organize my thoughts in a cohesive and concise manner. Additionally, the amount and type of research that I did for this paper was very different than any history type research paper I have done in the past. The level of intensity that was put into this paper was vastly more than any other paper that I had ever worked on in the past. The writing style that I used for this paper was intensely different and I was really proud of the end result that I came up with because of the level of effort that I put into this. This was an essay that I really felt accomplished on because of this. The second essay that I chose was for my midterm practice and the reason that I chose this essay was because I felt that it really demonstrated my ability to think and organize quickly. For this essay it was a timed in class essay where I was not able to prepare for it beforehand, so it demonstrated my ability to think on my toes. I was very proud of this essay because despite no preperation, it was a solid, well-organized paper that was cohesive and concise.
[body-3rd: progress specific to essays]
[Because of these two essays that I wrote, I feel that I really progressed and improved as a writer.] The reasons for this was the level of intensity and exploration that I put into writing these papers. I really made an effort because of this course to experiment with new styles and ideas to incorporate into my writing style. For instance, the way that I prepared for an essay was vastly different with writing an outline and doing several drafts for my Bacon's Rebellion Essay. Additionally, it helped the way I quickly think, which would be the opposite of the first, and am still able to produce a solid, well-structured essay. So, I built upon one former strength that I had previous to this class and really developed the second one, which would be the preparation before the essay.
[general progress]
[Because of this class I feel that as a writer I have really progressed in several ways.] I have become more organized and learned to outline in a way that makes my essay better structured. I have learned to research in a way that makes my essay credible and intelligent as it should be. I have learned how to write several drafts, to edit and to decide what is necessary and what is not. I am really proud of the struggle that I put forth to experiment with my writing and the decision I made at the beginning to allow myself to be immersed with new ideas. Because of this course, I feel that I am much stronger as a writer in many ways and that I have progressed a lot. I've learned to write not just from my heart, but from my mind as well, which I think is what I can say that this course has helped the most with.
Bacon's Rebellion
Midterm Practice Essay
[intro: general feeling towards writing]
When I began the course of writing 101 this quarter, I must admit that I was hesitant about the style of writing that was proposed. Since I was a child I have dreamed about being a writer and have always challenged myself to improve my writing. On the other hand, I have always been very wary about adopting or implementing other people's ideas or styles of writing for fear that they would damage the creative honesty and integrity of my own writing. However, I will admit that my own initial decision to be open to new ideas during this course has broadened and, or at least I hope, strengthened my writing. I have never been an individual to believe that writing can be something taught, but also have not been certain if it is inane either. This course has definitely helped me come to a more clear conclusion about my writing philosophy and my writing process. [As an individual, I have progressed and improved greatly concerning my writing philosophy and my writing style during this course.]
[body-1st: writing process prior to course]
[Previous to this course, I had a very specific, yet unstructured writing process that I used for my writing.] For any sort of writing that I did, whether it was creative, academic or personal, I approached what I had to write the same. I do not wish to appear egotistical in saying this, however for nearly all of my writing the feedback that I have received have been strong and positive. However, at the same time I am unsure if my writing process really reflected the strength of the final result. While this may seem contradictory, if thought about, if I strengthened my writing process and improved upon it, the final result of my thoughts could be vastly superior. Generally speaking, I never did very much formal preparation before I began writing and rarely did I thoroughly edit my writing in a fashion that the end result was very different from the beginning. I despised the idea of outlining previous to this course because I thought it distracted from my stream of thoughts as they were flowing from my mind. I also disliked the idea of templates or any sort of implementation of another individual's ideas because I felt that it constricted the creativity of my own writing. So, in that respect, I think in retrospect, one of my greatest weaknesses was my lack of a proper writing process or my fear of other people's ideas. However, at the same time, my writing in clarity or organization in my final draft was one of my strongest points in my writing.
[body-2nd: examination of essays]
[For my portfolio, I chose two of the essays I have written this quarter that I feel best reflect my improvement and progress, as well as my own personal strength as a writer.] The first essay that I chose was one that I wrote on the topic of Bacon's Rebellion, which I personally was very proud of and felt that the implementation of new ideas in it really produced an end result that was unlike any other that I had had before. This first essay that I wrote was a real exploration in my writing ability where I experimented with ideas and styles I had not before. For instance, for this essay I completed a detailed outline, something I have never done for a paper, and I believe that it really helped organize my thoughts in a cohesive and concise manner. Additionally, the amount and type of research that I did for this paper was very different than any history type research paper I have done in the past. The level of intensity that was put into this paper was vastly more than any other paper that I had ever worked on in the past. The writing style that I used for this paper was intensely different and I was really proud of the end result that I came up with because of the level of effort that I put into this. This was an essay that I really felt accomplished on because of this. The second essay that I chose was for my midterm practice and the reason that I chose this essay was because I felt that it really demonstrated my ability to think and organize quickly. For this essay it was a timed in class essay where I was not able to prepare for it beforehand, so it demonstrated my ability to think on my toes. I was very proud of this essay because despite no preperation, it was a solid, well-organized paper that was cohesive and concise.
[body-3rd: progress specific to essays]
[Because of these two essays that I wrote, I feel that I really progressed and improved as a writer.] The reasons for this was the level of intensity and exploration that I put into writing these papers. I really made an effort because of this course to experiment with new styles and ideas to incorporate into my writing style. For instance, the way that I prepared for an essay was vastly different with writing an outline and doing several drafts for my Bacon's Rebellion Essay. Additionally, it helped the way I quickly think, which would be the opposite of the first, and am still able to produce a solid, well-structured essay. So, I built upon one former strength that I had previous to this class and really developed the second one, which would be the preparation before the essay.
[general progress]
[Because of this class I feel that as a writer I have really progressed in several ways.] I have become more organized and learned to outline in a way that makes my essay better structured. I have learned to research in a way that makes my essay credible and intelligent as it should be. I have learned how to write several drafts, to edit and to decide what is necessary and what is not. I am really proud of the struggle that I put forth to experiment with my writing and the decision I made at the beginning to allow myself to be immersed with new ideas. Because of this course, I feel that I am much stronger as a writer in many ways and that I have progressed a lot. I've learned to write not just from my heart, but from my mind as well, which I think is what I can say that this course has helped the most with.
sincerely,
ashley burman
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Pennsylvania Essay Reflection
Blog Reflection
1) Group Interaction
For group interaction for our essay, it is my opinion that our group interacted very poorly together. We didn't have any really good solid interaction that was productive for the essay and consequently, it reflected very greatly on the essay that we produced. This was because of several factors. One of them would be that some members of the wiki group would choose to be absent on crucial days and therefore we could not interact as a group because one or more group members were missing. Another reason would be a lack of focus on the part of group members, being them being distracted with things that were not work related or not focusing on the big picture of what we needed to be doing, therefore the group could not function. Group members were sometimes belligerent and would not listen to other group members, criticizing them personally. Other times group members would be counter-productive by distracting other group members and showed a general lack of concern about the essay. Communication was extremely difficult because some group members seemed to not care at all about the essay or working on it, while other frustrated group members tried to engage the other members in the work. The result was that some group members did very little work, while others struggled greatly to pick up the rest of the work and it resulted in a poor essay because of it.
2) Use of Contract
Using our contract was difficult for our essay, mainly because there seemed to be a lack of respect for the contract itself. Our contract is short, but very specific and outlines that each group member is supposed to be working equally on the assignments and that each group member that fails to complete an equal amount of work or is absent from class without a legitimate reason, will have their grade on their assignment suffer as a result, and only their grade on the assignment. However, some group members felt that they did not have to do equal work, leaving a very unbalanced amount of work distribution. When threatened at desperate measures of failing the assignment because these group members had failed to do any work for the assignment, there still was a lack of concern about the essay, resulting in, again, a poor essay.
3) Use of Wiki
I am not so sure that the wiki was used to the full advantage that it should have been by all group members. I felt that while there was an ample amount of research that was done, because members that had looked through that research and annotated it and were the ones that were supposed to be knowledgeable on certain topics failed to contribute sufficiently to the essay, the research was then not applied to the actual essay. So, while some group members did focus and research and annotate quite a few sources, because those same group members failed to help apply that information to the essay, it was lost because those group members did not do their part for the essay. Overall, I would say that use of wiki would be graded a four out of ten, because of the above and aforesaid reasons.
4) Individual Progress
For my own individual progress, it is a very touchy subject to address. Because I spent most of my time working on the essay alone and trying but failing to communicate with other group members, it was a very frustrating experience overall. It also would not be one that applied much of what I've learned in arts of democracy, mainly because there was not conflict resolution: despite my several attempts to communicate with other group members, nothing happened. So, individually, I did most of the work on the essay that we did. However, because I was working alone and I also spent so much of my time in class trying to communicate with group members and get them to do work as well, I would say that I in no way was able to do as great of a job on the essay that I could have, had I not had to deal with my group members or if my group members had done an equal amount of work. So, honestly, I felt that overall, because there was a lack of voices coming across in the essay and a group dynamic that clearly didn't work, our final result was a reflection on that generalness I have above mentioned.
1) Group Interaction
For group interaction for our essay, it is my opinion that our group interacted very poorly together. We didn't have any really good solid interaction that was productive for the essay and consequently, it reflected very greatly on the essay that we produced. This was because of several factors. One of them would be that some members of the wiki group would choose to be absent on crucial days and therefore we could not interact as a group because one or more group members were missing. Another reason would be a lack of focus on the part of group members, being them being distracted with things that were not work related or not focusing on the big picture of what we needed to be doing, therefore the group could not function. Group members were sometimes belligerent and would not listen to other group members, criticizing them personally. Other times group members would be counter-productive by distracting other group members and showed a general lack of concern about the essay. Communication was extremely difficult because some group members seemed to not care at all about the essay or working on it, while other frustrated group members tried to engage the other members in the work. The result was that some group members did very little work, while others struggled greatly to pick up the rest of the work and it resulted in a poor essay because of it.
2) Use of Contract
Using our contract was difficult for our essay, mainly because there seemed to be a lack of respect for the contract itself. Our contract is short, but very specific and outlines that each group member is supposed to be working equally on the assignments and that each group member that fails to complete an equal amount of work or is absent from class without a legitimate reason, will have their grade on their assignment suffer as a result, and only their grade on the assignment. However, some group members felt that they did not have to do equal work, leaving a very unbalanced amount of work distribution. When threatened at desperate measures of failing the assignment because these group members had failed to do any work for the assignment, there still was a lack of concern about the essay, resulting in, again, a poor essay.
3) Use of Wiki
I am not so sure that the wiki was used to the full advantage that it should have been by all group members. I felt that while there was an ample amount of research that was done, because members that had looked through that research and annotated it and were the ones that were supposed to be knowledgeable on certain topics failed to contribute sufficiently to the essay, the research was then not applied to the actual essay. So, while some group members did focus and research and annotate quite a few sources, because those same group members failed to help apply that information to the essay, it was lost because those group members did not do their part for the essay. Overall, I would say that use of wiki would be graded a four out of ten, because of the above and aforesaid reasons.
4) Individual Progress
For my own individual progress, it is a very touchy subject to address. Because I spent most of my time working on the essay alone and trying but failing to communicate with other group members, it was a very frustrating experience overall. It also would not be one that applied much of what I've learned in arts of democracy, mainly because there was not conflict resolution: despite my several attempts to communicate with other group members, nothing happened. So, individually, I did most of the work on the essay that we did. However, because I was working alone and I also spent so much of my time in class trying to communicate with group members and get them to do work as well, I would say that I in no way was able to do as great of a job on the essay that I could have, had I not had to deal with my group members or if my group members had done an equal amount of work. So, honestly, I felt that overall, because there was a lack of voices coming across in the essay and a group dynamic that clearly didn't work, our final result was a reflection on that generalness I have above mentioned.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Essay; Final Draft
We, the representatives of the Pennsylvania House, have agreed upon the ratification of the New Constitution for the United States, which we are and are writing this to express our support for this document and to advocate the ratification for this document. We made the decision to support and ratify this New Constitution based upon the complications associated with the Articles of Confederation and it is our belief that the New Constitution is the proper document of which to base our government. We have come to the realization that the Articles of Confederation are a defective way of setting up our government and it is absolutely necessary and imperative that we call for a change in our government. It is additionally our firm belief that that will not only best be seen in the New Constitution, but only seen in the New Constitution, that the Articles of Confederation is a document beyond revision and it must be retired from our eyes. Under the Articles of Confederation, our federal government failed to be able to unify and gain support from individual states. Our federal government of Congress under such a document is unable to provide for the defense of our nation and unable to collect money from state treasuries for the federal government, therefore we must realize that a change is necessary and we are in favor of this change.
We have made the decision to support the New Constitution because it is our firm belief that the system of a confederation of states as well as a strong federal government to preside over them is the most desirable way of forming our government. The New Constitution allows for a federal government which is strong enough to serve the needs of the people. We must realize that our government is flawed and under such a separated institution of our states cannot continue if we are to be one people. We as Pennsylvanians have come forward to announce that we are members of a larger union of Americans and that we support a government which ties and unifies us all together. Under the New Constitution we will be strong as one body of many voices, many voices that will be represented equally, no matter which state they represent. The New Constitution supports a unity which is absolutely necessary to our new country. Do we wish to continue with a struggling economy? Our friends in New York must understand this above us all, with the crises that have occurred with Shay’s Rebellion. We cannot repay our war debts if we do not come collectively to improve our economy. We cannot suppose that any of our fellow states wish to continue with our struggling economy, therefore we appeal to those states, that under our New Constitution we can have the political support in which to have an economy which can properly support us.
Why is this constitution so ideal? It allows for the equal representation among our states, with a complex Congressional system of a House and a Senate. In the House of Representatives, each state will have representation according to their population. In the Senate, each state will have equal representation regardless of population. This legislative system is complex, effective and ideal for our nation of differing populations in our states. It is a government that is neither to be feared by a state of small population or of large, but one which both can coexist together. Coexisting, we might say, is perhaps the most ideal aspect of the New Constitution. For it allows for the coexisting of the federal and state government as well. It allows for a constantly evolving system of government, with the ability to add amendments to it as we as people find necessary. It is a document which is both concrete, but also fluid, as according to our needs as a people.
It is in our hearts to fear a strong central government, as that is what we have endured against in our struggle for freedom from the King of England. However, we must see past this fear and realize as a collective body our need for strength and unification for our states as it is in our best interest. We are not losing our rights or our freedoms as states, we are allowing for unification and strength as a collective body of unified but separate bodies. A central government is necessary for strength and without strength we cannot defend ourselves. Can we afford to be powerless to our enemies that may take advantage of our country? We must remember that we no longer are under the protection of the British army, that we are dependent upon ourselves for strength. Can we defend our democratic nation without a strong federal government that can protect and defend ourselves? We must remember that it is imperative as people that we are able to defend ourselves against any threat to our country. Without defense there is no nation, a nation without defense will not stay a nation long. This is why it is imperative that we make the decision to be strong and why we are supporting strength and why we are asking you to support and ratify this New Constitution.
We have heard it argued that the New Constitution is a document which will strip the states of their rights as individuals. However, this claim shows a lack of understanding of the New Constitution and the complexity which dictates it. The New Constitution is not a document that takes away the rights of the states, but rather a document which so intricately and completely protects their rights that it is both impossible and unconceivable that under this document that the rights of the states could be taken away. The New Constitution presents a government of checks and balances, that it is constantly checking itself and ensuring that the government is not becoming an instrument of power which takes away the rights of the individual states. Instead, it is a strong federal government which is in fact the sovereign of the rights of the states, not a power force which will inhibit us from our rights. A joint government between the states and the federal government is the most ideal authority that we can aspire to. This idea of a “compound-republic” of cooperation between the states and the federal government is one that we have tweaked and found middle ground. It is one that allows both for strength as a federal government and rights as individual states. We cannot believe that the New Constitution supports a tyrannical government! It is far from it; it supports a government of helping hands, a government of perfect unity between federal and state government, a union which is equally beneficial and munificent to both, a union which is imperative, necessary and perfect for our United States of America. In our time of need let us join together so that we may stand our ground and flourish as a nation, our nation, The United States of America!
We have made the decision to support the New Constitution because it is our firm belief that the system of a confederation of states as well as a strong federal government to preside over them is the most desirable way of forming our government. The New Constitution allows for a federal government which is strong enough to serve the needs of the people. We must realize that our government is flawed and under such a separated institution of our states cannot continue if we are to be one people. We as Pennsylvanians have come forward to announce that we are members of a larger union of Americans and that we support a government which ties and unifies us all together. Under the New Constitution we will be strong as one body of many voices, many voices that will be represented equally, no matter which state they represent. The New Constitution supports a unity which is absolutely necessary to our new country. Do we wish to continue with a struggling economy? Our friends in New York must understand this above us all, with the crises that have occurred with Shay’s Rebellion. We cannot repay our war debts if we do not come collectively to improve our economy. We cannot suppose that any of our fellow states wish to continue with our struggling economy, therefore we appeal to those states, that under our New Constitution we can have the political support in which to have an economy which can properly support us.
Why is this constitution so ideal? It allows for the equal representation among our states, with a complex Congressional system of a House and a Senate. In the House of Representatives, each state will have representation according to their population. In the Senate, each state will have equal representation regardless of population. This legislative system is complex, effective and ideal for our nation of differing populations in our states. It is a government that is neither to be feared by a state of small population or of large, but one which both can coexist together. Coexisting, we might say, is perhaps the most ideal aspect of the New Constitution. For it allows for the coexisting of the federal and state government as well. It allows for a constantly evolving system of government, with the ability to add amendments to it as we as people find necessary. It is a document which is both concrete, but also fluid, as according to our needs as a people.
It is in our hearts to fear a strong central government, as that is what we have endured against in our struggle for freedom from the King of England. However, we must see past this fear and realize as a collective body our need for strength and unification for our states as it is in our best interest. We are not losing our rights or our freedoms as states, we are allowing for unification and strength as a collective body of unified but separate bodies. A central government is necessary for strength and without strength we cannot defend ourselves. Can we afford to be powerless to our enemies that may take advantage of our country? We must remember that we no longer are under the protection of the British army, that we are dependent upon ourselves for strength. Can we defend our democratic nation without a strong federal government that can protect and defend ourselves? We must remember that it is imperative as people that we are able to defend ourselves against any threat to our country. Without defense there is no nation, a nation without defense will not stay a nation long. This is why it is imperative that we make the decision to be strong and why we are supporting strength and why we are asking you to support and ratify this New Constitution.
We have heard it argued that the New Constitution is a document which will strip the states of their rights as individuals. However, this claim shows a lack of understanding of the New Constitution and the complexity which dictates it. The New Constitution is not a document that takes away the rights of the states, but rather a document which so intricately and completely protects their rights that it is both impossible and unconceivable that under this document that the rights of the states could be taken away. The New Constitution presents a government of checks and balances, that it is constantly checking itself and ensuring that the government is not becoming an instrument of power which takes away the rights of the individual states. Instead, it is a strong federal government which is in fact the sovereign of the rights of the states, not a power force which will inhibit us from our rights. A joint government between the states and the federal government is the most ideal authority that we can aspire to. This idea of a “compound-republic” of cooperation between the states and the federal government is one that we have tweaked and found middle ground. It is one that allows both for strength as a federal government and rights as individual states. We cannot believe that the New Constitution supports a tyrannical government! It is far from it; it supports a government of helping hands, a government of perfect unity between federal and state government, a union which is equally beneficial and munificent to both, a union which is imperative, necessary and perfect for our United States of America. In our time of need let us join together so that we may stand our ground and flourish as a nation, our nation, The United States of America!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Pennsylvania Federalist Essay Rough Draft
Support for Federalism
We, the representatives of the Pennsylvania House, have agreed upon the ratification of the New Constitution for the
We have made the decision to support the New Constitution because it is our firm belief that the system of a confederation of states as well as a strong federal government to preside over them is the most desirable and unequal way of forming our government.
Why is this constitution so ideal? It allows for the equal representation among our states, with a complex Congressional system of a House and a Senate. In the House of Representatives, each state will have representation according to their population. In the Senate, each state will have equal representation regardless of population. This legislative system is complex, effective and ideal for our nation of differing populations in our states. It is a government that is neither to be feared by a state of small population or of large, but one which both can coexist together. Coexisting, we might say, is perhaps the most ideal aspect of the New Constitution. For it allows for the coexisting of the federal and state government as well. It allows for a constantly evolving system of government, with the ability to add amendment to it as we as people find necessary. It is a document which is both concrete, but also fluid, as according to our needs as a people.
It is in our hearts to fear a strong central government, as that is what we have endured against in our struggle for freedom from the King of England. However, we must see past this fear and realize as a collective body our need for strength and unification for our states as it is in our best interest. We are not losing our rights or our freedoms as states, we are allowing for unification and strength as a collective body of unified but separate bodies. A central government is necessary for strength and without strength we cannot defend ourselves. Can we afford to be powerless to our enemies that may take advantage of our country? We must remember that we no longer are under the protection of the British army, that we are dependent upon ourselves for strength. Can we defend our democratic nation without a strong federal government that can protect and defend ourselves? We must remember that it is imperative as people that we are able to defend ourselves against any threat to our country. Without defense there is no nation, a nation without defense will not stay a nation long. This is why it is imperative that we make the decision to be strong and why we are supporting strength and why we are asking you to support and ratify this New Constitution.
We have heard it argued that the New Constitution is a document which will strip the states of their rights as individuals. However, this claim shows a lack of understanding the New Constitution and the complexity which dictates it. The New Constitution is not a document that takes away the rights of the states, but rather a document which so intricately and complexly protects their rights that it is both impossible and unconceivable that under this document that he rights of the states could be taken away. The New Constitution presents a government of checks and balances, one that is so intricately webbed that it is constantly checking itself and ensuring that the government is not becoming an instrument of power which takes away the rights of the individual states. Instead, it is a strong federal government which is in fact the sovereign of the rights of the states, not a power force which will inhibit us from our rights. A joint-government between states and federal is the most ideal that we can aspire to. This idea of a “compound-republic” of cooperation between the states and the federal government is one that we have tweaked and compromised. It is one that allows both for strength as a federal government and rights as individual states. We cannot believe that the New Constitution supports a tyrannical government! It is far from it; it supports a government of helping hands, a government of perfect unity between federal and state government, a union which is equally beneficial and munificent to both, a union which is imperative, necessary and perfect for our
Friday, November 23, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Essay Number Two Reflection Post
1) Your General Progress
I am not so sure that I progressed really while working on this assignment in general terms. The idea of the word progress is that at the end of the assignment that my writing and/or writing style had changed a lot since before I worked on the assignment. So, I honestly don't really know that I progressed so much with this assignment. I know that I'm supposed to be writing all these ways in which I progressed, but to be honest if I were to do that I would just be making it up, so I'm just going to be honest and say that I didn't really progress and if I did I don't really know how I progressed.
2) How did your process mesh with your partner's?
My process meshed fine with my partner's. We sort of worked independently on our own parts of the assignment without too much of our processes crossing paths so I think that all in all they meshed well. I personally work best independently, so since my process is an independent process, I would say that it meshed perfectly with my partner's. My partner and I shared the workload of the assignment and I felt that it was easy working with my partner because we were able to work together, holding each other's weight because we were equally willing to put effort into the assignment in order to do well. If I were to assess what my grade on this assignment would be, I felt that I followed the rubric for the assignment really well and that I worked hard. If I were to assess my partner's grade, I would say that she worked really hard on the assignment as well in order to follow the rubric and to earn a good grade. So, I would say that both of us worked hard and we deserved to get the good grade we earned.
3) How do you handle creative conflict?
If you didn't, what made your collaboration work?
My partner and I didn't really have any creative conflict together. Our collaboration worked because we were able to agree together on what our project was going to look like and after we agreed on it once, we just did the assignment and so there really wasn't any reason for there to be creative conflict. Our collaboration worked because we really didn't have any conflicting opinions on how the paper should look. We were able to listen to each other's ideas and decide what we wanted to do from there. It wasn't as though either of us deliberately went out of our way to disagree with the other person.
I am not so sure that I progressed really while working on this assignment in general terms. The idea of the word progress is that at the end of the assignment that my writing and/or writing style had changed a lot since before I worked on the assignment. So, I honestly don't really know that I progressed so much with this assignment. I know that I'm supposed to be writing all these ways in which I progressed, but to be honest if I were to do that I would just be making it up, so I'm just going to be honest and say that I didn't really progress and if I did I don't really know how I progressed.
2) How did your process mesh with your partner's?
My process meshed fine with my partner's. We sort of worked independently on our own parts of the assignment without too much of our processes crossing paths so I think that all in all they meshed well. I personally work best independently, so since my process is an independent process, I would say that it meshed perfectly with my partner's. My partner and I shared the workload of the assignment and I felt that it was easy working with my partner because we were able to work together, holding each other's weight because we were equally willing to put effort into the assignment in order to do well. If I were to assess what my grade on this assignment would be, I felt that I followed the rubric for the assignment really well and that I worked hard. If I were to assess my partner's grade, I would say that she worked really hard on the assignment as well in order to follow the rubric and to earn a good grade. So, I would say that both of us worked hard and we deserved to get the good grade we earned.
3) How do you handle creative conflict?
If you didn't, what made your collaboration work?
My partner and I didn't really have any creative conflict together. Our collaboration worked because we were able to agree together on what our project was going to look like and after we agreed on it once, we just did the assignment and so there really wasn't any reason for there to be creative conflict. Our collaboration worked because we really didn't have any conflicting opinions on how the paper should look. We were able to listen to each other's ideas and decide what we wanted to do from there. It wasn't as though either of us deliberately went out of our way to disagree with the other person.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
PORTFOLIO: 2ND ESSAY
A Petition to the Hearts and Minds of the People of Massachusetts
Dear Friends, it has come to my concern the nature and state of our colony. The recent events which have plagued us cannot be disguised under any mask that causes them to appear less dangerous. We must guard our colony, guard our thoughts, lest they soon become a hook in our sides. For those among us who have openly shown their beliefs in their actions, we must now as a body realizes the grievances we have committed. It is my firm belief that it is our utmost duty to remain loyal to our King and to England, for only with this can we as a people survive.
It is foolish to believe that our actions of rebellion are not treason against our king. We have tricked ourselves into believing that our actions have not crossed the line of open treason against our sovereign. We have, in our complaints, not only come against the British parliament, as we have supposed in our cries, but against the King himself. For our King is the guardian of Parliament and to commit crimes against parliament are to commit crimes against our King. I tell you, my friends that this is the most dangerous mistake that we can make, is to not realize the consequences and weight of our thoughts or our actions. Our actions are treason. Are we or are we not British? A house cannot stand divided; if we are as colonists, members of the British Empire, then it is our duty to act as members of the British Empire. And if we are in fact, members of the British Empire, then we are subject to the jurisdiction of this empire.
If we as colonists demand protection from our sovereign, we then also owe to our sovereign tribute. We cannot be quick to forget the sacrifices that our sovereign bore in order to protect us from our enemies. The burden that our sovereign took for us in our struggle was one that we as colonists have the right to demand from our protector. But, if we have this right, then so our protector has the right to demand tribute for their sacrifice. With the stamp act that was imposed against us as colonists was enacted for the British Empire to gain revenue for the loss they felt during the seven years war. Through our continuance of bickering over our rights for legislation, we have forgotten our duty that we have towards our protector. We have continued to argue our right for representation and forget so clearly the very nature of our situation. For a whole body of ocean rests between our colony and England, thus can we argue so for representation when nature so clearly has prevented this?
Finally, I must request of you, my friends, that we must remain steadfast to our mother country. We cannot forget our duty as Englishmen to our King and we must realize that our actions are leading us to treason against our sovereign. We cannot forget that our King was chosen by God and we must remain loyal to our country and to our King. I entreat ye, my fellow countrymen, let us not forget our place as Englishmen, let us not be taken away with these sweep of rebellious treason against our King, but let us remember who we are.
James Lewis
Friday, November 2, 2007
AOD Blog
There is a particular episode of the "The Office" called "Conflict Resolution" which I think would be a perfect example of all of the things that you are not supposed to do when it comes to mediating conflicts between other people. The general background to the episode is that it is a typical office where employees will have complaints about their fellow co-workers that they will submit to their HR representative. When the boss, Michael Scott, who, although is a very caring person, is also very immature and injudicious individual, decides to solve his employee's conflicts, it ends up to be a negotiation nightmare.
One of the main conflicts that he "negotiates", while it would be an excellent example of creative conflict, it unfortunately satisfies neither of the two parties. The two fueding parties, both accountants, Oscar and Angela, are arguing over a poser Angela has on the wall that Oscar dislikes seeing. In order to achieve a perfect, "win-win-win" solution (a solution where both parties and the mediator win), Michael suggests that Angela make the poster into a t-shirt that Oscar wears. While this is a very creative solution to the problem, perhaps a better one than the secretary Pam's idea of a compromise of having it up Tuesdays and Thursdays, it really didn't satisfy Oscar or Angela.
Continuing with his quest, the boss Michael, furthur stirs up controversy when he forces additional fueding parties to meet with each other to "resolve" their conflicts. The problem would this would be that neither party had come willing to meet with each other and therefore were not ready to meet, nor were they coming with a willing heart to compromise to find a solution. The end of the day resulted in several employees mad at each other because controversy had been stirred up without a proper plan of action for a resolution. So, basically, I think that this would all be an excellent example of what not to do when it comes to mediating a conflict between a group of other people.
One of the main conflicts that he "negotiates", while it would be an excellent example of creative conflict, it unfortunately satisfies neither of the two parties. The two fueding parties, both accountants, Oscar and Angela, are arguing over a poser Angela has on the wall that Oscar dislikes seeing. In order to achieve a perfect, "win-win-win" solution (a solution where both parties and the mediator win), Michael suggests that Angela make the poster into a t-shirt that Oscar wears. While this is a very creative solution to the problem, perhaps a better one than the secretary Pam's idea of a compromise of having it up Tuesdays and Thursdays, it really didn't satisfy Oscar or Angela.
Continuing with his quest, the boss Michael, furthur stirs up controversy when he forces additional fueding parties to meet with each other to "resolve" their conflicts. The problem would this would be that neither party had come willing to meet with each other and therefore were not ready to meet, nor were they coming with a willing heart to compromise to find a solution. The end of the day resulted in several employees mad at each other because controversy had been stirred up without a proper plan of action for a resolution. So, basically, I think that this would all be an excellent example of what not to do when it comes to mediating a conflict between a group of other people.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Long Live the King II
Today:
- I researched several different prominent loyalist writers during the American Revolution and found letters and articles that they had written concerning their opinion.
- I researched general information articles concerning loyalists during the American Revolution to help develop my character.
- I began formulating the style and approach of which to have for the newspaper that we are going to write.
- Unsure about my character choice and no longer think that I want to do a merchant, but would prefer to have a laywerish character instead. I think that it would be better suited both for the argument that I have began formulating and also for the style of the paper that we are going to be writing, so I am revising which type of character I am going to be doing.
- I will begin working on my annotations and evaluating the sources that I have already found as well as finding more sources. Starting tomorrow and over the weekend I will begin working on how I want to structure my argument and what my argument will be and how that will fit my character.
- I also will be working on my character just to formulate who the character is, where they are coming from, ect. other than just their occupation.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Long Live the King
Loyalism vs. Patriotism, 1760s & 1770s
Loyalist
1)Character Development
Heather- Lawyer
Ashley- New England Merchant
2)Structure and Organization
for a newspaper- newspaper articles published concerning the issue
For our essay, we are going to be taking the roles of a loyalist new england merchant and a lawyer. We are going to be taking sides and formulating our argument based upon a general idea of the fight as well as our own specific interests and opinions.
We will be publishing our ideas in editorials for a newspaper that is read by many patriotists/loyalists/passionate individuals concerning the conflict.
Loyalist
1)Character Development
Heather- Lawyer
Ashley- New England Merchant
2)Structure and Organization
for a newspaper- newspaper articles published concerning the issue
For our essay, we are going to be taking the roles of a loyalist new england merchant and a lawyer. We are going to be taking sides and formulating our argument based upon a general idea of the fight as well as our own specific interests and opinions.
We will be publishing our ideas in editorials for a newspaper that is read by many patriotists/loyalists/passionate individuals concerning the conflict.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Midterm Practice Essay
Midterm Practice Essay
America has always been a nation that has been defined by its boldness; an attribute that can both be negative and positive in the light of the world. We have always been characterized by our natural belief in our superiority and also our duty as a nation to the rest of the world. Our every decisions we have made as Americans have always been personified by this belief, this philosophy that wraps around America like a blanket. This has been an idea that has been integrated in our society since we have been born, even before we were technically the United States of America. In many ways, this philosophy was first conceived by John Winthrop, who’s Arbella Sermon would establish America’s entire way of viewing themselves as a body. John Winthrop’s philosophy of a “city upon a hill” would set a precedent for American society in the future.
[The Puritans established a society that was embedded in their own personal arrogance in their faith.] When the Puritans came over from England, they brought their ideas on how to form a society. As Englishmen, they brought along the inherent arrogance and pride of such and set high expectations for what their society would be like. They believed firmly that their society that they were creating would be one that in the future individuals would look back and hope to achieve. This can be compared to the lust of Rome, leaders like Napoleon and Hitler would strive to the success and achievement of Roman society as John Winthrop hoped individuals who strive towards the society of New England. But, different from the society of Rome, John Winthrop hoped that New England would be a beacon of piety and religiosity. The idea of a “city upon a hill” is a biblical notion similar to the way that you are supposed to shine your light across the world. John Winthrop aspired that New England would be an example to everyone, as Rome was an example of military might and democracy, that New England would be an example of religious piety. When the Puritans requested for the Massachusetts Bay Charter, one of their main points of reason was the spread and preaching of Christianity, which hearkened back towards the Spanish, and also emphasized the entire philosophy of the Puritans.
[As American society progressed, people began forming the structure of America’s government revolving around the philosophy of John Winthrop.] When the founding fathers gathered to make their claim for creating the United States of America, there was an obvious sense of arrogance in their argument. The very idea of America being better and the best was an idea that began there, however it stemmed from the sermon made by John Winthrop a hundred and fifty years earlier. Additionally, while the exact religious inspiration of the founding fathers is debatable, as so many were theists, it can be very well argued that America was founded upon the principles of religion. However, as the Puritans established a precedent for separation of church and state, this too would make its way into the creation of the American government. It is clear though that the dream of the “city upon a hill” lived on in the hearts of new Americans as they fought for their independence. In a way, it can be argued that the simple arrogance of believing you can overthrow your monarch is an example of a belief that you are somehow better as individuals. When Americans came together collectively to compose the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, the notion of America’s duty and superiority came across clearly in the text.
[The remnant of this early dream still exists in American society today, governing almost every aspect of the identity of American.] At the time after the American Revolution, the idea of being “American” was extremely new and people had to look somewhere for a sense of identity and the founding fathers reaching towards John Winthrop spread like wildfire to every new American as a sense of purpose. This idea of America’s natural superiority and duty in the world dictates, directly or indirectly, every decision America as a body takes. This idea of duty could be seen in the space race, where John F. Kennedy announced that we would send a man to the moon in a decade before anyone else did. This idea of Americanism perhaps was best personified in the 1960’s, the era of the space race, as that period so well characterized the philosophy left behind by John Winthrop. In our international affairs our arrogance, but also our duty can be seen clearly. America is one of the leading countries to send foreign aid to third world countries. However, we also are seen in the world as being arrogant and stepping out of bounds because of foreign policy, most specifically with the war in Iraq. This idea of “a city upon a hill”, the idea that America must and is superior and has a duty to spread to the world their philosophies continues to expand and dictate the decisions of our nation.
This philosophy of American greatness is one that will continue to be a part of American society for as long as we continue to be a nation. Our belief in ourselves as being “a city upon a hill”, which was first preached and championed by John Winthrop is one that as Americans we have continued and continued to achieve. In every sense it can be seen that we are a great nation, a nation that has been and hopefully will continue to be filled with promise. The idea of New England being a place that would be a place of glory and praise perhaps was too narrow-minded of John Winthrop; he didn’t realize that it wouldn’t be New England, but the United States of America that would fill his role of “a city upon a hill”. This idea is exactly parallel to Rome, but in many ways, our society can be comparable to Rome, the society that by so many has been desired and sought after. Perhaps that is a rather assuming statement to make, but perhaps it also could simply be a testament to the American sense of ego.
“[W]hen he shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding [colonies], ‘the Lord make it like that of New
- John Winthrop, 1630
America has always been a nation that has been defined by its boldness; an attribute that can both be negative and positive in the light of the world. We have always been characterized by our natural belief in our superiority and also our duty as a nation to the rest of the world. Our every decisions we have made as Americans have always been personified by this belief, this philosophy that wraps around America like a blanket. This has been an idea that has been integrated in our society since we have been born, even before we were technically the United States of America. In many ways, this philosophy was first conceived by John Winthrop, who’s Arbella Sermon would establish America’s entire way of viewing themselves as a body. John Winthrop’s philosophy of a “city upon a hill” would set a precedent for American society in the future.
[The Puritans established a society that was embedded in their own personal arrogance in their faith.] When the Puritans came over from England, they brought their ideas on how to form a society. As Englishmen, they brought along the inherent arrogance and pride of such and set high expectations for what their society would be like. They believed firmly that their society that they were creating would be one that in the future individuals would look back and hope to achieve. This can be compared to the lust of Rome, leaders like Napoleon and Hitler would strive to the success and achievement of Roman society as John Winthrop hoped individuals who strive towards the society of New England. But, different from the society of Rome, John Winthrop hoped that New England would be a beacon of piety and religiosity. The idea of a “city upon a hill” is a biblical notion similar to the way that you are supposed to shine your light across the world. John Winthrop aspired that New England would be an example to everyone, as Rome was an example of military might and democracy, that New England would be an example of religious piety. When the Puritans requested for the Massachusetts Bay Charter, one of their main points of reason was the spread and preaching of Christianity, which hearkened back towards the Spanish, and also emphasized the entire philosophy of the Puritans.
[As American society progressed, people began forming the structure of America’s government revolving around the philosophy of John Winthrop.] When the founding fathers gathered to make their claim for creating the United States of America, there was an obvious sense of arrogance in their argument. The very idea of America being better and the best was an idea that began there, however it stemmed from the sermon made by John Winthrop a hundred and fifty years earlier. Additionally, while the exact religious inspiration of the founding fathers is debatable, as so many were theists, it can be very well argued that America was founded upon the principles of religion. However, as the Puritans established a precedent for separation of church and state, this too would make its way into the creation of the American government. It is clear though that the dream of the “city upon a hill” lived on in the hearts of new Americans as they fought for their independence. In a way, it can be argued that the simple arrogance of believing you can overthrow your monarch is an example of a belief that you are somehow better as individuals. When Americans came together collectively to compose the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, the notion of America’s duty and superiority came across clearly in the text.
[The remnant of this early dream still exists in American society today, governing almost every aspect of the identity of American.] At the time after the American Revolution, the idea of being “American” was extremely new and people had to look somewhere for a sense of identity and the founding fathers reaching towards John Winthrop spread like wildfire to every new American as a sense of purpose. This idea of America’s natural superiority and duty in the world dictates, directly or indirectly, every decision America as a body takes. This idea of duty could be seen in the space race, where John F. Kennedy announced that we would send a man to the moon in a decade before anyone else did. This idea of Americanism perhaps was best personified in the 1960’s, the era of the space race, as that period so well characterized the philosophy left behind by John Winthrop. In our international affairs our arrogance, but also our duty can be seen clearly. America is one of the leading countries to send foreign aid to third world countries. However, we also are seen in the world as being arrogant and stepping out of bounds because of foreign policy, most specifically with the war in Iraq. This idea of “a city upon a hill”, the idea that America must and is superior and has a duty to spread to the world their philosophies continues to expand and dictate the decisions of our nation.
This philosophy of American greatness is one that will continue to be a part of American society for as long as we continue to be a nation. Our belief in ourselves as being “a city upon a hill”, which was first preached and championed by John Winthrop is one that as Americans we have continued and continued to achieve. In every sense it can be seen that we are a great nation, a nation that has been and hopefully will continue to be filled with promise. The idea of New England being a place that would be a place of glory and praise perhaps was too narrow-minded of John Winthrop; he didn’t realize that it wouldn’t be New England, but the United States of America that would fill his role of “a city upon a hill”. This idea is exactly parallel to Rome, but in many ways, our society can be comparable to Rome, the society that by so many has been desired and sought after. Perhaps that is a rather assuming statement to make, but perhaps it also could simply be a testament to the American sense of ego.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Essay #1 Reflection Post
How do you think you did?
Honestly evaluate your performance...
In my own opinion, I felt that I did very well on this essay. I think this because I worked very hard on it to get a perfect draft that I felt was suitable in the end and because I tried my very best to fulfill what was asked of me. Granted, could it have been better? I suppose, yes, it could have been better. But, nobody smacks down Paul Goghan cause he couldn't paint like Van Gogh, that was just his talent. He was doing it to the very best of his ability. That's why I thought that I did very well, because I worked hard on my essay. I researched it thoroughly and applied my research to back up my reasons as support for my thesis. I worked hard to structure my essay in a format that made sense, was easy on the reader and followed a conclusive line of logic that is understandable. So, if you were to ask me how I did and to honestly evaluate my performance, I would say that I think that I did pretty darn well. In all honesty I probably more effort into that essay than any of the essays I wrote last year for world history and felt that it was better structured and supported in relation to the topic.
What have you learned about your writing process and philosophy?
For this essay, I was exposed to several new concepts. I encountered the outline, something that I have always dreaded in my personal experience and have never much cared for. It isn't so much that I disliked the outline because it constricted what I was writing, but simply because I didn't care for outlining my ideas. I prefer to go straight into what I'm talking about otherwise I'm afraid I might lose what brilliant ideas that I might have had while writing the outline. I think that I am a little more open to outlines though now. It was really difficult for me to write one this time because I had never done one before and it wasn't a set part of my writing experience. Because of this it was difficult for me to train my mind to think in that sort of a format, but I think now that I have done it once, if I keep doing them I might someday come to the point where I always do them. Or I might someday come to the conclusion that I was right all along and that I never did like outlines nor were they a part of my writing process. I think I might go either way. Obviously I'm somewhat obstinate because I didn't particularly like them before this assignment, but I'm open-minded enough to give them a try and maybe, who knows, they'll come to be an important part of my writing process after all?
Something that I've also never done so much, not to say that I haven't or that I don't, but I don't care for the process, is the writing of several drafts. I don't particularly like to revise or edit my work. I'm not sure why, perhaps my personal attachment to the words that I wrote. I suppose that that's a little bit odd if you think about it, but when I write well and I like to think that I do most of the time, then I really fall in love with my writing. You could say that that's a hindrance or a help to my writing. The first would be because I'm not looking at what I'm writing clearly and seeing what could obviously be changed for the better but on the other hand you could say that that was clearly a positive thing because if I'm confident about my writing other people are likely to believe in me as a writer too. So, I suppose it could go both way. But, in relation to drafts, I think that it's something that I've always secretly had somewhat of a grudge against, and maybe still do a little, but if I think I do a better job at training myself to be more critical and discerning, then it's something that I can grow into. Sort of like when you buy a jacket that's too big when you're a little kid and you don't fit into right away, but your mom makes you wear it anyway because you'll grow into it? I think you might use the same sort of philosophy for this. Right now I'm still maturing as a writer and certain methods like outlining or drafting might not fit me right now at the moment, but if I continue to mature as a writer, I'll grow into them. It's just all about whether or not I'm willing to wear the jacket and I think that I am willing to wear the jacket.
My writing philosophy I suppose then really hasn't changed much. I still believe what I believed before, but I'm more open-minded at least to new ways of a writing process. I'm willing to take on new method to improve my process for a test spin and if it turns out they work out for me, that's absolutely fantastic. But, if I turn out to not like the jacket in the end, then I can always just stop wearing it, but at least I gave it a chance, right? I think that's good.
What have you learned about college writing vs. high school writing?
I suppose that I've learned that college writing as opposed to high school writing is more focused and more demanding. I've written history essays before but I've never been held accountable so much for researching and defending my position based upon my sources. So, in that sense I think that college writing is much more demanding because it demands that you as a person are credible. I had to prove that my sources were credible and reliable and apply them to my thesis in order to support it. It was a lot different in comparison to what I might do in high school where I didn't have to research as much and apply. So, that definitely would be something that I've learned about college writing: research, apply and support. Additionally, I think I've learned that it's a lot more focused. I learned about the art of the thesis in my ninth grade English class and we learned about how to narrow down and be specific. However, I think that definitely the writing that we've had to do for history has been a lot more focused to a certain topic and a certain idea more so than I've had for essays for English, history or civics.
What changes will you make for next time?
Some changes that I think I will implement for next time will just to start sooner and to research more. I felt that I had quite a bit of research and enough to back up my points, but I felt that because I was still learning about researching well while I was in the process of the essay, I wasn't able to utilize what I learned as much in what I was doing. So, definitely I think that I will work harder to apply what I have learned in the wiki class to what the essay is asking because I didn't completely understand it all while I was starting the process of the essay. I will definitely start sooner as well, not that I didn't start on time, but just I think I'd like to go through a lot more process and maybe write a few more drafts than I did just so that I can compare and contrast what is the best essay. Also, there were a few times that I thought about changing my position just because of the research that I was finding, so perhaps next time I will take more time to explore a few different theses and perhaps write a few different drafts for a couple of theses before I choose which thesis I'm actually going to take and run with because it'd be nice to have a few options when it comes down to choosing what I'm turning in for my final draft.
Honestly evaluate your performance...
In my own opinion, I felt that I did very well on this essay. I think this because I worked very hard on it to get a perfect draft that I felt was suitable in the end and because I tried my very best to fulfill what was asked of me. Granted, could it have been better? I suppose, yes, it could have been better. But, nobody smacks down Paul Goghan cause he couldn't paint like Van Gogh, that was just his talent. He was doing it to the very best of his ability. That's why I thought that I did very well, because I worked hard on my essay. I researched it thoroughly and applied my research to back up my reasons as support for my thesis. I worked hard to structure my essay in a format that made sense, was easy on the reader and followed a conclusive line of logic that is understandable. So, if you were to ask me how I did and to honestly evaluate my performance, I would say that I think that I did pretty darn well. In all honesty I probably more effort into that essay than any of the essays I wrote last year for world history and felt that it was better structured and supported in relation to the topic.
What have you learned about your writing process and philosophy?
For this essay, I was exposed to several new concepts. I encountered the outline, something that I have always dreaded in my personal experience and have never much cared for. It isn't so much that I disliked the outline because it constricted what I was writing, but simply because I didn't care for outlining my ideas. I prefer to go straight into what I'm talking about otherwise I'm afraid I might lose what brilliant ideas that I might have had while writing the outline. I think that I am a little more open to outlines though now. It was really difficult for me to write one this time because I had never done one before and it wasn't a set part of my writing experience. Because of this it was difficult for me to train my mind to think in that sort of a format, but I think now that I have done it once, if I keep doing them I might someday come to the point where I always do them. Or I might someday come to the conclusion that I was right all along and that I never did like outlines nor were they a part of my writing process. I think I might go either way. Obviously I'm somewhat obstinate because I didn't particularly like them before this assignment, but I'm open-minded enough to give them a try and maybe, who knows, they'll come to be an important part of my writing process after all?
Something that I've also never done so much, not to say that I haven't or that I don't, but I don't care for the process, is the writing of several drafts. I don't particularly like to revise or edit my work. I'm not sure why, perhaps my personal attachment to the words that I wrote. I suppose that that's a little bit odd if you think about it, but when I write well and I like to think that I do most of the time, then I really fall in love with my writing. You could say that that's a hindrance or a help to my writing. The first would be because I'm not looking at what I'm writing clearly and seeing what could obviously be changed for the better but on the other hand you could say that that was clearly a positive thing because if I'm confident about my writing other people are likely to believe in me as a writer too. So, I suppose it could go both way. But, in relation to drafts, I think that it's something that I've always secretly had somewhat of a grudge against, and maybe still do a little, but if I think I do a better job at training myself to be more critical and discerning, then it's something that I can grow into. Sort of like when you buy a jacket that's too big when you're a little kid and you don't fit into right away, but your mom makes you wear it anyway because you'll grow into it? I think you might use the same sort of philosophy for this. Right now I'm still maturing as a writer and certain methods like outlining or drafting might not fit me right now at the moment, but if I continue to mature as a writer, I'll grow into them. It's just all about whether or not I'm willing to wear the jacket and I think that I am willing to wear the jacket.
My writing philosophy I suppose then really hasn't changed much. I still believe what I believed before, but I'm more open-minded at least to new ways of a writing process. I'm willing to take on new method to improve my process for a test spin and if it turns out they work out for me, that's absolutely fantastic. But, if I turn out to not like the jacket in the end, then I can always just stop wearing it, but at least I gave it a chance, right? I think that's good.
What have you learned about college writing vs. high school writing?
I suppose that I've learned that college writing as opposed to high school writing is more focused and more demanding. I've written history essays before but I've never been held accountable so much for researching and defending my position based upon my sources. So, in that sense I think that college writing is much more demanding because it demands that you as a person are credible. I had to prove that my sources were credible and reliable and apply them to my thesis in order to support it. It was a lot different in comparison to what I might do in high school where I didn't have to research as much and apply. So, that definitely would be something that I've learned about college writing: research, apply and support. Additionally, I think I've learned that it's a lot more focused. I learned about the art of the thesis in my ninth grade English class and we learned about how to narrow down and be specific. However, I think that definitely the writing that we've had to do for history has been a lot more focused to a certain topic and a certain idea more so than I've had for essays for English, history or civics.
What changes will you make for next time?
Some changes that I think I will implement for next time will just to start sooner and to research more. I felt that I had quite a bit of research and enough to back up my points, but I felt that because I was still learning about researching well while I was in the process of the essay, I wasn't able to utilize what I learned as much in what I was doing. So, definitely I think that I will work harder to apply what I have learned in the wiki class to what the essay is asking because I didn't completely understand it all while I was starting the process of the essay. I will definitely start sooner as well, not that I didn't start on time, but just I think I'd like to go through a lot more process and maybe write a few more drafts than I did just so that I can compare and contrast what is the best essay. Also, there were a few times that I thought about changing my position just because of the research that I was finding, so perhaps next time I will take more time to explore a few different theses and perhaps write a few different drafts for a couple of theses before I choose which thesis I'm actually going to take and run with because it'd be nice to have a few options when it comes down to choosing what I'm turning in for my final draft.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion: Final Draft
Bacon's Rebellion Essay
Body, Intro & Conclusion: Final Draft
The period between 1676 and 1677 in the Virginia Colony was the timeframe of a remarkable and fascinating episode in American history. It was the period of Bacon’s Rebellion, an uprising of the lower class of colonists against the Governor, which in many ways would resemble the American Revolution that would occur a hundred years later. The ringleader and instigator of this Rebellion would be Nathaniel Bacon, a wealthy and well-educated young man who had recently immigrated to Virginia. While the premise in the hearts of his followers would be for economic and social reasons, Nathaniel Bacon ignited the Rebellion solely for his own political gain and his wish to stir up trouble in the colony. However, despite the fact that Bacon’s Rebellion was led by the political hungry Nathaniel Bacon, it resulted in a political change for the better for Chesapeake Society.
[At the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was searching for an opportunity to gain political control.] Bacon was a greedy and arrogant man who was withdrawn from Cambridge University and sent to the New World by his father after he was discovered in a plan to defraud a neighbor of his inheritance.[1] Bacon had a wealthy and well-connected uncle, also named Nathaniel Bacon, who was a member of the Governor’s Council. Using his connections, his uncle presented him with a position on the Governor’s Council and soon had a reputation as “the most accomplished man in the colony.”[2] He was described by the Royal Commissioners’ Report to be “of a most imperious and dangerous hidden pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.”[3] However, this distinguished position was not enough for him and he made the decision to exploit the frustrations of poorer farmers against the social elite using the political system for their own benefits rather than protecting them against attacking Indians. Nathaniel Bacon is described by one historian as being one “who then held arms in his hands for love of the new country”[4]. I believe that this sort of opinion is predominant because rebellion is an American ideal cemented by our pride in the American Revolution. However, it is important to make clear that at that time there was no identity or idea of a “new country”, it was simply an extension of England. One historian actually referred to Bacon as though being “called”[5] to the actions that he took in Virginia however it is also false to be believe that Bacon’s actions were in any way patriotic since they were to fill his own personal desires rather than trying to improve society as a whole.
[Despite the fact that William Berkeley was a controversial governor, he was openly respected by the people of Virginia, which is why it is likely without Nathaniel Bacon, direct confrontation with the Governor may never have occurred.] Evidence shows that William Berkeley was a governor that showed favoritism to his close friends and family, an example of how he failed to set up a government that was accessible to all colonists. This trend can be seen clearly when in 1724, all twelve members of the Virginia’s Royal Council were all related by blood or marriage.[6] This was a precedent that would be cemented by Berkeley himself, seen when he, which would prove to be his mistake, gave his own cousin Nathaniel Bacon a position on the council. However, despite the fact that Berkeley was obviously a partial and perhaps even biased governor, he was referred to as “the darling of the people”[7] by early Virginian historian Robert Beverley. It is argued by David Hackett Fischer, a Professor of History at Brandeis University, that Berkeley “bent the young sapling of its [Virginia’s] social system and made it grow in the direction that he wished”.[8] While it is obvious that Berkeley was biased towards himself in his governing of Virginia, I believe that it is unfair to suppose that he was unjust or without good intentions in his governing over the people of Virginia. The reason for this is because Virginia’s government was in many ways based upon the English system of government, which was far from democratic, and while it certainly needed reforming, it is unfair to say that Berkeley was a corrupt or poor governor because of his actions. It is also unreasonable to then assume, I believe, that if Berkeley had been as loved a governor as he is depicted by historian Robert Beverley, that the colonists would have so directly confronted him with a rebellion as they did. Instead I believe that it was purely Nathaniel Bacon that was the incendiary for the Rebellion and that it would not have occurred in such a manner of absolute defiance against the governor had it not been for the urging of its ringleader Bacon.
[The aftermath of the rebellion resulted in a change in the political make-up of Chesapeake Society.] Bacon’s Rebellion collapsed when the instigator of the rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon, died of fever in October 1676. Without the support of the power-seeking Bacon to fuel his rebellious band of followers, the rebellion simply lost its determination, which would be evidence for the idea that the cause behind the Rebellion was purely magnified and distorted by the powerful orator, Bacon. The laws that were enacted during Bacon’s short stint in the House of Burgesses remained a permanent part of the Virginia Colony despite attempts by Governor Berkeley to repeal the laws. They were actually repealed by Governor Berkeley for a short time after the collapse of Bacon’s Rebellion, but most were restored in the February of 1677.[9] The laws known as “Bacon’s Laws” were reforms to the political system that improved the political power of the lower classes and reduced the power of the social elite.[10] They guaranteed rights such as voting for all freemen, the election of the vestry, representation in taxation and the abolishment of holding more than one office. Ironically, it is very doubtful that Bacon had any influence or decision making with these laws; rather they were likely written by Richard Lawrence and William Drummond, who were two supporters of Bacon that were elected to the House of Burgesses in 1676.[11] Before these laws had been put in place, the political system had been dominated by the social elite, namely the very wealthy farmers, and there had been little outlet for the voice of the common class. It proves that, despite the fact that Bacon had rallied up the rebellion for the improvement of his own political situation, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in the improvement of the entire colony’s political situation and made the government more accessible and adjustable to the public. While it is true that many of these laws never guaranteed Virginians the freedoms they were supposed to, it set a precedent for the future. Additionally, Bacon’s Rebellion caused the British Crown to order a royal investigation of the colony’s affairs, which eventually led to the termination of William Berkeley, who had been such a biased and partial leader, as the Governor of Virginia. In many respects however, the rebellious nature displayed by the colonists served as a prelude to the American Revolution which would not occur for another hundred years. Some of the same issues that plagued colonists that participated in Bacon’s Rebellion, such as taxation without representation and a lack of involvement in their government, would fuel the revolutionaries one hundred years later.
Bacon’s Rebellion was a unique and fascinating period in the colony of Virginia’s history. It represented a situation where an individual exploits the frustrations of other people in order to gain power, in this case political, for himself. It is a plot which can be seen throughout history, even today, however in the case of Bacon’s Rebellion, it can be argued that it served in the end a beneficial situation for Virginia and its people. Bacon’s laws which granted Virginia’s citizens more political power and lessened the handle of the social elite on the political system were kept despite the fact that the government attempted to repeal these laws. Additionally, this poor and biased government, led by Governor William Berkeley was replaced by a different government system that granted political access to more than just friends and family of social elitists like Berkeley and rather created a more fair and accessible government. While Nathaniel Bacon the man may have been an arrogant and corrupt individual that sought for only his own personal gain, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in a situation for the better of the Virginia colony, despite the sacrifices that were made because of it. While similar episodes in history do not always result in such a positive outcome, Bacon’s Rebellion was and served as a prelude to a similar episode in history that would take place a hundred years later. This episode, known as the American Revolution, also was a rebellion, while its motivations may be different in nature than Nathaniel Bacon’s might have been, served to create a better political system and government for the people that it served.
[1] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011662/Nathaniel-Bacon#191101.hook
[2] http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Nathaniel-Bacon.html
[3] http://www.rickriordan.com/Who_was_Bacon.htm
[4] William Alexander MacCorkie; Some Southern Questions
[5] Mary Newton Stanard; The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion
[6] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[7] Robert Beverley; On Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704
[8] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[9] http://www.newrivernotes.com/va/bacon.htm
[10] http://www.foundersofamerica.org/bacon.html
[11] The Settling of Jamestown by Janet Riehecky
Body, Intro & Conclusion: Final Draft
The period between 1676 and 1677 in the Virginia Colony was the timeframe of a remarkable and fascinating episode in American history. It was the period of Bacon’s Rebellion, an uprising of the lower class of colonists against the Governor, which in many ways would resemble the American Revolution that would occur a hundred years later. The ringleader and instigator of this Rebellion would be Nathaniel Bacon, a wealthy and well-educated young man who had recently immigrated to Virginia. While the premise in the hearts of his followers would be for economic and social reasons, Nathaniel Bacon ignited the Rebellion solely for his own political gain and his wish to stir up trouble in the colony. However, despite the fact that Bacon’s Rebellion was led by the political hungry Nathaniel Bacon, it resulted in a political change for the better for Chesapeake Society.
[At the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was searching for an opportunity to gain political control.] Bacon was a greedy and arrogant man who was withdrawn from Cambridge University and sent to the New World by his father after he was discovered in a plan to defraud a neighbor of his inheritance.[1] Bacon had a wealthy and well-connected uncle, also named Nathaniel Bacon, who was a member of the Governor’s Council. Using his connections, his uncle presented him with a position on the Governor’s Council and soon had a reputation as “the most accomplished man in the colony.”[2] He was described by the Royal Commissioners’ Report to be “of a most imperious and dangerous hidden pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.”[3] However, this distinguished position was not enough for him and he made the decision to exploit the frustrations of poorer farmers against the social elite using the political system for their own benefits rather than protecting them against attacking Indians. Nathaniel Bacon is described by one historian as being one “who then held arms in his hands for love of the new country”[4]. I believe that this sort of opinion is predominant because rebellion is an American ideal cemented by our pride in the American Revolution. However, it is important to make clear that at that time there was no identity or idea of a “new country”, it was simply an extension of England. One historian actually referred to Bacon as though being “called”[5] to the actions that he took in Virginia however it is also false to be believe that Bacon’s actions were in any way patriotic since they were to fill his own personal desires rather than trying to improve society as a whole.
[Despite the fact that William Berkeley was a controversial governor, he was openly respected by the people of Virginia, which is why it is likely without Nathaniel Bacon, direct confrontation with the Governor may never have occurred.] Evidence shows that William Berkeley was a governor that showed favoritism to his close friends and family, an example of how he failed to set up a government that was accessible to all colonists. This trend can be seen clearly when in 1724, all twelve members of the Virginia’s Royal Council were all related by blood or marriage.[6] This was a precedent that would be cemented by Berkeley himself, seen when he, which would prove to be his mistake, gave his own cousin Nathaniel Bacon a position on the council. However, despite the fact that Berkeley was obviously a partial and perhaps even biased governor, he was referred to as “the darling of the people”[7] by early Virginian historian Robert Beverley. It is argued by David Hackett Fischer, a Professor of History at Brandeis University, that Berkeley “bent the young sapling of its [Virginia’s] social system and made it grow in the direction that he wished”.[8] While it is obvious that Berkeley was biased towards himself in his governing of Virginia, I believe that it is unfair to suppose that he was unjust or without good intentions in his governing over the people of Virginia. The reason for this is because Virginia’s government was in many ways based upon the English system of government, which was far from democratic, and while it certainly needed reforming, it is unfair to say that Berkeley was a corrupt or poor governor because of his actions. It is also unreasonable to then assume, I believe, that if Berkeley had been as loved a governor as he is depicted by historian Robert Beverley, that the colonists would have so directly confronted him with a rebellion as they did. Instead I believe that it was purely Nathaniel Bacon that was the incendiary for the Rebellion and that it would not have occurred in such a manner of absolute defiance against the governor had it not been for the urging of its ringleader Bacon.
[The aftermath of the rebellion resulted in a change in the political make-up of Chesapeake Society.] Bacon’s Rebellion collapsed when the instigator of the rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon, died of fever in October 1676. Without the support of the power-seeking Bacon to fuel his rebellious band of followers, the rebellion simply lost its determination, which would be evidence for the idea that the cause behind the Rebellion was purely magnified and distorted by the powerful orator, Bacon. The laws that were enacted during Bacon’s short stint in the House of Burgesses remained a permanent part of the Virginia Colony despite attempts by Governor Berkeley to repeal the laws. They were actually repealed by Governor Berkeley for a short time after the collapse of Bacon’s Rebellion, but most were restored in the February of 1677.[9] The laws known as “Bacon’s Laws” were reforms to the political system that improved the political power of the lower classes and reduced the power of the social elite.[10] They guaranteed rights such as voting for all freemen, the election of the vestry, representation in taxation and the abolishment of holding more than one office. Ironically, it is very doubtful that Bacon had any influence or decision making with these laws; rather they were likely written by Richard Lawrence and William Drummond, who were two supporters of Bacon that were elected to the House of Burgesses in 1676.[11] Before these laws had been put in place, the political system had been dominated by the social elite, namely the very wealthy farmers, and there had been little outlet for the voice of the common class. It proves that, despite the fact that Bacon had rallied up the rebellion for the improvement of his own political situation, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in the improvement of the entire colony’s political situation and made the government more accessible and adjustable to the public. While it is true that many of these laws never guaranteed Virginians the freedoms they were supposed to, it set a precedent for the future. Additionally, Bacon’s Rebellion caused the British Crown to order a royal investigation of the colony’s affairs, which eventually led to the termination of William Berkeley, who had been such a biased and partial leader, as the Governor of Virginia. In many respects however, the rebellious nature displayed by the colonists served as a prelude to the American Revolution which would not occur for another hundred years. Some of the same issues that plagued colonists that participated in Bacon’s Rebellion, such as taxation without representation and a lack of involvement in their government, would fuel the revolutionaries one hundred years later.
Bacon’s Rebellion was a unique and fascinating period in the colony of Virginia’s history. It represented a situation where an individual exploits the frustrations of other people in order to gain power, in this case political, for himself. It is a plot which can be seen throughout history, even today, however in the case of Bacon’s Rebellion, it can be argued that it served in the end a beneficial situation for Virginia and its people. Bacon’s laws which granted Virginia’s citizens more political power and lessened the handle of the social elite on the political system were kept despite the fact that the government attempted to repeal these laws. Additionally, this poor and biased government, led by Governor William Berkeley was replaced by a different government system that granted political access to more than just friends and family of social elitists like Berkeley and rather created a more fair and accessible government. While Nathaniel Bacon the man may have been an arrogant and corrupt individual that sought for only his own personal gain, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in a situation for the better of the Virginia colony, despite the sacrifices that were made because of it. While similar episodes in history do not always result in such a positive outcome, Bacon’s Rebellion was and served as a prelude to a similar episode in history that would take place a hundred years later. This episode, known as the American Revolution, also was a rebellion, while its motivations may be different in nature than Nathaniel Bacon’s might have been, served to create a better political system and government for the people that it served.
[1] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011662/Nathaniel-Bacon#191101.hook
[2] http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Nathaniel-Bacon.html
[3] http://www.rickriordan.com/Who_was_Bacon.htm
[4] William Alexander MacCorkie; Some Southern Questions
[5] Mary Newton Stanard; The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion
[6] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[7] Robert Beverley; On Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704
[8] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[9] http://www.newrivernotes.com/va/bacon.htm
[10] http://www.foundersofamerica.org/bacon.html
[11] The Settling of Jamestown by Janet Riehecky
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion Essay; Second Draft
Bacon's Rebellion
Body & Intro: Second Draft
The period between 1676 and 1677 in the Virginia Colony was the timeframe of a remarkable and fascinating episode in American history. It was the period of Bacon’s Rebellion, an uprising of the lower class of colonists against the Governor, which in many ways would resemble the American Revolution that would occur a hundred years later. The ringleader and instigator of this Rebellion would be Nathaniel Bacon, a wealthy and well-educated young man who had recently immigrated to Virginia. While the premise in the hearts of his followers would be for economic and social reasons, Nathaniel Bacon ignited the Rebellion solely for his own political gain and his wish to stir up trouble in the colony. However, despite the fact that Bacon’s Rebellion was led by the political hungry Nathaniel Bacon, it resulted in a political change for the better for Chesapeake Society.
[At the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was searching for an opportunity to gain political control.] Bacon was a greedy and arrogant man who was withdrawn from Cambridge University and sent to the New World by his father after he was discovered in a plan to defraud a neighbor of his inheritance.[1] Bacon had a wealthy and well-connected uncle, also named Nathaniel Bacon, who was a member of the Governor’s Council. Using his connections, his uncle presented him with a position on the Governor’s Council and soon had a reputation as “the most accomplished man in the colony.”[2] He was described by the Royal Commissioners’ Report to be “of a most imperious and dangerous hidden pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.”[3] However, this distinguished position was not enough for him and he made the decision to exploit the frustrations of poorer farmers against the social elite using the political system for their own benefits rather than protecting them against attacking Indians. Nathaniel Bacon is described by one historian as being one “who then held arms in his hands for love of the new country”[4]. I believe that this sort of opinion is predominant because it rebellion is an American ideal cemented by our pride in the American Revolution. However, it is important to make clear that at that time there was no identity or idea of a “new country”, it was simply an extension of England. One historian actually referred to Bacon as though being “called”[5] to the actions that he took in Virginia however it is also false to be believe that Bacon’s actions were in any way patriotic since they were to fill his own personal desires rather than trying to improve society as a whole.
[Despite the fact that William Berkeley was a controversial governor, he was openly respected by the people of Virginia, which is why it is likely without Nathaniel Bacon, direct confrontation with the Governor may never have occurred.] Evidence shows that William Berkeley was a governor that showed favoritism to his close friends and family, an example of how he failed to set up a government that was accessible to all colonists. This trend can be seen clearly when in 1724, all twelve members of the Virginia’s Royal Council were all related by blood or marriage.[6] This was a precedent that would be cemented by Berkeley himself, seen when he, which would prove to be his mistake, gave his own cousin Nathaniel Bacon a position on the council. However, despite the fact that Berkeley was obviously a partial and perhaps even biased governor, he was referred to as “the darling of the people”[7] by early Virginian historian Robert Beverley. It is argued by David Hackett Fischer, a Professor of History at Brandeis University, that Berkeley “bent the young sapling of its [Virginia’s] social system and made it grow in the direction that he wished”.[8] While it is obvious that Berkeley was biased towards himself in his governing of Virginia, I believe that it is unfair to suppose that he was unjust or without good intentions in his governing over the people of Virginia. The reason for this is because Virginia’s government was in many ways based upon the English system of government, which was far from democratic, and while it certainly needed reforming, it is unfair to say that Berkeley was a corrupt or poor governor because of his actions. It is also unreasonable to then assume, I believe, that if Berkeley had been as loved a governor as he is depicted by historian Robert Beverley, that the colonists would have so directly confronted him with a rebellion as they did. Instead I believe that it was purely Nathaniel Bacon that was the incendiary for the Rebellion and that it would not have occurred in such a manner of absolute defiance against the governor had it not been for the urging of its ringleader Bacon.
[The aftermath of the rebellion resulted in a change in the political make-up of Chesapeake Society.] Bacon’s Rebellion collapsed when the instigator of the rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon, died of fever in October 1676. Without the support of the power-seeking Bacon to fuel his rebellious band of followers, the rebellion simply lost its determination, which would be evidence for the idea that the cause behind the Rebellion was purely magnified and distorted by the powerful orator, Bacon. The laws that were enacted during Bacon’s short stint in the House of Burgesses remained a permanent part of the Virginia Colony despite attempts by Governor Berkeley to repeal the laws. They were actually repealed by Governor Berkeley for a short time after the collapse of Bacon’s Rebellion, but most were restored in the February of 1677.[9] The laws known as “Bacon’s Laws” were reforms to the political system that improved the political power of the lower classes and reduced the power of the social elite.[10] They guaranteed rights such as voting for all freemen, the election of the vestry, representation in taxation and the abolishment of holding more than one office. Ironically, it is very doubtful that Bacon had any influence or decision making with these laws; rather they were likely written by Richard Lawrence and William Drummond, who were two supporters of Bacon that were elected to the House of Burgesses in 1676.[11] Before these laws had been put in place, the political system had been dominated by the social elite, namely the very wealthy farmers, and there had been little outlet for the voice of the common class. It proves that, despite the fact that Bacon had rallied up the rebellion for the improvement of his own political situation, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in the improvement of the entire colony’s political situation and made the government more accessible and adjustable to the public. While it is true that many of these laws never guaranteed Virginians the freedoms they were supposed to, it set a precedent for the future. Additionally, Bacon’s Rebellion caused the British Crown to order a royal investigation of the colony’s affairs, which eventually led to the termination of William Berkeley, who had been such a biased and partial leader, as the Governor of Virginia. In many respects however, the rebellious nature displayed by the colonists served as a prelude to the American Revolution which would not occur for another hundred years. Some of the same issues that plagued colonists that participated in Bacon’s Rebellion, such as taxation without representation and a lack of involvement in their government, would fuel the revolutionaries one hundred years later.
[1] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011662/Nathaniel-Bacon#191101.hook
[2] http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Nathaniel-Bacon.html
[3] http://www.rickriordan.com/Who_was_Bacon.htm
[4] William Alexander MacCorkie; Some Southern Questions
[5] Mary Newton Stanard; The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion
[6] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[7] Robert Beverley; On Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704
[8] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[9] http://www.newrivernotes.com/va/bacon.htm
[10] http://www.foundersofamerica.org/bacon.html
[11] The Settling of Jamestown by Janet Riehecky
Body & Intro: Second Draft
The period between 1676 and 1677 in the Virginia Colony was the timeframe of a remarkable and fascinating episode in American history. It was the period of Bacon’s Rebellion, an uprising of the lower class of colonists against the Governor, which in many ways would resemble the American Revolution that would occur a hundred years later. The ringleader and instigator of this Rebellion would be Nathaniel Bacon, a wealthy and well-educated young man who had recently immigrated to Virginia. While the premise in the hearts of his followers would be for economic and social reasons, Nathaniel Bacon ignited the Rebellion solely for his own political gain and his wish to stir up trouble in the colony. However, despite the fact that Bacon’s Rebellion was led by the political hungry Nathaniel Bacon, it resulted in a political change for the better for Chesapeake Society.
[At the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was searching for an opportunity to gain political control.] Bacon was a greedy and arrogant man who was withdrawn from Cambridge University and sent to the New World by his father after he was discovered in a plan to defraud a neighbor of his inheritance.[1] Bacon had a wealthy and well-connected uncle, also named Nathaniel Bacon, who was a member of the Governor’s Council. Using his connections, his uncle presented him with a position on the Governor’s Council and soon had a reputation as “the most accomplished man in the colony.”[2] He was described by the Royal Commissioners’ Report to be “of a most imperious and dangerous hidden pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their ignorance, and very ambitious and arrogant.”[3] However, this distinguished position was not enough for him and he made the decision to exploit the frustrations of poorer farmers against the social elite using the political system for their own benefits rather than protecting them against attacking Indians. Nathaniel Bacon is described by one historian as being one “who then held arms in his hands for love of the new country”[4]. I believe that this sort of opinion is predominant because it rebellion is an American ideal cemented by our pride in the American Revolution. However, it is important to make clear that at that time there was no identity or idea of a “new country”, it was simply an extension of England. One historian actually referred to Bacon as though being “called”[5] to the actions that he took in Virginia however it is also false to be believe that Bacon’s actions were in any way patriotic since they were to fill his own personal desires rather than trying to improve society as a whole.
[Despite the fact that William Berkeley was a controversial governor, he was openly respected by the people of Virginia, which is why it is likely without Nathaniel Bacon, direct confrontation with the Governor may never have occurred.] Evidence shows that William Berkeley was a governor that showed favoritism to his close friends and family, an example of how he failed to set up a government that was accessible to all colonists. This trend can be seen clearly when in 1724, all twelve members of the Virginia’s Royal Council were all related by blood or marriage.[6] This was a precedent that would be cemented by Berkeley himself, seen when he, which would prove to be his mistake, gave his own cousin Nathaniel Bacon a position on the council. However, despite the fact that Berkeley was obviously a partial and perhaps even biased governor, he was referred to as “the darling of the people”[7] by early Virginian historian Robert Beverley. It is argued by David Hackett Fischer, a Professor of History at Brandeis University, that Berkeley “bent the young sapling of its [Virginia’s] social system and made it grow in the direction that he wished”.[8] While it is obvious that Berkeley was biased towards himself in his governing of Virginia, I believe that it is unfair to suppose that he was unjust or without good intentions in his governing over the people of Virginia. The reason for this is because Virginia’s government was in many ways based upon the English system of government, which was far from democratic, and while it certainly needed reforming, it is unfair to say that Berkeley was a corrupt or poor governor because of his actions. It is also unreasonable to then assume, I believe, that if Berkeley had been as loved a governor as he is depicted by historian Robert Beverley, that the colonists would have so directly confronted him with a rebellion as they did. Instead I believe that it was purely Nathaniel Bacon that was the incendiary for the Rebellion and that it would not have occurred in such a manner of absolute defiance against the governor had it not been for the urging of its ringleader Bacon.
[The aftermath of the rebellion resulted in a change in the political make-up of Chesapeake Society.] Bacon’s Rebellion collapsed when the instigator of the rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon, died of fever in October 1676. Without the support of the power-seeking Bacon to fuel his rebellious band of followers, the rebellion simply lost its determination, which would be evidence for the idea that the cause behind the Rebellion was purely magnified and distorted by the powerful orator, Bacon. The laws that were enacted during Bacon’s short stint in the House of Burgesses remained a permanent part of the Virginia Colony despite attempts by Governor Berkeley to repeal the laws. They were actually repealed by Governor Berkeley for a short time after the collapse of Bacon’s Rebellion, but most were restored in the February of 1677.[9] The laws known as “Bacon’s Laws” were reforms to the political system that improved the political power of the lower classes and reduced the power of the social elite.[10] They guaranteed rights such as voting for all freemen, the election of the vestry, representation in taxation and the abolishment of holding more than one office. Ironically, it is very doubtful that Bacon had any influence or decision making with these laws; rather they were likely written by Richard Lawrence and William Drummond, who were two supporters of Bacon that were elected to the House of Burgesses in 1676.[11] Before these laws had been put in place, the political system had been dominated by the social elite, namely the very wealthy farmers, and there had been little outlet for the voice of the common class. It proves that, despite the fact that Bacon had rallied up the rebellion for the improvement of his own political situation, Bacon’s Rebellion resulted in the improvement of the entire colony’s political situation and made the government more accessible and adjustable to the public. While it is true that many of these laws never guaranteed Virginians the freedoms they were supposed to, it set a precedent for the future. Additionally, Bacon’s Rebellion caused the British Crown to order a royal investigation of the colony’s affairs, which eventually led to the termination of William Berkeley, who had been such a biased and partial leader, as the Governor of Virginia. In many respects however, the rebellious nature displayed by the colonists served as a prelude to the American Revolution which would not occur for another hundred years. Some of the same issues that plagued colonists that participated in Bacon’s Rebellion, such as taxation without representation and a lack of involvement in their government, would fuel the revolutionaries one hundred years later.
[1] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011662/Nathaniel-Bacon#191101.hook
[2] http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Nathaniel-Bacon.html
[3] http://www.rickriordan.com/Who_was_Bacon.htm
[4] William Alexander MacCorkie; Some Southern Questions
[5] Mary Newton Stanard; The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion
[6] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[7] Robert Beverley; On Bacon’s Rebellion, 1704
[8] David Hackett Fischer; Albion’s Seed
[9] http://www.newrivernotes.com/va/bacon.htm
[10] http://www.foundersofamerica.org/bacon.html
[11] The Settling of Jamestown by Janet Riehecky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
