2. Puritanism has had a large influence over the values of America. One might ask how, considering the Puritans were strict and completely devoted to God. Puritanism itself has not grown with America, but the basic structure of it's values have. The first Puritans, the Pilgrims, sailed to America to esacpe the persecution of the king. They believed in limited government;they felt no single person or group should be trusted to run the government by themselves. Many of their ethics are recognized in today's culture as American values: honesty, responsibility, and hard work. The Puritans also had a large emphasis on education. They wanted everyone to be able to read the Bible. The American values have certainly been shaped by Puritan's belief. The belief of a limited government has carried through and has been shown by democracy. The citizens of the U.S.A have a voice in choosing who will represent our country. The typical American values of honesty, responsibility, and being a hard worker all came from the Puritan beliefs. These values are contained in the base of our country and commonly associated with the definition of an American. Education is highly emphasized in America, with the first nine years of school being mandatory. Of course, the basic principle of Puritansim has been lost and these values are not followed as striclty as they once were. But, the essence of the Puritan values is still contained and continues to affect the values of our country. Today, it is evident to see that Puritanism has shaped American values. Certain parts of our government have been influenced by their beliefs, and the values our country are based on came from the values of the Puritans.
Try not to; I prefer that you get in the habit of writing in the 3rd person, past tense. However, feel free to inject some humor into your response whenver you feel the need. Go Pats!
4. Close relations between the Church and the people (state) often times lead to a more moral society as the people attend Church every Sunday and listen to sermons on how to be a better person. Good people are usually based in good morals, which leads them to do the right thing. However, the Church has a responsiblity to 'walk the walk' in order to truly influence the people. For example, in the 1660's when Johann Tetzle was selling "indulgences" (a method of payment for the Church's guaranteed appeasement for your sins) for the Church, this was looked on as improper. It was improper because it conveyed the sentiment that anyone with currency could commit sins as long as they kept the stream of payment to Church going. Eventually, Martin Luther - a German theologian had enough and protested, leading to a revolt against the Church. However, pardon the tangent, in colonial times with preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards - especially Edwards with his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" - striking fear into the hearts of most civilians, the association between Church and state led to a more moralistic society.
3. Depending on my status in colonial America, I may or may not have been a Revolutionary. On one side, if you were a person steeped in English culture with a province as a wealthy landowner with lots of servants - then my comfortable lifestyle would encourage me to not rebel. However, since it is unlikely that I would be in that position, I absolutely would be a rebel because of the harsh reprimandings, taxes and acts that were imposed unjustly upon us. As a merchant in the industries of tobacco or cotton in the South I would absolutely rebel because I could tell that if it was only my countrymen on the right side of the Atlantic I could make a larger profit without the exporting costs and the local distribution. Also, if I was a farmer - the people that taxes hit the hardest - I would become a Revolutionary and a Son of Liberty because I would feel that working six days a week (taking the Sabbath off, of course) and from sun-up to sundown and still being charged more would be unjust and unfair. Also, acts like the Stamp Act (everything used stamps) and the Quartering Act which invaded my personal space, would be egregious offenses to me. Overall, I must say that one-hundred percent absolutely I would become a Revolutionary to free myself from the tyranny of England.
3. I think I would have been a revolutionary in 1776. If I were a colonist with only a small piece of land, there is no doubt I would rebel. With new taxes and restrictions being imposed constatnly it would be difficult to live with the stress of worrying about making enough money to support my family and keep the farm going. I would feel like a playing piece in the king's game of the economy and politics. I would not be a free colonist, and I would feel better if America was able to govern itself and not be run by an unseen ruler on a different continent. Though, on the other hand, I might choose not to rebel because I might feel that Britain was too powerful and would supress the revolution and become even more controlling over America. If I was a Quaker I certainly would not rebel because of my pacifist beliefs. It would all depend on my religion and beliefs and how threatened I felt by Britain. If I was wealthy slave owner in the south I might rebel. I probably wouldn't like the financial dependence and I might be afraid that England would take away the representative assembly of Virginia. So, most likely I would rebel, but my religion, beliefs, and position would have a large influence over my choice.
1. During the times of Colonial America, many efforts were made to make the colonies democratic. The first was the House of Burgesses, a legislative assembly started by Governor George Yeardley in 1619. There were 22 burgesses from 11 different settlements that were voted into council; all wealthy white land owners as those were the only people allowed to be burgesses. These people each represented their areas, the first representative government to appear in the colonies. Next, the Mayflower Compact appeared in 1620 and was signed by the inhabitants of the Mayflower, the ship that landed in Plymouth. This document was made to give the society of Plymouth a set of rules to go by to keep people civil and working together for the greater good. It remained as the main form of government for the settlement until the late 1600s. This was a good example of democracy because it didn’t demand anyone to do anything but allowed them to live by the rules they set for themselves. After the Mayflower Compact came the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. This was considered by some the first constitution in Western Tradition, which is the reason that Connecticut is called the Constitution State. It was created by the council of the Connecticut Colony on January 24, 1639. It describes the government that Connecticut would have that some of the Connecticut River towns set up, demonstrating what amount of power and what the structure of the government would be like. This document resembled a modern-day constitution with some of the components that it had, and was one of the first of its kind. Another democratic example was the Maryland Tolerance Act of 1649 which created religious freedom for Trinitarian Christians. This Act greatly resembles the modern-day first amendment, something that non-democratic societies don’t have. This was the second Act that created religious freedom in the British colonies and the first ever to put limitations on hate speech. Lastly, the colonies had town meetings and assemblies to decide laws rather than a dictator. There was no sole person in charge of the colonies that lived there. The King of England, although he technically ruled the colonies, didn’t have much power over the decisions that the colonists made since he was so far away. The colonists did make some undemocratic decisions like creating slavery, not allowing women input on government, and only allowing the white land owners to vote, but overall they were trying to escape the tyranny of their homeland and create a place of freedom from a ruler. This they accomplished and as time went on, more and more acts of equality would be established to make the society more democratic.
3. If I lived in the year of 1776, I would have been a revolutionary. The Americans were being treated very unfairly by the British, being forced to pay ridiculous amounts of money for essential everyday things. The Sugar Act in 1764 forced the Americans to pay new strictly enforced taxes on molasses, and other imported goods that were essential for economic stability. For example, the American rum industry relied on the molasses and was unable to thrive with the new taxes. The Stamp Act of 1765 was the British Parliament’s first serious attempt to take control over the American colonies. Since they were in such debt from the Seven Years War, the British government was attempting to tax the Americans on their stamps because their own British citizens were being so heavily taxed and threatened revolt. The Americans, however, did not want to be controlled by the British to the extent that they could tax them on something so essential, and were greatly angered by this. The quartering Act of 1765 made the citizens of America pay for the British soldiers and house them whenever necessary with no compensation. The Declaratory Act of 1766 said that the colonies would be completely dependent on the British government, something that the colonists disagreed with completely. With all of these Acts plus others, it makes complete sense to me why so many people wanted to revolt against the Crown of Britain. I would also revolt because being a regular citizen of the time, even small taxes could have a big impact on your life if you’re trying to feed and raise a large family. It was hard enough for most people to survive back then, having these things put on top of everything else would be like the straw the broke the camel’s back. I would be very angry if these things happened because the rich kings didn’t live in America and didn’t know how people were trying to make a living and that money was such a tight thing for most people since it wasn’t for them. The revolutionaries of 1776 had a very just reason for all of their actions and I would also want freedom from the relentless hardships that the kings were putting on the colonists.
1. Ben Butcher AP U.S. History Mr. Ashley September 5, 2012 Colonial America from its very creation to the tumultuous years that lead up to the Revolution was a place for new beginnings and more importantly life without fear of oppression. Religious and natural rights were present in the Colonies in much higher levels than anywhere else in the world due to the Colonies’ special form of government. Although differing in each Colony, the overall government style remained as a whole largely similar. Clearly based off of the parliamentary system used in England, the mother country, the bicameral system was set up many early English Colonies. It can be said that democracy was only available in Colonial America for those who had enough money to either join government, own land, or be a part of the majority’s religion. To say democracy permeated all forms of government in colonial America was largely untrue, democracy was prevalent in some early colonial governments such as the Mayflower Compact and the Virginian House of Burgesses however certainly some government systems remained staunchly European. A government rooted in democracy allows all citizens to have a say in how the government is run. This was not the case at all in most of colonial America. In New England, and especially in Massachusetts non-puritans were not allowed to vote or hold office resulting in a selective democracy. This situation was mirrored in the southern colonies with only land owners and other white yeomen had a vote in government, while the African American slaves had absolutely no say. Democracy was kindled in colonial America, and even though not all Americans experienced it, the future of American government was rooted in Colonial America.
2. Ben Butcher US History Period 5 Mr. Ashley September 8, 2012 Does a close relationship between church and state lead to a more moral society? The beauty of history is that it shows past mistakes that a single person or even an entire society have made and allows future generations to learn and correct their behavior. However in the case of religion’s moral effect on society, history is very much divided. On one end of the spectrum religion provides a moral backbone among the followers of the same set of beliefs. This is exemplified by the Puritan’s of colonial America. Drawn together through the oppression of a tyrant king, the Puritans fled to the New World and created. The newly founded colony was a very moral society:, the Puritan religion effectively assimilated its followers moral compass’s. In many ways, Puritanism affected every level of each follower’s daily life. Marriage, the sense of what’s right and what’s wrong, and even down to their daily schedule were all governed by the Puritan Religion. Only Puritans of were allowed to hold office or have a say in government. Sometimes a close relationship between government and church leads to corruption and intolerance both inside and outside the religious community. In 1692 the uglier side of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was revealed through the Salem Witch Trials. This is a classic example of a government run by a religion, which discriminates against those who do not follow the same set of beliefs. A relationship between religion and government results in more moral society. However as the Church and Government become closer and closer the line between moral and unmoral becomes blurred.
Erik Gunderson Mr. Ashley U.S. History AP 8 September 2012
Would you have been a revolutionary in 1776? In 1776, America had already begun the War for Independence. It was no matter a question of whether or not it was going to happen, because it had already started happening. However, America was divided on the issue. While there were the Patriots who were all for fighting Britain to gain independence, some people were still loyal Britain and did not mind as much as other people regarding being a British colony. In terms of what I would have been during that time period, I definitely would have been a revolutionary. This is not a matter of personal bravery or defiance, because those traits do not exactly describe me. The main reason would be due to the political and economic aspects of the issues regarding America as a British colony, and how America could exist on its own. If I was to live in a semi-autonomous community and suddenly have that right taken away from me, I would not be exactly happy with the situation. Politics do disgust me, I will admit that. However, when it comes to independence and freedom, I am an avid supporter of that. I have always desired independence from many things, and while I am bound to many responsibilities that prevent that, the Americans did not have to be forever bound to Britain in such a way. They could break away at any point, as they were almost an autonomous society. On top of that, in an economic sense, they were being hurt. It is true they were performing some illegal activities to get some of the profits they were getting, but legal business ventures were being hurt as well. I could not stand to see economic opportunity wasted, and everyone should have the opportunity to make money through some sort of business. Between the political and economic autonomy that America displayed during the 1700s, I would happily agree with the Patriots and support the Revolution with all my strength. Every community should have the right to rule itself to some extent. If a large group of communities has a similar set of beliefs regarding this, then they have the right to band together and form a government to rule themselves. If a group of people grows to be very powerful , and they are tied to some other country or nation like America was to Britain, then that country has the right to break away because it can handle itself. Thus, I would be a revolutionary in 1776.
Erik Gunderson Mr. Ashley U.S. History AP 8 September 2012
Does a close relationship between church and state lead to a more moral society? The phrase “separation of church and state” has been used quite a lot across history. What exactly does it mean? It is the concept that the affairs of the church and the affairs of the government should be two completely different sets of problems and that they should not mix. However, in terms of the Catholic Church (as well as some Protestant sects, like the Puritan sect), the church and state have not been separated at all. Some people might think that such a mixture of the two could benefit humans morally, but that is simply not the case. A close relationship between the church and state does not necessarily mean more morality in any society. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony in America in the 1600s are a prime example of why the church and state should be separated. First of all, they let their firm belief in their religion to cause them to prevent other religions from interacting with them. Any people who did not agree with their religious beliefs were usually banished from the colony. Prejudice in this manner is not right morally. The morally right thing would be to accept all people for who they were, no matter their religious or racial backgrounds. As well, the religious attitude people had at the time led them into doing things that do not make sense. The Salem Witch Trials, for example, was a case in which the religious beliefs of the people caused them to convict innocent people of witchcraft and killing some of them. Similar witch hunts have occurred in Europe in the past, due to the religious fervor, but the way the trials were run was completely corrupt and convicted many more people than it was necessary to convict. The closeness of the church and state in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600s caused them to not be moral, despite them thinking and proclaiming they were moral. The closeness of church and state is never a good thing. For one, it can cause religious intolerance, a form of prejudice which is morally wrong. It can also corrupt the members of the church, due to the general pattern of government involving some sort of corruption leaking in at some point. Finally, it might affect the living style of anyone under that government. Some people do not like a strict schedule or like to live their life their own way. However, a close relationship between church and state causes the people to have to follow the rules of the religion, which might not be fine with them. In the end, a closeness between church and state does not create morality. All it does in the end is cause dissension.
excellent response to the issue of religion and government being so closely related. Also, the Puritans also used violence at times in the name of religion and ignorance toward other groups of people. i.e. Native Americans
Kathi Cozine Mr. Ashley AP US History 9/9/12 3. During the time of the revolution in 1776, I think that I would have been a revolutionary. The laws and restrictions that Great Britain put the colonies through would have made me want independence, much like the other colonists did. It started with the new sets of taxes that Britain was making so that they could repay the debt they had after the French and Indian War. The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first that really started to anger colonists because it meant that on every paper document from land titles and marriage licenses to even letters would have a tax on them. But then the Tea Act of 1773 and Coercive Acts of 1774 would have been enough to help me make up my mind to be a revolutionary. The Tea Act was ridiculous because it was just Britain’s way of forcing the colonists to buy the East India Company tea and pay the taxes which the colonists had been trying to boycott by buying tea from other companies. And then the Coercive Acts were probably what pushed colonists over the edge. Those acts closed down the Boston Harbor, prohibited town meetings in Massachusetts, required colonists to house British troops, and let trials for crimes to be transferred to other courts. If I had been a colonist I would have been upset with Britain for giving us such rules and restrictions that were so unfair. I do not think that Britain had the right to do such things on their own colonies that they should have had a good relationship. The colonies had grown significantly by the time of 1776 and many colonies already operated as if they were their own country and that they did not need Britain anymore, so the idea of wanting independence seemed very logical. I feel that I would have been a revolutionary during the time because I would have wanted to be a part of such a patriotic movement. It was a time when the colonies all came together to stand and fight as one against Great Britain and I would have done all I could to help and be a part of it.
Kathi Cozine Mr. Ashley AP US History 9/9/12 1. For the most part the colonies in America were a democratic society. The main values that the colonies had were examples of democracy as we know it today. There was freedom of the press in all the colonies which allowed people to be able to say, write, and publish whatever they wanted to. The colonies also had the freedom of religion which let colonists living there practice any religion they wanted. Those freedoms were a big reason why so many people like the Germans and Scots-Irish moved to the colonies so that they could live in a more democratic place with such freedoms. The government in the colonies was also democratic. Town meetings were very important to them because it was where the citizens could get together and discuss certain issues, which is like the town meetings we have in today’s world. The Mayflower Compact was the earliest example of democracy in colonial America. It was written by the people that came to America on the Mayflower and it stated that the government they created was going to be based on equality and the voices of the people. They wanted a government where they would not be ruled by one person and could all have an opinion when it came to making decisions. Overall, colonial America was a democratic society. The colonies began forming their own sort of government that was based more on everyone’s opinions rather than the laws of one person. And also the freedoms they started are a large part of the democracy we have in America today.
Justin Demers Mr. Ashley AP US History 9-9-12 3. 1776 was a far different time for America than the way we think of it now. Being a revolutionary at the time was no easy task; it ultimately meant being a rebel, part of a militia, and fighting back at a far greater government. I would not be a revolutionary back in 1776, based solely on the conditions America was in. Great Britain was the true world power for the majority of the 18th century. They owned everything in America for the most part. And America was still a young, inexperienced, and not very powerful nation at the time. Even with taxes like the Stamp Act and policies like the Quartering Act, I would not see it being worth it to fight back against arguably the strongest nation in the world. Especially being part of a nation that seemed helpless. Compared to now, we see protesters and angry civilians "fighting" back against the government all the time. But to want to revolutionize seems a little drastic. I cannot say I can fully put myself in a revolutioner's shoes, but the way I look at it, there is no way I would go into a rebellion, let alone a war, with Great Britain at the time and think my nation could gain independence. It was an incredible feat that the founding fathers could lead something on this scale, and that is why they're remembered. But I would not want any part of it.
Justin Demers Mr. Ashley AP US History 9-9-12 4. Religion plays a massive role in society today. Even more so, as a nation or state grows and develops. It is something we all share, so when building a state, the people look for similarities and connections. On one hand, church and state go very well together. If an entire state is one certain religion, there will be few debates and undecided decisions with everybody (including their leader) on the same page. It creates a moral bond between people. It almost, indirectly, creates a generally happier and more satisfied public. Religion is something we all share, why not embrace it to make decisions easier? On the other hand, religion is an extremely complicated thing. Personally, I believe every religious belief is blown far out of proportion when it comes to politics. Why should a person's beliefs come into factor when they decide to run a state? Let their policies speak for themselves. While mutual religion creates a nice morale boost, opposing religious sides create a far greater gap in understanding among people. Religion can make or break a state's customs and morale extremely quickly. It shouldn't, but it has that power. In a way, yes, it does lead to a more moral society. But it also has the potential to destroy one.
2. Puritanism has had a large influence over the values of America. One might ask how, considering the Puritans were strict and completely devoted to God. Puritanism itself has not grown with America, but the basic structure of it's values have. The first Puritans, the Pilgrims, sailed to America to esacpe the persecution of the king. They believed in limited government;they felt no single person or group should be trusted to run the government by themselves. Many of their ethics are recognized in today's culture as American values: honesty, responsibility, and hard work. The Puritans also had a large emphasis on education. They wanted everyone to be able to read the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThe American values have certainly been shaped by Puritan's belief. The belief of a limited government has carried through and has been shown by democracy. The citizens of the U.S.A have a voice in choosing who will represent our country. The typical American values of honesty, responsibility, and being a hard worker all came from the Puritan beliefs. These values are contained in the base of our country and commonly associated with the definition of an American. Education is highly emphasized in America, with the first nine years of school being mandatory. Of course, the basic principle of Puritansim has been lost and these values are not followed as striclty as they once were. But, the essence of the Puritan values is still contained and continues to affect the values of our country.
Today, it is evident to see that Puritanism has shaped American values. Certain parts of our government have been influenced by their beliefs, and the values our country are based on came from the values of the Puritans.
Can these responses be less formal? i.e. Use "I" Or "In my opinion"
ReplyDeleteWould you be able to answer the third question if they were formal?
Deletevery true
DeleteTry not to; I prefer that you get in the habit of writing in the 3rd person, past tense. However, feel free to inject some humor into your response whenver you feel the need. Go Pats!
DeleteQuestion #3 is hard not to use "I" however!!! SO go ahead and do an OZZZY Osbourne...I,I,I,I,I!!!! :)
Delete4. Close relations between the Church and the people (state) often times lead to a more moral society as the people attend Church every Sunday and listen to sermons on how to be a better person. Good people are usually based in good morals, which leads them to do the right thing. However, the Church has a responsiblity to 'walk the walk' in order to truly influence the people. For example, in the 1660's when Johann Tetzle was selling "indulgences" (a method of payment for the Church's guaranteed appeasement for your sins) for the Church, this was looked on as improper. It was improper because it conveyed the sentiment that anyone with currency could commit sins as long as they kept the stream of payment to Church going. Eventually, Martin Luther - a German theologian had enough and protested, leading to a revolt against the Church. However, pardon the tangent, in colonial times with preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards - especially Edwards with his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" - striking fear into the hearts of most civilians, the association between Church and state led to a more moralistic society.
ReplyDelete3. Depending on my status in colonial America, I may or may not have been a Revolutionary. On one side, if you were a person steeped in English culture with a province as a wealthy landowner with lots of servants - then my comfortable lifestyle would encourage me to not rebel. However, since it is unlikely that I would be in that position, I absolutely would be a rebel because of the harsh reprimandings, taxes and acts that were imposed unjustly upon us. As a merchant in the industries of tobacco or cotton in the South I would absolutely rebel because I could tell that if it was only my countrymen on the right side of the Atlantic I could make a larger profit without the exporting costs and the local distribution. Also, if I was a farmer - the people that taxes hit the hardest - I would become a Revolutionary and a Son of Liberty because I would feel that working six days a week (taking the Sabbath off, of course) and from sun-up to sundown and still being charged more would be unjust and unfair. Also, acts like the Stamp Act (everything used stamps) and the Quartering Act which invaded my personal space, would be egregious offenses to me. Overall, I must say that one-hundred percent absolutely I would become a Revolutionary to free myself from the tyranny of England.
Today, we take Suday off not so much to go to church but to go to the "altar" at the 50 yard line. Are you ready for some football? :)
Delete3. I think I would have been a revolutionary in 1776. If I were a colonist with only a small piece of land, there is no doubt I would rebel. With new taxes and restrictions being imposed constatnly it would be difficult to live with the stress of worrying about making enough money to support my family and keep the farm going. I would feel like a playing piece in the king's game of the economy and politics. I would not be a free colonist, and I would feel better if America was able to govern itself and not be run by an unseen ruler on a different continent. Though, on the other hand, I might choose not to rebel because I might feel that Britain was too powerful and would supress the revolution and become even more controlling over America. If I was a Quaker I certainly would not rebel because of my pacifist beliefs. It would all depend on my religion and beliefs and how threatened I felt by Britain. If I was wealthy slave owner in the south I might rebel. I probably wouldn't like the financial dependence and I might be afraid that England would take away the representative assembly of Virginia. So, most likely I would rebel, but my religion, beliefs, and position would have a large influence over my choice.
ReplyDelete1. During the times of Colonial America, many efforts were made to make the colonies democratic. The first was the House of Burgesses, a legislative assembly started by Governor George Yeardley in 1619. There were 22 burgesses from 11 different settlements that were voted into council; all wealthy white land owners as those were the only people allowed to be burgesses. These people each represented their areas, the first representative government to appear in the colonies. Next, the Mayflower Compact appeared in 1620 and was signed by the inhabitants of the Mayflower, the ship that landed in Plymouth. This document was made to give the society of Plymouth a set of rules to go by to keep people civil and working together for the greater good. It remained as the main form of government for the settlement until the late 1600s. This was a good example of democracy because it didn’t demand anyone to do anything but allowed them to live by the rules they set for themselves. After the Mayflower Compact came the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. This was considered by some the first constitution in Western Tradition, which is the reason that Connecticut is called the Constitution State. It was created by the council of the Connecticut Colony on January 24, 1639. It describes the government that Connecticut would have that some of the Connecticut River towns set up, demonstrating what amount of power and what the structure of the government would be like. This document resembled a modern-day constitution with some of the components that it had, and was one of the first of its kind. Another democratic example was the Maryland Tolerance Act of 1649 which created religious freedom for Trinitarian Christians. This Act greatly resembles the modern-day first amendment, something that non-democratic societies don’t have. This was the second Act that created religious freedom in the British colonies and the first ever to put limitations on hate speech. Lastly, the colonies had town meetings and assemblies to decide laws rather than a dictator. There was no sole person in charge of the colonies that lived there. The King of England, although he technically ruled the colonies, didn’t have much power over the decisions that the colonists made since he was so far away. The colonists did make some undemocratic decisions like creating slavery, not allowing women input on government, and only allowing the white land owners to vote, but overall they were trying to escape the tyranny of their homeland and create a place of freedom from a ruler. This they accomplished and as time went on, more and more acts of equality would be established to make the society more democratic.
ReplyDeleteGreat examples of Democracy taking shape in early America!
DeleteGood point about connecting it to the 1st Amendment!
Delete3. If I lived in the year of 1776, I would have been a revolutionary. The Americans were being treated very unfairly by the British, being forced to pay ridiculous amounts of money for essential everyday things. The Sugar Act in 1764 forced the Americans to pay new strictly enforced taxes on molasses, and other imported goods that were essential for economic stability. For example, the American rum industry relied on the molasses and was unable to thrive with the new taxes. The Stamp Act of 1765 was the British Parliament’s first serious attempt to take control over the American colonies. Since they were in such debt from the Seven Years War, the British government was attempting to tax the Americans on their stamps because their own British citizens were being so heavily taxed and threatened revolt. The Americans, however, did not want to be controlled by the British to the extent that they could tax them on something so essential, and were greatly angered by this. The quartering Act of 1765 made the citizens of America pay for the British soldiers and house them whenever necessary with no compensation. The Declaratory Act of 1766 said that the colonies would be completely dependent on the British government, something that the colonists disagreed with completely. With all of these Acts plus others, it makes complete sense to me why so many people wanted to revolt against the Crown of Britain. I would also revolt because being a regular citizen of the time, even small taxes could have a big impact on your life if you’re trying to feed and raise a large family. It was hard enough for most people to survive back then, having these things put on top of everything else would be like the straw the broke the camel’s back. I would be very angry if these things happened because the rich kings didn’t live in America and didn’t know how people were trying to make a living and that money was such a tight thing for most people since it wasn’t for them. The revolutionaries of 1776 had a very just reason for all of their actions and I would also want freedom from the relentless hardships that the kings were putting on the colonists.
ReplyDeleteGo Hannah! You sound like Billy Idol with all of you rebellious talk!
Delete1. Ben Butcher
ReplyDeleteAP U.S. History
Mr. Ashley
September 5, 2012
Colonial America from its very creation to the tumultuous years that lead up to the Revolution was a place for new beginnings and more importantly life without fear of oppression. Religious and natural rights were present in the Colonies in much higher levels than anywhere else in the world due to the Colonies’ special form of government. Although differing in each Colony, the overall government style remained as a whole largely similar. Clearly based off of the parliamentary system used in England, the mother country, the bicameral system was set up many early English Colonies. It can be said that democracy was only available in Colonial America for those who had enough money to either join government, own land, or be a part of the majority’s religion. To say democracy permeated all forms of government in colonial America was largely untrue, democracy was prevalent in some early colonial governments such as the Mayflower Compact and the Virginian House of Burgesses however certainly some government systems remained staunchly European. A government rooted in democracy allows all citizens to have a say in how the government is run. This was not the case at all in most of colonial America. In New England, and especially in Massachusetts non-puritans were not allowed to vote or hold office resulting in a selective democracy. This situation was mirrored in the southern colonies with only land owners and other white yeomen had a vote in government, while the African American slaves had absolutely no say. Democracy was kindled in colonial America, and even though not all Americans experienced it, the future of American government was rooted in Colonial America.
2. Ben Butcher
US History Period 5
Mr. Ashley
September 8, 2012
Does a close relationship between church and state lead to a more moral society?
The beauty of history is that it shows past mistakes that a single person or even an entire society have made and allows future generations to learn and correct their behavior. However in the case of religion’s moral effect on society, history is very much divided. On one end of the spectrum religion provides a moral backbone among the followers of the same set of beliefs. This is exemplified by the Puritan’s of colonial America. Drawn together through the oppression of a tyrant king, the Puritans fled to the New World and created. The newly founded colony was a very moral society:, the Puritan religion effectively assimilated its followers moral compass’s. In many ways, Puritanism affected every level of each follower’s daily life. Marriage, the sense of what’s right and what’s wrong, and even down to their daily schedule were all governed by the Puritan Religion. Only Puritans of were allowed to hold office or have a say in government. Sometimes a close relationship between government and church leads to corruption and intolerance both inside and outside the religious community. In 1692 the uglier side of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was revealed through the Salem Witch Trials. This is a classic example of a government run by a religion, which discriminates against those who do not follow the same set of beliefs. A relationship between religion and government results in more moral society. However as the Church and Government become closer and closer the line between moral and unmoral becomes blurred.
great response to question #1. To a great extent, many groups of people were indeed left out and even ostracized for their position(s) in society.
Deletef.y.i. grammatically it's "immoral" not "unmoral" :)
DeleteErik Gunderson
ReplyDeleteMr. Ashley
U.S. History AP
8 September 2012
Would you have been a revolutionary in 1776?
In 1776, America had already begun the War for Independence. It was no matter a question of whether or not it was going to happen, because it had already started happening. However, America was divided on the issue. While there were the Patriots who were all for fighting Britain to gain independence, some people were still loyal Britain and did not mind as much as other people regarding being a British colony. In terms of what I would have been during that time period, I definitely would have been a revolutionary. This is not a matter of personal bravery or defiance, because those traits do not exactly describe me. The main reason would be due to the political and economic aspects of the issues regarding America as a British colony, and how America could exist on its own.
If I was to live in a semi-autonomous community and suddenly have that right taken away from me, I would not be exactly happy with the situation. Politics do disgust me, I will admit that. However, when it comes to independence and freedom, I am an avid supporter of that. I have always desired independence from many things, and while I am bound to many responsibilities that prevent that, the Americans did not have to be forever bound to Britain in such a way. They could break away at any point, as they were almost an autonomous society. On top of that, in an economic sense, they were being hurt. It is true they were performing some illegal activities to get some of the profits they were getting, but legal business ventures were being hurt as well. I could not stand to see economic opportunity wasted, and everyone should have the opportunity to make money through some sort of business.
Between the political and economic autonomy that America displayed during the 1700s, I would happily agree with the Patriots and support the Revolution with all my strength. Every community should have the right to rule itself to some extent. If a large group of communities has a similar set of beliefs regarding this, then they have the right to band together and form a government to rule themselves. If a group of people grows to be very powerful , and they are tied to some other country or nation like America was to Britain, then that country has the right to break away because it can handle itself. Thus, I would be a revolutionary in 1776.
Erik Gunderson
ReplyDeleteMr. Ashley
U.S. History AP
8 September 2012
Does a close relationship between church and state lead to a more moral society?
The phrase “separation of church and state” has been used quite a lot across history. What exactly does it mean? It is the concept that the affairs of the church and the affairs of the government should be two completely different sets of problems and that they should not mix. However, in terms of the Catholic Church (as well as some Protestant sects, like the Puritan sect), the church and state have not been separated at all. Some people might think that such a mixture of the two could benefit humans morally, but that is simply not the case. A close relationship between the church and state does not necessarily mean more morality in any society.
The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony in America in the 1600s are a prime example of why the church and state should be separated. First of all, they let their firm belief in their religion to cause them to prevent other religions from interacting with them. Any people who did not agree with their religious beliefs were usually banished from the colony. Prejudice in this manner is not right morally. The morally right thing would be to accept all people for who they were, no matter their religious or racial backgrounds. As well, the religious attitude people had at the time led them into doing things that do not make sense. The Salem Witch Trials, for example, was a case in which the religious beliefs of the people caused them to convict innocent people of witchcraft and killing some of them. Similar witch hunts have occurred in Europe in the past, due to the religious fervor, but the way the trials were run was completely corrupt and convicted many more people than it was necessary to convict. The closeness of the church and state in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600s caused them to not be moral, despite them thinking and proclaiming they were moral.
The closeness of church and state is never a good thing. For one, it can cause religious intolerance, a form of prejudice which is morally wrong. It can also corrupt the members of the church, due to the general pattern of government involving some sort of corruption leaking in at some point. Finally, it might affect the living style of anyone under that government. Some people do not like a strict schedule or like to live their life their own way. However, a close relationship between church and state causes the people to have to follow the rules of the religion, which might not be fine with them. In the end, a closeness between church and state does not create morality. All it does in the end is cause dissension.
excellent response to the issue of religion and government being so closely related. Also, the Puritans also used violence at times in the name of religion and ignorance toward other groups of people. i.e. Native Americans
DeleteKathi Cozine
ReplyDeleteMr. Ashley
AP US History
9/9/12
3. During the time of the revolution in 1776, I think that I would have been a revolutionary. The laws and restrictions that Great Britain put the colonies through would have made me want independence, much like the other colonists did. It started with the new sets of taxes that Britain was making so that they could repay the debt they had after the French and Indian War. The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first that really started to anger colonists because it meant that on every paper document from land titles and marriage licenses to even letters would have a tax on them. But then the Tea Act of 1773 and Coercive Acts of 1774 would have been enough to help me make up my mind to be a revolutionary. The Tea Act was ridiculous because it was just Britain’s way of forcing the colonists to buy the East India Company tea and pay the taxes which the colonists had been trying to boycott by buying tea from other companies. And then the Coercive Acts were probably what pushed colonists over the edge. Those acts closed down the Boston Harbor, prohibited town meetings in Massachusetts, required colonists to house British troops, and let trials for crimes to be transferred to other courts. If I had been a colonist I would have been upset with Britain for giving us such rules and restrictions that were so unfair. I do not think that Britain had the right to do such things on their own colonies that they should have had a good relationship. The colonies had grown significantly by the time of 1776 and many colonies already operated as if they were their own country and that they did not need Britain anymore, so the idea of wanting independence seemed very logical. I feel that I would have been a revolutionary during the time because I would have wanted to be a part of such a patriotic movement. It was a time when the colonies all came together to stand and fight as one against Great Britain and I would have done all I could to help and be a part of it.
Kathi Cozine
Mr. Ashley
AP US History
9/9/12
1. For the most part the colonies in America were a democratic society. The main values that the colonies had were examples of democracy as we know it today. There was freedom of the press in all the colonies which allowed people to be able to say, write, and publish whatever they wanted to. The colonies also had the freedom of religion which let colonists living there practice any religion they wanted. Those freedoms were a big reason why so many people like the Germans and Scots-Irish moved to the colonies so that they could live in a more democratic place with such freedoms. The government in the colonies was also democratic. Town meetings were very important to them because it was where the citizens could get together and discuss certain issues, which is like the town meetings we have in today’s world. The Mayflower Compact was the earliest example of democracy in colonial America. It was written by the people that came to America on the Mayflower and it stated that the government they created was going to be based on equality and the voices of the people. They wanted a government where they would not be ruled by one person and could all have an opinion when it came to making decisions. Overall, colonial America was a democratic society. The colonies began forming their own sort of government that was based more on everyone’s opinions rather than the laws of one person. And also the freedoms they started are a large part of the democracy we have in America today.
Excellent and insightful reponses to both questions! Now if you could just get your dog to bark a little less:). He wakes up Mr. Struthers on occasion
DeleteJustin Demers
ReplyDeleteMr. Ashley
AP US History
9-9-12
3. 1776 was a far different time for America than the way we think of it now. Being a revolutionary at the time was no easy task; it ultimately meant being a rebel, part of a militia, and fighting back at a far greater government. I would not be a revolutionary back in 1776, based solely on the conditions America was in. Great Britain was the true world power for the majority of the 18th century. They owned everything in America for the most part. And America was still a young, inexperienced, and not very powerful nation at the time. Even with taxes like the Stamp Act and policies like the Quartering Act, I would not see it being worth it to fight back against arguably the strongest nation in the world. Especially being part of a nation that seemed helpless. Compared to now, we see protesters and angry civilians "fighting" back against the government all the time. But to want to revolutionize seems a little drastic. I cannot say I can fully put myself in a revolutioner's shoes, but the way I look at it, there is no way I would go into a rebellion, let alone a war, with Great Britain at the time and think my nation could gain independence. It was an incredible feat that the founding fathers could lead something on this scale, and that is why they're remembered. But I would not want any part of it.
real honest response, Justin. On a side note, I hope Chris Johnson wakes up because otherwise I may have to drop him.
DeleteJustin Demers
ReplyDeleteMr. Ashley
AP US History
9-9-12
4. Religion plays a massive role in society today. Even more so, as a nation or state grows and develops. It is something we all share, so when building a state, the people look for similarities and connections. On one hand, church and state go very well together. If an entire state is one certain religion, there will be few debates and undecided decisions with everybody (including their leader) on the same page. It creates a moral bond between people. It almost, indirectly, creates a generally happier and more satisfied public. Religion is something we all share, why not embrace it to make decisions easier? On the other hand, religion is an extremely complicated thing. Personally, I believe every religious belief is blown far out of proportion when it comes to politics. Why should a person's beliefs come into factor when they decide to run a state? Let their policies speak for themselves. While mutual religion creates a nice morale boost, opposing religious sides create a far greater gap in understanding among people. Religion can make or break a state's customs and morale extremely quickly. It shouldn't, but it has that power. In a way, yes, it does lead to a more moral society. But it also has the potential to destroy one.