This blog is a forum for students enrolled in HIS 115A to discuss their research. Research questions will be introduced with a blog post and you can use the navigation at left to access those questions and related discussions. Reference Librarian Trish McPherson will respond to your comments with suggestions for additional resources and search strategies. It's hoped that this blog will foster an ongoing dialogue about your research.
(I am not sure if this is the right research question to post this under, seeing as though there isn't a question posted, but I am doing it anyways). The letter that I found, from Abigail Adams to John Adams talks about liberty. While Abigail does not state specifically whether or not she is for or against liberty or independence, she makes a very valid and thought provoking statement: "Did ever any kingdom or state regain its liberty, when once it was invaded, without bloodshed? I cannot think of it without horror." Reading into this quote, I started to wonder if other colonists felt this way. I am sure Abigail wasn't the only individual that could foresee some considerable amount of violence in order to regain colonial liberty, which brought me to this question. How strong would the beliefs of the colonists about liberty have to be in order to know in advance that they were about to wage war on the strongest military empire in the entire world? I feel that this was a great article in the way that it depicted the mindset of at least some of the colonists that were for the fight for independence and liberty.
I think it's interesting to bring up the question that if the colonists had known their protests would lead to war, would they have challenged the British so fiercely? Would they have knowingly fought against the strongest army in the world?
This is interesting because we never learn in high school whether the colonists considered the consequences of their actions. For instance, what is the colonists hadn't won? I feel as though the perception is that we just jumped into war without any doubts.
I believe that this demonstrates exactly how a lot of the colonists felt. The colonists were very skeptical of their decisions. They wanted to try to find anyway to gain independence that would not lead to bloodshed. The colonists believed that they had the right to independence, but they did not all want to ruin their relationship with the motherland. In high school history classes, we do not learn about these doubtful feelings of the colonists. They always illustrate the radical views and try to focus on the need for separation from Great Britain. In reality, many colonists did not know what would be the right way to initiate their desire for independence.
The letter I found was written by John Andrews, a boston merchant. It was sent to his brother-in-law who lived in Philadelphia in May of 1774. John Andrews was in support of American independence. This is evident through his strong diction and accusations of Great Britain. Andrews felt the only thing that would save the colonies was to stop trade with England and the West Indies. He believed the colonies needed to be united and act fast because Parliament wanted to make the colonies a desolate wilderness. It is evident that John Andrews despises Parliament and does not trust them. He wants to end all relations with Britain to solidify America.
As we gleaned from the in-class documentary, Abigail Adams was a very important woman to her husband, and held some important opinions about national matters. In the letter that In a letter dated 1775 from her to John, Abigail discusses different matters, but most importantly the new appointment of Generals Washington and Lee to the Continental Army. These appointments came about after some significant losses by the army, and these men were quite literally expected to save the colonies from the British that were becoming and more powerful. However, while most people believe that Washington was the man with the technical know-how (and indeed he did), Abigail actually cites Lee as this man, stating that "the people have the highest regards for Lee's abilities", and not saying this for Washington. Rather, Abigail falls into the modern day assumption that Washington was some how more than a man, that he was almost a god. "I was struck with General Washington", she states, along with "modesty marks every line and feature of his face". These are clearly exaggerations of this man, but Abigail shares an opinion of many patriots at this time. The army officers were at the forefront of American independence, quite literally, and this somehow propelled them to larger than life status (indeed this is exemplified today with the "Apotheosis of Washington" in the Capitol). Washington was indeed a good enough general to win the war, but he was hardly a god as Abigail described him as. The fact that she states this, however, reveals her ardent patriotism, for only a true American could regard this man with this much reverence at this time. Throughout the letter Abigail also makes note of the different troop movements throughout the colonies. A telling detail, however, is her use of the word "our" when describing the colonial troops. Rather than detaching herself from them, she seems to identify with them, and this is pleasing to read. She sympathized with them, and really placed herself in their situations, again revealing her ardent patriotism. Overall, this correspondence is telling of the sentiment that pervaded the colonies during this time. Patriotism was not completely rampant, but people were indeed beginning to really associate themselves with the case, as Abigail did here. She seems to take pride that "our men are in general health" in the camps, and this is a testament to the patriotism that she exhibited in her life.
It is interesting to see how different colonists viewed the Founding Fathers. To some, they were probably heroes and to others they were just powerful men. I find it intriguing how some of the colonists viewed Washington as their savior when he even had doubts about the colonists ability to defeat Great Britain. I don't blame him though. I would be scared to death if I rebelled against one of the most powerful countries in the world during that time period. I cannot even rebel against my parents successfully.
The time period from 1770-1775 was a period of unrest and building tension. While at this time no one was thinking of war, everyone was thinking about the different acts that the Parliament continuously imposed on the colonists. The colonists believed that “no taxes be imposed upon them but by their own consent”. They did not want to be taxed without “representation”. The Parliament continued to create acts that they considered to be “necessary badges of parliamentary supremacy”. The Sons of Liberty and the colonists who supported this group, however, believed that Great Britain had become a tyrannical power that was abusing its authority over the American citizens. The colonists were also angry with the presence of British troops. They soldiers created competition for jobs that colonists already were having difficulty in finding. The Sons of Liberty were motivated by economic self-interest. They were not profiting from the taxes, so they believed that Parliament had no right to approve them. Power and authority created conflict and confrontation between the soldiers and colonists. These years of intense debate led colonists to think of the ideas of independence and want to separate from the motherland. The citizens wanted the same natural rights that the “birth-right of Englishmen” has. Patriots believed that American’s independence would create “stability” and lead to happiness. Patriots advocated these ideas and established the grievances toward the King. The colonists’ ideas of independence led to the American Revolution that created their separation from Great Britain. http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=K63X5DQSMTM1MDQyMDI0MC41MTQwMjA6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=17&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=17&p_docnum=5&p_docref=v2:106AD2C0F76EDF48@EANX-107027ABEAB48A78@2369003-107027ABFB0CD240@0-107027ACB84E65F0@The+Association+of+the+Sons+of+Liberty
This is a source from the Virginia Gazette, reprinting a speech made by a member of the House of Commons supporting the American’s quest for independence on the grounds that Britain did treat them poorly. They go on to say that this war is an embarrassment to Great Britain in the face of Europe and that they should grant the American independence but also created a treaty that institutes peace and commerce. The speech goes on to say that reconciliation is the best course of action, though the Secretary refuses to even discuss this notion. He waxes on about his regret that they didn’t accept their petition when it boasted submission and loyalty. He expresses regret that they pushed the Americans to such limits that caused them to revolt.
This letter is from William Smith during the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. He is completely with the cause for rebelling against the British because they have governed the colonies improperly. He urges to continue the resistence against the British but once, "Great Britain is convinced of her fatal policy," he recommends the colonies go back to Britain and continue to let them rule the colonies. He wants Great Britain to, "open her arms to reconciliation," so the colonies can go "running" back to their "mother" country. I believe this man is on the fence about the Revolution in America. I feel like people were either all for the Revolution or completely against it. Smith is inbetween because he wants the rebelling, but he wants to go back to Britain after the rebelling. I just thought it was interesting that people of colonial times thought this way.
I agree that Mr. Smith’s point of view is certainly unique. All I have ever heard was loyalist or patriot, but never someone who had a point of view in between them. He realizes that the colonies cannot completely shut Britain out of their lives. However, he wants to rebel against Britain over changing the way they govern the colonies. He does not represent a clear side because he still has loyalty to Britain, but he disagrees with their rule. I wonder what side Mr. Smith took when the war actually broke out.
This is a source written by an Anglican educator and suspected Loyalist sympathizer, William Smith. In response to Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Smith believes that restoring friendly relations with the British would be a better alternative than achieving independence from Britain. Smith believes that ending relations with the British would isolate the United States from foreign nations and thus involve the US in new difficulties. He continues to say that the United States has long flourished under the British government. Therefore, if the colonies were to end their relations with Britain, than the uncertain consequences of this end may worsen the current state of the colonies.
I like that you found a loyalist source because it did represent a large chunk of colonists at the time and this population goes underrepresented in textbooks and books.
I agree, Taylor. Loyalist sources are often not included in textbooks. We often only learn of those who wanted immediate separation from Britain and would go to great measures to make that happen. In the newspaper article I found, the author encourages the colonists to patiently wait to see if further action is necessary. It is important to realize that not all colonists were like those we read about in textbooks. Colonists like William Smith and the author of the newspaper article that I read held very strong beliefs during this time of conflict.
This source is written by a man named Ambrose Serle, publisjed in London in 1775. Siding with many native British citizens at the time, he felt that American independence was entirely illegal and inappaorpriate. Yet, he added a twist to his argument against American independence, and used John Locke as jusitifcation for a continued united Empire. According to Locke, citizens establish society through a compact, and in the process form government. Because they form government, they give their consent to the laws of that government, however tacitly. Quoting Locke, the law of a government "reaches as far as the being of anyone within the territory of that government." Further, Serle interprets Locke's right of revolution as being more limited than the Americans use it. Though Locke states that the "majority" of society must feel great and intolerable inconvenience from the government, this majority must be of the whole of the entire state. Thus, all dominions of the British Empire must consent to a change in government, even secession. To Serle, the Americans were obligated to follow the laws having grown from their compact with Britain, and do not have a broad enough consensus to leave the Empire.
My article was a petition written by Baptists in Prince William County, Virginia in June 1776. I chose this passage because I thought it would have a different perspective coming from a group of religious people. What I found was that they agreed and wanted their freedom as well. The Baptists wanted to be free to worship and act as they wish without any other denomination, the British, trying to control them. Due to this, they were willing to promote freedom for their country.
I found it interesting the way the Baptists explained themselves and the situation. When talking about independence, they stated that the colonies were fighting “against the enslaving scheme of a powerful enemy.” These were strong words to say about the British, and never once did they specifically say Great Britain or the British. Instead the Baptists referred to them as a denomination or an enemy. In the next sentence, they also stated that they were “peaceable Christians”, which is ironic since they were supporting a group of people who were very violent.
I find this petition very interesting. I wonder if the Baptists reason for supporting independence was not just for religious freedom, but something else. I thought that the colonies already allowed the freedom of religion, which raises the question, what was the real reason for Baptists to support the revolution? Did it have to do with the social class they belong to?
There was much debate and controversy that characterized the pre-revolutionary years. In October of 1775, Esther Reed wrote a letter to Dennis D Berdt, expressing her concerns with the political implications and consequences of resisting the British government. In her heart, which is also the view of many other colonists, Esther sees the cause of liberty and virtue “branded by the names of rebellion and treason.” In going against the British government, Esther feels as though she is betraying a powerful ally, one that will soon become a powerful enemy that could take everything dear away from us. She is also wary about how the colonists’ trade will be affected by colonial resistance. Britain was the many market for the colonies, and by defying them, we would also be cutting off trade from other countries who will side with the British. Esther, despite her doubts, does come to the conclusion that now it depends “on the reception of our last Petition from the Congress to the King; if that should be so considered as to lay a foundation for negotiation, we may be again reconciled,---if not, I imagine WE SHALL DECLARE FOR INDEPENDENCE.” The general consensus among the colonists was to move towards independence, but those conclusions were made only after vigorous deliberation and consideration.
A young colonist living in Massachusetts presents a unique perspective of pre-revolutionary sentiments. Elkanah Watson, a sixth generation descendant of the third governor of Plymouth plantation, Edward Winslow, grew up in a puritan household where he was taught about religious and political freedom. His family strongly supported the cause for Independence. He explains his families dedication to colonial Independence when he states "My father and all my relatives, with a few exceptions, were zealous and active Whigs, aiding with their hands and purses the glorious struggle for Independence". Watson's family is supporting the opposition movement, which is known to us as the colonial rebellion. It is intriguing to read how Watson describes the opposition movement in his memories. He speaks of the "glorious struggle for Independence" and of the "patriot spirits of the age". He uses passionate language when he writes about the opposition movement. It leads one to believe that these colonists opposing Parliament were passionate about their cause whether it was for their own gain or for the gain of the colonies as a whole. His use of language embodies the American spirit of later generations, yet, it does not precisely exemplify the spirit of the pre-revolutionary period. Many colonists were not thinking about Independence. They were thinking more along the lines of receiving representation and power in the British government. Prominent colonists like Ben Franklin and other elites were already gearing up to take the representative position that many colonists hoped Parliament would give the colonies. Therefore, Watson's revolutionary view of the cause for Independence presents a unique view of the sentiment of colonial families which were supporting complete separation from Britain rather than just increased representation. It appears that there were many different perspectives of the conflict between the colonies and Britain, which led to different groups taking varying plans of action from rioting to petitioning Parliament. Yet, which one was the most effective?
In an article posted in the Pennsylvania Packet on January 2, 1775, Rusticus, the author of the letter, offers his opinions on American independence and his sentiments towards “those unhappy differences that are present between us and the Parent State”. He recalls the times before Britain made the mistake of taxing the colonies, when those in America enjoyed peace and security under the protection of the Mother-country. He concludes this paragraph in his letter by stating that “every rational man must consider [the times before taxation] as the Golden Age of America”. It is interesting to note that for a while, people in America enjoyed their roles as subjects to the mother country; those times are often overshadowed by the violent, rebellious years in which the colonies and Britain did not get along. I often find myself only thinking of the bad years in this relationship, forgetting about what Rusticus refers to as the “Golden Age of America”, when there was a reciprocal relationship between Britain and the colonies. He then shifts his letter to talk about the future independence of America and relationship with Britain. The point I found most interesting in the letter is when Rusticus questions whether further action (besides prohibiting the importation of goods from Britain) is necessary or whether “it will not be proper, decent, and only commonly respectful as well to the continental congress as to Great Britain, to wait with patience ‘til we are informed whether we are likely to obtain redress of our grievances before we pursue other methods”. For the remainder of his letter, Rusticus encourages readers to be patient and act with respect during this time of dispute and conflict, hoping for a cordial reconciliation with the mother-country. Once again, people like Rusticus are overshadowed by the overly-anxious, spontaneous, irrational colonists who resort to violence without patiently waiting to see how the disputes turn out. Rusticus seems to imply throughout his letter that independence from Britain is bound to happen, but does not need to happen right away and that the colonists should wait to see if other methods are indeed necessary.
It seems like Rusticus is trying to remind colonists of all the good that Great Britain has done for them and that this is just a minor conflict in their relationship. He clearly wants the colonists to only show Parliament their dissatisfaction of the taxes with peaceful protests that do not involve forms of treason or violence. I find it interesting how forgiving Rusticus is of Britain's involvement in the colonies. You are able to see how much he truly loves his country, when he states that only peaceful protests should be done in order to oppose British policies.
The Daughters of Liberty was a group of women who advocated for colonial independence and women’s rights. Their mission was that should the Sons of Liberty not be able to fulfill their duty in fighting for independence, that it would be the Daughters of Liberty to take their place. Hannah Griffits wrote this poem to inspire moral for the Daughters of Liberty and to outline their meaning. She describes the women in the group as “American patriots” which would make them no different than any male American patriot. The gender barrier was strong in pre-revolutionary times and not many women were able to breech it. However, the fight for independence is equal for both men and women. They may be two different genders, but they both share a common goal of freedom from Britain. She pledges that women will actively participate in the boycott of British goods too in an effort to join the independence movement. At the end of her poem, Griffits make a defiant statement. She declares that if “the bound pensioners tell us to hush, we can throw back the satire by biding them blush.” The women of the Daughters of Liberty will not let anyone tell them to stop. They are going to participate in the movement for independence regardless if they have the support of the men or not.
A man in the Massachusetts Bay felt that the colonists were seeking independence for no reason. He thought that they were over reacting to the actions of Parliament and performing violent actions without knowing their true cause. This man thought the Sons of Liberty were so passionate that they convinced their followers that Parliament, the King, taxes, and revenue were words that implied slavery. However, they did not. The colonists were taking British action out of proportion and that most of the things that they were fighting against were actually the result of their cruel rebellious behavior. He claimed that if they were civil like their forefathers, then Great Britain would reward them for their good behavior and no longer force them to pay taxes that they did not agree with. He states that the colonists’ behavior was the result absorbing the poisoned thoughts of the Sons of Liberty, who manipulated what they heard and read in order to convince them that violence and independence was the only answer to their problem. However what the colonists did not understand was that Parliament was forced to keep some of their new policies in place, in order to display their power and authority over the colonies. As you can see, not all of the people in the colonies felt that they needed to rebel against British rule because of the Townshend duties and other British policies. Some of them were able to understand Britain’s actions and try to convince their fellow countryman that rebelling was too radical of a solution and that reconciliation with England was still possible.
One of the biggest causes of the American Revolution were the economic incentives that wold occur if the Colonies gained there independence. Each social class was acting in their own economic self interest in order to increase their utility, in this case wealth. In this primary source, Charles Ingles argued that it would not be in the interests of the Colonists to rebel, because the economy would get worse. If the Colonies did win their independence from Britain, they would have to pay for the war. Ingles said, "The whole of our exports from the Thirteen United Colonies, in the year 1769, amounted only to £2,887,898 sterling; which is not so much, by near half a million, as our annual expense would be were we independent of Great Britain." By not having Britain protection, they would be on their own. Ingles predicted that taxes would increase on almost everything, and that new taxes would have to be created. Charles Ingles was against independence because of the economic risks the Colonies would be taking.
I really never thought about the financial aspects of this revolution that the Americans had in their hands. Whenver I was tought about the revolution in school, even in AP US History, there was never really anything said on the topic of the economy. The economy had to have been lingering on everyone's minds at this point in time just like it is today, and the financial aspects had to have made an impact into what the colonists chose to do. I wonder why then, if the economy was such a big deal, that the colonists really started this whole ordeal over a lowering of a tax? Obviously being ordered around like a mother does to an unruly child wasn't worth a solid economy in the eyes of the colonists.
The time period between 1770 and 1775 was a time of unrest and tension between the colonists of America and the citizens of Great Britain. The article that I found focuses on the colonies in America who weren't neccesarily as radical as Boston was, and who still wanted to reconcile and make peace with Great Britain. Based off of the John Adams HBO film that we have been watching it makes it seem as though everyone wants to seize the day and rebel right away. However, as the proposal from Joseph Galloway to the rest of the colonies states, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey still made it very clear that they wanted to become a dutiful child again to the mother country, and even went to such ends to put into the proposal that a President General should be appointed by the King to rule over the colonies. This proposal was obviously not passed, but it really gave me a better perspective on the other, less radical sides of the revolution.
Patrick Henry presented his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech at the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. He thought of the issue as "a question of freedom or slavery" in which Britain acted as owners of the colonies rather than regarding the colonies as an extension of the country with the same rights. He spoke after a group loyalists who wanted to avoid war. The extreme groups were polarized with many people falling in the middle of the spectrum who were unsure about what the best solution to the problem was. Although Patrick Henry felt the loyalist, anti-war group would be offended, he felt he owed it to the colonies to speak his mind about the importance of going to war against Britain. It was the only way to escape enslavement, and he had the best interests of the colonists at heart. It is interesting that Henry was so radical and pro-war, while at the same time still pledging his allegiance to the King. This relationship showed that people were conflicted about disobeying the King, yet more and more people began to show hatred for British Parliament. Henry asked, "Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has lately been received?" Henry's question is meant to probe into Britain's reaction to the petition to remove the British military from the colonies. The Virginia Convention met after Britain responded by sending over 1,000 more soldiers to Boston, so Bostonians were very angry. Henry is basing his reason for wanting to go to war on the fact that he is judging the future by the past; Britain's reign of salutary neglect over the colonies changed suddenly to that of tighter control, an action that Henry felt was not justifiable. In his mind, the British troops entering the colonies was the first act of war, and the best response was to fight back; arguments would not work at this point. Henry believed the colonies did everything they could to prevent a war, which is ironic to me because I believe the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party were unnecessary acts of extremist groups daring the British soldiers to fight them. Patrick Henry closed with, "give me liberty of give me death!", a profound statement that resonated with many individuals at the convention, winning support to materialize and arm the Virginia army.
http://www.inthefirstperson.com/firp/firp.frame.aspx?alltermcode=ext0003308&fulltext=on&sortorder=collection&http=www.alexanderstreet4.com/cgi-bin/asp/nawld/documentidx.pl%3Faspdocid%3DS23-D007&page=firp.result.documents.aspx&cit=
ReplyDelete(I am not sure if this is the right research question to post this under, seeing as though there isn't a question posted, but I am doing it anyways).
The letter that I found, from Abigail Adams to John Adams talks about liberty. While Abigail does not state specifically whether or not she is for or against liberty or independence, she makes a very valid and thought provoking statement: "Did ever any kingdom or state regain its liberty, when once it was invaded, without bloodshed? I cannot think of it without horror." Reading into this quote, I started to wonder if other colonists felt this way. I am sure Abigail wasn't the only individual that could foresee some considerable amount of violence in order to regain colonial liberty, which brought me to this question. How strong would the beliefs of the colonists about liberty have to be in order to know in advance that they were about to wage war on the strongest military empire in the entire world? I feel that this was a great article in the way that it depicted the mindset of at least some of the colonists that were for the fight for independence and liberty.
I think it's interesting to bring up the question that if the colonists had known their protests would lead to war, would they have challenged the British so fiercely? Would they have knowingly fought against the strongest army in the world?
DeleteThis is interesting because we never learn in high school whether the colonists considered the consequences of their actions. For instance, what is the colonists hadn't won? I feel as though the perception is that we just jumped into war without any doubts.
DeleteI believe that this demonstrates exactly how a lot of the colonists felt. The colonists were very skeptical of their decisions. They wanted to try to find anyway to gain independence that would not lead to bloodshed. The colonists believed that they had the right to independence, but they did not all want to ruin their relationship with the motherland. In high school history classes, we do not learn about these doubtful feelings of the colonists. They always illustrate the radical views and try to focus on the need for separation from Great Britain. In reality, many colonists did not know what would be the right way to initiate their desire for independence.
DeleteThe letter I found was written by John Andrews, a boston merchant. It was sent to his brother-in-law who lived in Philadelphia in May of 1774. John Andrews was in support of American independence. This is evident through his strong diction and accusations of Great Britain. Andrews felt the only thing that would save the colonies was to stop trade with England and the West Indies. He believed the colonies needed to be united and act fast because Parliament wanted to make the colonies a desolate wilderness. It is evident that John Andrews despises Parliament and does not trust them. He wants to end all relations with Britain to solidify America.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.smithsoniansource.org/display/primarysource/viewdetails.aspx?TopicId=&PrimarySourceId=1005
As we gleaned from the in-class documentary, Abigail Adams was a very important woman to her husband, and held some important opinions about national matters. In the letter that In a letter dated 1775 from her to John, Abigail discusses different matters, but most importantly the new appointment of Generals Washington and Lee to the Continental Army. These appointments came about after some significant losses by the army, and these men were quite literally expected to save the colonies from the British that were becoming and more powerful. However, while most people believe that Washington was the man with the technical know-how (and indeed he did), Abigail actually cites Lee as this man, stating that "the people have the highest regards for Lee's abilities", and not saying this for Washington. Rather, Abigail falls into the modern day assumption that Washington was some how more than a man, that he was almost a god. "I was struck with General Washington", she states, along with "modesty marks every line and feature of his face". These are clearly exaggerations of this man, but Abigail shares an opinion of many patriots at this time. The army officers were at the forefront of American independence, quite literally, and this somehow propelled them to larger than life status (indeed this is exemplified today with the "Apotheosis of Washington" in the Capitol). Washington was indeed a good enough general to win the war, but he was hardly a god as Abigail described him as. The fact that she states this, however, reveals her ardent patriotism, for only a true American could regard this man with this much reverence at this time. Throughout the letter Abigail also makes note of the different troop movements throughout the colonies. A telling detail, however, is her use of the word "our" when describing the colonial troops. Rather than detaching herself from them, she seems to identify with them, and this is pleasing to read. She sympathized with them, and really placed herself in their situations, again revealing her ardent patriotism. Overall, this correspondence is telling of the sentiment that pervaded the colonies during this time. Patriotism was not completely rampant, but people were indeed beginning to really associate themselves with the case, as Abigail did here. She seems to take pride that "our men are in general health" in the camps, and this is a testament to the patriotism that she exhibited in her life.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.inthefirstperson.com/firp/firp.frame.aspx?fulltext=on&interviewtime=1770-00TO1779-99&sortorder=interview+year&http=www.alexanderstreet4.com/cgi-bin/asp/nawld/documentidx.pl%3Faspdocid%3DS23-D021&page=firp.result.documents.aspx&cit=
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt is interesting to see how different colonists viewed the Founding Fathers. To some, they were probably heroes and to others they were just powerful men. I find it intriguing how some of the colonists viewed Washington as their savior when he even had doubts about the colonists ability to defeat Great Britain. I don't blame him though. I would be scared to death if I rebelled against one of the most powerful countries in the world during that time period. I cannot even rebel against my parents successfully.
DeleteThe time period from 1770-1775 was a period of unrest and building tension. While at this time no one was thinking of war, everyone was thinking about the different acts that the Parliament continuously imposed on the colonists. The colonists believed that “no taxes be imposed upon them but by their own consent”. They did not want to be taxed without “representation”. The Parliament continued to create acts that they considered to be “necessary badges of parliamentary supremacy”. The Sons of Liberty and the colonists who supported this group, however, believed that Great Britain had become a tyrannical power that was abusing its authority over the American citizens. The colonists were also angry with the presence of British troops. They soldiers created competition for jobs that colonists already were having difficulty in finding. The Sons of Liberty were motivated by economic self-interest. They were not profiting from the taxes, so they believed that Parliament had no right to approve them. Power and authority created conflict and confrontation between the soldiers and colonists. These years of intense debate led colonists to think of the ideas of independence and want to separate from the motherland. The citizens wanted the same natural rights that the “birth-right of Englishmen” has. Patriots believed that American’s independence would create “stability” and lead to happiness. Patriots advocated these ideas and established the grievances toward the King. The colonists’ ideas of independence led to the American Revolution that created their separation from Great Britain.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=K63X5DQSMTM1MDQyMDI0MC41MTQwMjA6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=17&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=17&p_docnum=5&p_docref=v2:106AD2C0F76EDF48@EANX-107027ABEAB48A78@2369003-107027ABFB0CD240@0-107027ACB84E65F0@The+Association+of+the+Sons+of+Liberty
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/VirginiaGazette/VGImagePopup.cfm?ID=5826&Res=HI&CFID=16579456&CFTOKEN=83432129
ReplyDeleteThis is a source from the Virginia Gazette, reprinting a speech made by a member of the House of Commons supporting the American’s quest for independence on the grounds that Britain did treat them poorly. They go on to say that this war is an embarrassment to Great Britain in the face of Europe and that they should grant the American independence but also created a treaty that institutes peace and commerce. The speech goes on to say that reconciliation is the best course of action, though the Secretary refuses to even discuss this notion. He waxes on about his regret that they didn’t accept their petition when it boasted submission and loyalty. He expresses regret that they pushed the Americans to such limits that caused them to revolt.
http://www.smithsoniansource.org/display/primarysource/viewdetails.aspx?TopicId=&PrimarySourceId=1015
ReplyDeleteThis letter is from William Smith during the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. He is completely with the cause for rebelling against the British because they have governed the colonies improperly. He urges to continue the resistence against the British but once, "Great Britain is convinced of her fatal policy," he recommends the colonies go back to Britain and continue to let them rule the colonies. He wants Great Britain to, "open her arms to reconciliation," so the colonies can go "running" back to their "mother" country.
I believe this man is on the fence about the Revolution in America. I feel like people were either all for the Revolution or completely against it. Smith is inbetween because he wants the rebelling, but he wants to go back to Britain after the rebelling. I just thought it was interesting that people of colonial times thought this way.
I agree that Mr. Smith’s point of view is certainly unique. All I have ever heard was loyalist or patriot, but never someone who had a point of view in between them. He realizes that the colonies cannot completely shut Britain out of their lives. However, he wants to rebel against Britain over changing the way they govern the colonies. He does not represent a clear side because he still has loyalty to Britain, but he disagrees with their rule. I wonder what side Mr. Smith took when the war actually broke out.
Deletehttp://www.smithsoniansource.org/display/primarysource/viewdetails.aspx?TopicId=&PrimarySourceId=1015
ReplyDeleteThis is a source written by an Anglican educator and suspected Loyalist sympathizer, William Smith. In response to Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Smith believes that restoring friendly relations with the British would be a better alternative than achieving independence from Britain. Smith believes that ending relations with the British would isolate the United States from foreign nations and thus involve the US in new difficulties. He continues to say that the United States has long flourished under the British government. Therefore, if the colonies were to end their relations with Britain, than the uncertain consequences of this end may worsen the current state of the colonies.
I like that you found a loyalist source because it did represent a large chunk of colonists at the time and this population goes underrepresented in textbooks and books.
DeleteI agree, Taylor. Loyalist sources are often not included in textbooks. We often only learn of those who wanted immediate separation from Britain and would go to great measures to make that happen. In the newspaper article I found, the author encourages the colonists to patiently wait to see if further action is necessary. It is important to realize that not all colonists were like those we read about in textbooks. Colonists like William Smith and the author of the newspaper article that I read held very strong beliefs during this time of conflict.
DeleteThis source is written by a man named Ambrose Serle, publisjed in London in 1775. Siding with many native British citizens at the time, he felt that American independence was entirely illegal and inappaorpriate. Yet, he added a twist to his argument against American independence, and used John Locke as jusitifcation for a continued united Empire. According to Locke, citizens establish society through a compact, and in the process form government. Because they form government, they give their consent to the laws of that government, however tacitly. Quoting Locke, the law of a government "reaches as far as the being of anyone within the territory of that government." Further, Serle interprets Locke's right of revolution as being more limited than the Americans use it. Though Locke states that the "majority" of society must feel great and intolerable inconvenience from the government, this majority must be of the whole of the entire state. Thus, all dominions of the British Empire must consent to a change in government, even secession. To Serle, the Americans were obligated to follow the laws having grown from their compact with Britain, and do not have a broad enough consensus to leave the Empire.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-find.galegroup.com.library.stonehill.edu/sas/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DateAscend&tabID=T001&prodId=SAS&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchId=R3&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=4&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28TX%2CNone%2C12%29independence%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28LM%2CNone%2C49%29mono_full+Or+news_arti+Or++manu_full+Or+Reference%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28da%2CNone%2C19%2917650101+-+17751231%3AOr%3ALQE%3D%28D0+EQ%2CNone%2C8%2910000101%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28MB%2CNone%2C7%29%22SAS-1%22%24&retrieveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&userGroupName=mlin_s_stonecol&inPS=true&contentSet=ECCO&&docId=DS4103080609&retrieveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&docLevel=FASCIMILE&workId=DS4103080609&relevancePageBatch=DS103080608&showLOI=No&contentSet=&callistoContentSet=LCPC&docPage=article&hilite=y
My article was a petition written by Baptists in Prince William County, Virginia in June 1776. I chose this passage because I thought it would have a different perspective coming from a group of religious people. What I found was that they agreed and wanted their freedom as well. The Baptists wanted to be free to worship and act as they wish without any other denomination, the British, trying to control them. Due to this, they were willing to promote freedom for their country.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting the way the Baptists explained themselves and the situation. When talking about independence, they stated that the colonies were fighting “against the enslaving scheme of a powerful enemy.” These were strong words to say about the British, and never once did they specifically say Great Britain or the British. Instead the Baptists referred to them as a denomination or an enemy. In the next sentence, they also stated that they were “peaceable Christians”, which is ironic since they were supporting a group of people who were very violent.
http://www.smithsoniansource.org/display/primarysource/viewdetails.aspx?TopicId=&PrimarySourceId=1012
I find this petition very interesting. I wonder if the Baptists reason for supporting independence was not just for religious freedom, but something else. I thought that the colonies already allowed the freedom of religion, which raises the question, what was the real reason for Baptists to support the revolution? Did it have to do with the social class they belong to?
DeleteThere was much debate and controversy that characterized the pre-revolutionary years. In October of 1775, Esther Reed wrote a letter to Dennis D Berdt, expressing her concerns with the political implications and consequences of resisting the British government. In her heart, which is also the view of many other colonists, Esther sees the cause of liberty and virtue “branded by the names of rebellion and treason.” In going against the British government, Esther feels as though she is betraying a powerful ally, one that will soon become a powerful enemy that could take everything dear away from us. She is also wary about how the colonists’ trade will be affected by colonial resistance. Britain was the many market for the colonies, and by defying them, we would also be cutting off trade from other countries who will side with the British. Esther, despite her doubts, does come to the conclusion that now it depends “on the reception of our last Petition from the Congress to the King; if that should be so considered as to lay a foundation for negotiation, we may be again reconciled,---if not, I imagine WE SHALL DECLARE FOR INDEPENDENCE.” The general consensus among the colonists was to move towards independence, but those conclusions were made only after vigorous deliberation and consideration.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-asp6new.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/wam2/wam2.object.details.aspx?dorpid=1000684116&fulltext=independence
A young colonist living in Massachusetts presents a unique perspective of pre-revolutionary sentiments. Elkanah Watson, a sixth generation descendant of the third governor of Plymouth plantation, Edward Winslow, grew up in a puritan household where he was taught about religious and political freedom. His family strongly supported the cause for Independence. He explains his families dedication to colonial Independence when he states "My father and all my relatives, with a few exceptions, were zealous and active Whigs, aiding with their hands and purses the glorious struggle for Independence". Watson's family is supporting the opposition movement, which is known to us as the colonial rebellion. It is intriguing to read how Watson describes the opposition movement in his memories. He speaks of the "glorious struggle for Independence" and of the "patriot spirits of the age". He uses passionate language when he writes about the opposition movement. It leads one to believe that these colonists opposing Parliament were passionate about their cause whether it was for their own gain or for the gain of the colonies as a whole. His use of language embodies the American spirit of later generations, yet, it does not precisely exemplify the spirit of the pre-revolutionary period. Many colonists were not thinking about Independence. They were thinking more along the lines of receiving representation and power in the British government. Prominent colonists like Ben Franklin and other elites were already gearing up to take the representative position that many colonists hoped Parliament would give the colonies. Therefore, Watson's revolutionary view of the cause for Independence presents a unique view of the sentiment of colonial families which were supporting complete separation from Britain rather than just increased representation. It appears that there were many different perspectives of the conflict between the colonies and Britain, which led to different groups taking varying plans of action from rioting to petitioning Parliament. Yet, which one was the most effective?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fmemory.loc.gov%2Fammem%2Findex.html?tab=people&uname=trishmcpherson
In an article posted in the Pennsylvania Packet on January 2, 1775, Rusticus, the author of the letter, offers his opinions on American independence and his sentiments towards “those unhappy differences that are present between us and the Parent State”. He recalls the times before Britain made the mistake of taxing the colonies, when those in America enjoyed peace and security under the protection of the Mother-country. He concludes this paragraph in his letter by stating that “every rational man must consider [the times before taxation] as the Golden Age of America”. It is interesting to note that for a while, people in America enjoyed their roles as subjects to the mother country; those times are often overshadowed by the violent, rebellious years in which the colonies and Britain did not get along. I often find myself only thinking of the bad years in this relationship, forgetting about what Rusticus refers to as the “Golden Age of America”, when there was a reciprocal relationship between Britain and the colonies.
ReplyDeleteHe then shifts his letter to talk about the future independence of America and relationship with Britain. The point I found most interesting in the letter is when Rusticus questions whether further action (besides prohibiting the importation of goods from Britain) is necessary or whether “it will not be proper, decent, and only commonly respectful as well to the continental congress as to Great Britain, to wait with patience ‘til we are informed whether we are likely to obtain redress of our grievances before we pursue other methods”. For the remainder of his letter, Rusticus encourages readers to be patient and act with respect during this time of dispute and conflict, hoping for a cordial reconciliation with the mother-country. Once again, people like Rusticus are overshadowed by the overly-anxious, spontaneous, irrational colonists who resort to violence without patiently waiting to see how the disputes turn out. Rusticus seems to imply throughout his letter that independence from Britain is bound to happen, but does not need to happen right away and that the colonists should wait to see if other methods are indeed necessary.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=Y53C4CSBMTM1MDUyNDAxMC41OTI3MzY6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=9&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=9&p_docnum=11&p_docref=v2:10CEB9BDCC081400@EANX-10E0D36016776F30@2369367-10E0D36081E1CFC0@2-10E0D3618263A608@To+the+Printer+of+the+Pennsylvania+Packet
It seems like Rusticus is trying to remind colonists of all the good that Great Britain has done for them and that this is just a minor conflict in their relationship. He clearly wants the colonists to only show Parliament their dissatisfaction of the taxes with peaceful protests that do not involve forms of treason or violence. I find it interesting how forgiving Rusticus is of Britain's involvement in the colonies. You are able to see how much he truly loves his country, when he states that only peaceful protests should be done in order to oppose British policies.
DeleteThe Daughters of Liberty was a group of women who advocated for colonial independence and women’s rights. Their mission was that should the Sons of Liberty not be able to fulfill their duty in fighting for independence, that it would be the Daughters of Liberty to take their place. Hannah Griffits wrote this poem to inspire moral for the Daughters of Liberty and to outline their meaning. She describes the women in the group as “American patriots” which would make them no different than any male American patriot. The gender barrier was strong in pre-revolutionary times and not many women were able to breech it. However, the fight for independence is equal for both men and women. They may be two different genders, but they both share a common goal of freedom from Britain. She pledges that women will actively participate in the boycott of British goods too in an effort to join the independence movement. At the end of her poem, Griffits make a defiant statement. She declares that if “the bound pensioners tell us to hush, we can throw back the satire by biding them blush.” The women of the Daughters of Liberty will not let anyone tell them to stop. They are going to participate in the movement for independence regardless if they have the support of the men or not.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-asp6new.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/wam2/wam2.object.details.aspx?dorpid=1000687087
A man in the Massachusetts Bay felt that the colonists were seeking independence for no reason. He thought that they were over reacting to the actions of Parliament and performing violent actions without knowing their true cause. This man thought the Sons of Liberty were so passionate that they convinced their followers that Parliament, the King, taxes, and revenue were words that implied slavery. However, they did not. The colonists were taking British action out of proportion and that most of the things that they were fighting against were actually the result of their cruel rebellious behavior. He claimed that if they were civil like their forefathers, then Great Britain would reward them for their good behavior and no longer force them to pay taxes that they did not agree with. He states that the colonists’ behavior was the result absorbing the poisoned thoughts of the Sons of Liberty, who manipulated what they heard and read in order to convince them that violence and independence was the only answer to their problem. However what the colonists did not understand was that Parliament was forced to keep some of their new policies in place, in order to display their power and authority over the colonies.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, not all of the people in the colonies felt that they needed to rebel against British rule because of the Townshend duties and other British policies. Some of them were able to understand Britain’s actions and try to convince their fellow countryman that rebelling was too radical of a solution and that reconciliation with England was still possible.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=K58D51QGMTM1MDUyNTYxMy45MDYyNzg6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=39&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=39&p_docnum=5&p_docref=v2:1036CD221971FE08@EANX-107B05F3D69A54C8@2369412-107B05F404368978@1-107B05F470175720@To+the+Inhabitants+of+the+Province+of+Massachusetts+Bay
http://www.smithsoniansource.org/display/primarysource/viewdetails.aspx?PrimarySourceId=1014
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest causes of the American Revolution were the economic incentives that wold occur if the Colonies gained there independence. Each social class was acting in their own economic self interest in order to increase their utility, in this case wealth. In this primary source, Charles Ingles argued that it would not be in the interests of the Colonists to rebel, because the economy would get worse. If the Colonies did win their independence from Britain, they would have to pay for the war. Ingles said, "The whole of our exports from the Thirteen United Colonies, in the year 1769, amounted only to £2,887,898 sterling; which is not so much, by near half a million, as our annual expense would be were we independent of Great Britain." By not having Britain protection, they would be on their own. Ingles predicted that taxes would increase on almost everything, and that new taxes would have to be created. Charles Ingles was against independence because of the economic risks the Colonies would be taking.
I really never thought about the financial aspects of this revolution that the Americans had in their hands. Whenver I was tought about the revolution in school, even in AP US History, there was never really anything said on the topic of the economy. The economy had to have been lingering on everyone's minds at this point in time just like it is today, and the financial aspects had to have made an impact into what the colonists chose to do. I wonder why then, if the economy was such a big deal, that the colonists really started this whole ordeal over a lowering of a tax? Obviously being ordered around like a mother does to an unruly child wasn't worth a solid economy in the eyes of the colonists.
DeleteI agree Connor, good point about the financial motivation.
Deletehttp://www.constitution.org/primarysources/galloway.html
ReplyDeleteThe time period between 1770 and 1775 was a time of unrest and tension between the colonists of America and the citizens of Great Britain. The article that I found focuses on the colonies in America who weren't neccesarily as radical as Boston was, and who still wanted to reconcile and make peace with Great Britain. Based off of the John Adams HBO film that we have been watching it makes it seem as though everyone wants to seize the day and rebel right away. However, as the proposal from Joseph Galloway to the rest of the colonies states, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey still made it very clear that they wanted to become a dutiful child again to the mother country, and even went to such ends to put into the proposal that a President General should be appointed by the King to rule over the colonies. This proposal was obviously not passed, but it really gave me a better perspective on the other, less radical sides of the revolution.
Patrick Henry presented his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech at the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. He thought of the issue as "a question of freedom or slavery" in which Britain acted as owners of the colonies rather than regarding the colonies as an extension of the country with the same rights. He spoke after a group loyalists who wanted to avoid war. The extreme groups were polarized with many people falling in the middle of the spectrum who were unsure about what the best solution to the problem was. Although Patrick Henry felt the loyalist, anti-war group would be offended, he felt he owed it to the colonies to speak his mind about the importance of going to war against Britain. It was the only way to escape enslavement, and he had the best interests of the colonists at heart. It is interesting that Henry was so radical and pro-war, while at the same time still pledging his allegiance to the King. This relationship showed that people were conflicted about disobeying the King, yet more and more people began to show hatred for British Parliament. Henry asked, "Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has lately been received?" Henry's question is meant to probe into Britain's reaction to the petition to remove the British military from the colonies. The Virginia Convention met after Britain responded by sending over 1,000 more soldiers to Boston, so Bostonians were very angry. Henry is basing his reason for wanting to go to war on the fact that he is judging the future by the past; Britain's reign of salutary neglect over the colonies changed suddenly to that of tighter control, an action that Henry felt was not justifiable. In his mind, the British troops entering the colonies was the first act of war, and the best response was to fight back; arguments would not work at this point. Henry believed the colonies did everything they could to prevent a war, which is ironic to me because I believe the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party were unnecessary acts of extremist groups daring the British soldiers to fight them. Patrick Henry closed with, "give me liberty of give me death!", a profound statement that resonated with many individuals at the convention, winning support to materialize and arm the Virginia army.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml