Thursday, October 30, 2008
Synthesis.
Text Analysis Notes.
This document is basically talking about how things were going on in Boston. Such as how it was not justified to punish the "inhabitants" which I see as the Indians. The author seemed pretty disappointed in the people that were killing the Indians because he sees the people as gentlemen, not people who will kill people like that. It also talks about how suspending trade with Great Britain will be a really big, but needed sacrifice. Even if it does harm the economy for a while, it will be better in the long run.
Letter from the New York Committee of Fifty-One to the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 23, 1774
The people who live in Boston are alarmed at the measure that the British Parliament want to take. New York believes that Boston is not getting fairly treated and they are concerned, they want to help and will make a large committee of 51 people that will work with other (sistoring) colonies. They believe that the problems in Boston aren't only relative in Boston, but that it will be relative to the entire continent of America. Basically the people of New York want to help out Boston so things like that don't happen in the future, they want to help take charge.
Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress.
This document was a bit longer and it basically talked about how the British Parliament claimed the right to bind people of America by statues in all cases no matter what. they believed that this was wrong and they (colonists) got together wand wanted to stop this kind of treatment and acts. Assemblies have not all worked out and some have, the ones that have want to create rules. The rules that they started to make was that the immutable laws of nature (just like rights that you were born with, and should obtain throughout your life.) Such as "life, liberty, property" and they (immigrants)get to keep their rights that they were born with in England and that if you emigrate, you don't lose your rights. There were many more just talking about how you can keep your rights and how you cannot lose them and what these rights were. Basically they were protecting themselves from the British Parliament and the laws/rules they didn't agree with.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Essay #1 Reflection
When I was first asked to brainstorm for this essay I thought I was good to go and that this essay was going to be pretty easy. I knew (at that time) that I wanted to write about how Bacon was the bad guy, and the Indians were the victims. So I put together my thesis and hypothesis and began my outline. At that point I was sure I knew exactly what I wanted to write, I thought I had it all planned out and that there was no way that I was going to have to re-do my thesis or even my entire essay. Aha, I guess I have a lot to learn about that. After I had my first rough draft done, I got to thinking after extra research and talks with fellow classmates, and I came to the conclusion that maybe the Indians weren't really the victims at all. I thought that maybe it just depended on how you looked at Bacon's Rebellion, and from what time era. I then realized that that was not AT ALL what I was portraying in my essay, so I nearly had to completely re-start my essay. At least I found out the majority of my mistakes in the middle of the writing process so I wasn't all panicked at the last minute while trying to re-write an essay over and over again two days before it was due. I am sure that I really benefited by the different drafts that I wrote, I have never written more than two rough drafts. Now I know how helpful those can be and in the future I am going to use those as much as possible. This essay was quite the learning experience.
Writing about history has not every been difficult for me because I really enjoy history. This was a different type of writing history thought, but I still liked it. In this essay it wasn't just meant to have loads of info in it, it was meant for analysis. Yes, some info was needed but only to support my analysis. I am not used to this type of writing but i like it, it gives me the power to want to chose sides and come to a conclusion about one history event. Plus, it is way more interesting and beneficial to write, in my opinion. I bet teachers enjoy reading these types of essay more than traditional boring essay. I know I would, because all ''fact based, no opinion or voice expressed'' essays will be boring and all the same. Who wants to read 50 of nearly the same essays? I know it wouldn't be me.
Stamp Act Text Analysis.
The members of the Continental Congress.
Who is the audience?
The audience is the people of the British colonies.
Who do the writer[s] represent?
The Continental Congress represents the 'subjects' of the British Colonies.
What is being said, argued and/or requested?
What is being said is that the
How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said that there should be 'no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives." Basically its saying that the people have a right to know and chose whether or not they want to pay for certain taxes or not.
What proof and or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The justification that is being used to legitimize this request is that it is pretty much against the British government. The British government says one thing and this document kind of goes against what they are saying to it would make sense that the people in the colonies (which most are against the British government and want to break apart) that they would agree with anything that is against the British government.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Bacon's Rebellion Essay. (reflection) ((ignore))
One thing that I learned was that no matter how sure you are about how "right" your thesis is at the beginning of the writing process, it is ALWAYS subject to change. I would rather have to re-write my essay than realize that I have no argument at the last minute, so maybe next time I will take more time to develop my thesis and/or hypothesis. I will just have to keep a very open mind and explore all of the possibilities that I can, this will make my essay or writing a lot more credible. This was my first actual essay for this class and I will do nothing but get better from here on. This essay was the "guinea pig" (for lack of a better phrase) for my writing class, and now I am pretty sure I have a better handle of what I need to do and how this whole process works. I cannot wait to see how well I did on this essay, and then after the next essay we write, see how I did on that one. I am really excited to see my writing improve throughout this quarter. Hopefully this essay was the first of many stepping stones on my way to becoming the best writer that is possible for me. I really didn't enjoy writing this essay at first, but once I got used to the "They say/I say" part of it, I really enjoyed it. Its neat to see how far my writing has come in a matter of weeks. Overall, I think this was a pretty successful experience, and hopefully I will continue to improve and build upon it.
Bacon's Rebellion. (Final)
I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, while they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see it. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. Throughout history, there are many important and influential events that may be interpreted in different ways. Take Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 for example; there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not the Indians were the victims. While teaching this event in American history, the instructors teach the facts about who attacked who and when, but they do not directly tell the students who the heroes and the victims were. They leave that open to interpretation, which I see as a form of art. I believe there is no one ‘right’ interpretation to a historical event, just as there is no one ‘right’ way to paint a painting. One of the many factors that are involved in this idea of mine is the time era in which the event took place. This is because something viewed as morally wrong in the 1950’s may be viewed as socially acceptable in 2050. Interpretations change based upon time era and the views in the society during that time era. That is one reason why I had a very difficult time in deciding if the Indians were truly the victims. What I tried to do was to chose a side that was right in my eyes, which my first instinct was that the Indians were one hundred percent the true victims of Bacon’s Rebellion with no doubt about it. After much thought and conversation with peers, I realized that my view must be biased because of the time era that I was raised and now live in. If I were to have been born and raised in the 1600’s or even 1700’s, I may have strongly believed that Nathaniel Bacon Jr. was nothing but a hero, and that his actions were completely justifiable. Since the 17th and 18th centuries had very different views on subjects such as Indians and land than we do today, it would not be fair for me to judge Bacon and his actions in the 17th century. Today’s teachings and social views have definitely changed since the 1600’s. So who is to say that if I were in Bacon’s shoes in the 1670’s, that I would have not taken the same exaction action as he did? There is no true way to tell. In order to correctly make interpretations about Bacon’s Rebellion, an overview of the facts is needed.
Nathaniel Bacon Jr. rebelled against the government of
When it comes to the topic of Bacon’s Rebellion, there are many different views about who the victims and heroes were. It is often claimed that the Indians were the true victims, while it is just as often claimed that English settlers were the true victims. There are many documents saying that the Indians are not the victims and that they deserved what they received, but remember that those documents were also written hundreds of years ago. Most perspectives have changed dramatically since those hundreds of years have passed. As time has gone on, people have begun to understand that everyone is equal and should be treated as such. This was the not case in the 1600’s. More people today understand that the way Englishmen treated Indians is controversial, yet back in the 1600’s the Englishmen thought nothing of it. Opinions have been biased based upon what time era they were raised in and what beliefs were practiced at that time. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that in my time, I see that Bacon was wrong in his actions and the Indians were the true victims. There are many other people who agree with me.
One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In this case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers that broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. What this treaty contracted was that, “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, page 91) This treaty might have worked if the population had not have grown. The majority of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen of all classes at that time in search for land. According to the quote about the treaty, one major conflict was that because there were many people searching for land, the English were forced to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits. There was much more available Indian land than there was set aside for the English. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English believed that they were superior to the Indians, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected the land of their inferiors. Land was at the top of the priority list for the English colonists.
Englishmen who were in search for land began to search outside of their allotted land. Eventually they ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history may imply that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, that the Indians had a right to protect their land. One fact that might make these actions understandable was that most of "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (A Young People's History of the
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians who had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in
The other common view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims, and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. In this interpretation, the colonists were the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One piece of evidence that supports that statement is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses. This was because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (The American promise, page 90). As it was made known earlier, most of Bacon's supporters were the recently freed servants, who wanted more land. The lower class was the most heavily taxed of all the classes, but
Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders, even though in my eyes they were more justified that Bacon’s murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,”That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that
In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what Bacon did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. My view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that if I were looking at this event from the 1600’s, I would have said that Bacon was justified in his actions. In contrast, when I look at this event from the 2000’s, I firmly believe that Bacon was not justified in his actions and he killed the Indians without any real reasons. Yet, I believe that Bacon was not an evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. One common idea in his time era was “might makes right.” That idea did not really have a name yet, but it was still an ideal in the early colonies. In this situation, Bacon had the might over the government and the Indians, which may have been seen as a justification of his rebellion in the 17th century. Since it is now the 21st century, the majority of people have been taught that “might does not make right”, or a similar idea. This causes many people may argue that his rebellion was not justified or right, but the people that are arguing that are people from the 21st century, not those from the 17th century. I strongly believe that each person’s opinion will be different from others’ because people interpret things differently which greatly depends on what era they were raised in. “Might makes right” was one of the ideals that had changed over time because of the growth in education people rose as time went on. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.
- “The American Promise” by James L. Roark and others.
- "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in
- "A Young People's History of the
- "Royal Commissioners Narrative" Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird.
- "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass." The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, NO. 2
By Douglass S. Massey.
URL: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781105 - "The Journal of Southern History"
URL:http://www.jstor.org/pss/2954992
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Draft. Most recent, ready for Craig. =]
I believe that history is a unique experience for each and every student. The instructor can only teach students so many facts, yet they usually leave it up to the student to interpret history as they see fit. I view history as a type of art in the way that it is open to interpretation, and students are encouraged to create their own views on past events. For example, Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 is a very influential event in American History. The instructors teach the facts about who attack who and when, but they do not tell the students who were the victims and who were the heroes. They leave that open to interpretation. I see that as a form of art, there is no one right interpretation to a historic event. Bacon’s Rebellion proves my theory.
Nathaniel Bacon rebelled against the government of
When it comes to the topic of Bacon’s Rebellion, there are many different views about who the victims and heroes were. It is often claimed that the Indians were the true victims, yet there are many people who believe that English settlers were the true victims. There are many documents saying that the Indians are not the victims and that they deserved what they received, but those documents were also written hundreds of years ago. As time has gone on, people began to understand that everyone is equal and should be treated as such. Perspectives have changed. This was the not case in the 1600’s. More people today understand that the way Englishmen treated Indians was controversial, yet back in the 1600’s they didn’t think that was the case. Opinions have been changed or biased based upon what time era they were raised in and what beliefs were practiced at that time. Although Bacon may have been seen as a hero in his time, it is clear to me that there are no true or definitive heroes and victims involved in Bacon's Rebellion.
One interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims, primarily because the colonists were the instigators of the Rebellion. In that case, it would only make sense that the English cannot rightfully blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported with history because it was the English settlers broke the treaty that had concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644, not the Indians. What this treaty contracted was that, “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, page 91) This treaty may have worked if the population had not have grown. Much of the new growth was due to the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land. There were many land-hungry Englishmen at that time as well in search for land. The only conflict was that there were many people searching for land, which forced the English to expand their search for land outside of the treaty limits because of the availability of Indian land. It is important to remember that the English did not believe that the Indians were the same as the Indians. The English were superior to them in their beliefs, so it did not matter to them that they were not following a document that protected their inferiors.
Steadily, the Englishmen who were in search for land ran into Indian settlements, which caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because history implies that since the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, and they had a right to protect their land. "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (A Young People's History of the
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were the 'guilty' Indians that had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in
Governor William Berkeley believed that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (The Journal of Southern History, page 370. [J-STOR])
The other view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. The colonists were also the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One reason is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (The American promise, page 90). Most of Bacon's supporters were the poor who wanted more land, they were the most heavily taxed and
Also, the natives were killing many of the English settlers. Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states, ”That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that
Bacon’s Rebellion is very relevant to what is going on in the 21st century. This is because one of the most common views was that Bacons Rebellion was caused by the separation from the elites (rich) and the common (poor, or middle class) people. Douglas S. Massey believes that “if class segregation is also imposed, then the additional poverty is not only restricted to minority neighborhoods, it is confined primarily to poor minority neighborhoods.” (American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, no. 2 page 337.) Internet Address: [http://socsci.colorado.edu/~downeyl/re/Massey1990_American_Apartheid.pdf] [[J-STOR]]). Many of the poor households today do not have the same role in society as the upper class do. The upper class seem to always have the advantage over the underclass, and they are not given what they are needed just as Bacon’s supporters were not helped when they needed it from the government. Basically what Massey is saying does not directly relate to the separation from the rich and poor, but it does support that the minorities still are the lower part of society today, just like in the 1600’s. It seems like society will never fully connect and allow rich and poor to live together. According to Nouriel Roubini, “Most poor households lack financial literacy… These vulnerable Americans often end up in debt traps…” (Stop Fleecing Poor Americans. Internet address: [http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/05/stop_fleecing_p.html] Roubini’s statement can be connected to Bacon’s Rebellion because the poor were the ones that were getting overlooked in the colonies. The same thing is happening today, the lower class is not getting the help it needs and deserves. Massey also states, “Moreover, even homeowners and landlords with money to maintain their properties have less incentive to do so because of the spreading deterioration around them.” (American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, no. 2 page 346.) What Massey is saying is that the rich do not want to help out the poor when it comes to financial crisis. They are too worried about their own personal interests to invest some time and make some extra land or real estate available for the poor. That is exactly what happened before Bacon’s Rebellion, the poor ran out of land to obtain.
In the 1600’s, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right move. In the 21st century, it seems like what he did was wrong and he was truly unjustified in killing the Indians. I believe that Bacon was not a evil or horrible man, but his choices were different from what our choices would be today. One common idea in his time era was “might makes right.” That idea did not really had a name yet, but it was still an ideal in the early colonies. In this situation, Bacon had the might over the government and the Indians, which may have been seen as a justification of his rebellion in the 17th century. Since it is now the 21st century, the majority of people have been taught that “might does not make right”, or an ideal similar. This causes many people may argue that his rebellion was not justified or right. I strongly believe that each person’s opinion will be different from others’ because people interpret things differently which greatly depends on what era they were raised in. “Might makes right” was one of the ideals that had changed over time because of the growth in education people rose as time went on. That is why there really are no true victims or heroes of Bacon's Rebellion. There are no set in stone victims or heroes in this rebellion, it is all left up to personal speculation and opinion. History is art, first you learn the facts, and then you create your own views based upon those facts. There is no wrong answer.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Text Analysis. Albany Plan of Union.
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Hutchinson wrote it.
Who is the audience?
The audience is the colonists in Albany who aspire to govern in the future, and the people involved in future governments.
Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the laws that are going to be set upon the colonies by the Parliament of Great Britian.
What is being said?
Many laws are written in this document and it is just saying how the colonists have to follow these rules.
How is it being said?
It is being said really straight forward and it does not really leave much room for loop holes. It seems really strict as well.
What the proof and justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The justification was that it was written by the Government of Great Britian, that legitimizes it because Britian's government has control over the colonies and it has a reputation.
Draft #2
When it comes to the topic of Bacon’s Rebellion, there are many different views about who the victims and heroes were. It is often said that the Indians were the victims, yet there are many people who believe that English settlers were the victims. There is many documents saying that the Indians are not the victims, but those documents were also written hundreds of years ago. As time has gone on, people began to understand that everyone is equal and should be treated the same. This was the not case at that time. More people today understand that the way Englishmen treated Indians was controversial, yet back in the 1600’s they didn’t think that was the case. Opinions changed based upon time era and what beliefs are being practiced at that time. Although Bacon may have been a hero in his time, it is clear to me that there really was no true or definitive heroes and victims in Bacon's Rebellion.
One view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims primarily because the colonists were the instigators of this event, and they cannot blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported because the English settlers broke the treaty that concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644. What this treaty contracted was that “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, page 91) This treaty may have worked if the population would not have grown. Many of the new growth was the recently freed indentured servants who wanted to own land, and there were many land-hungry rich Englishmen at that time. The only problem was that there were many other people trying to claim land, that the English had begun to expand their search outside of the treaty limits.
Steadily the Englishmen who were in search for land ran into Indian settlements, and this caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English in order to protect their land. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had followed, and they had a right to protect their land. "The servants who joined Bacon's Rebellion were part of a large underclass of miserably poor whites." (A Young People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff. page 39). There are mixed views about why the poor followed Bacon. Some say that "the rebels wanted to take the colony out of the king's hands and into their own. Another said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but that the poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich." (A Young People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff, page 39). That would make sense because these were the people who wanted to steal land from the natives, at whatever the cost. They didn’t care about taking Indians lives, as long as they were gaining new lands it was worth it.
One other main reason that the Indians were seen as the victims was because not all the Indians killed were 'guilty' Indians that had actually killed Englishmen. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in
Governor William Berkeley believed that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (the journal of southern history, page 370. [jstor]) What
The other view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. The colonists were also the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One reason is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (the American promise, page 90). Most of Bacon's supporters were the poor who wanted more land, they were the most heavily taxed and
Also, the natives were killing many of the English settlers. Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,” That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Rebellion essay rough draft
Bacon’s Rebellion
When it comes to the topic of Bacon’s Rebellion, there are many different views about who the victims and heroes were. It is often said that the Indians were the victims, yet there are many people who believe that English settlers were the victims. There is many documents saying that the Indians are not the victims, but those documents were also written hundreds of years ago. As time has gone on, people began to understand that everyone is equal and should be treated the same. This was the not case then, which may have given them the opinions that they had at that time. More people today understand that the way Englishmen treated Indians was wrong, yet back in the 1600’s they didn’t think that was the case. Opinions changed based upon time era and what beliefs are being practiced at that time. Although Bacon may have been a hero in his time, it is clear to me that the Indians were the true victims, and the English settlers were not by any means heroes. Nathaniel Bacon was nothing but a rebel and another person in history who abused his power in order to steal land from the Native Americans.
One view on Bacon’s Rebellion is that the Indians were the victims primarily because the colonists were the instigators of this event, and they cannot blame the Indians for retaliating. This idea is supported because the English settlers broke the treaty that concluded the Indian surprise attacks in 1644. What this treaty contracted was that “The Indians relinquished all claims to land already settled by the English. Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use.” (The American Promise, page 91) This treaty may have worked had the population not have grown. Many of the new growth was because the recently freed indentured servants wanted to own land, and there were many land-hungry Englishmen at that time. The only problem was that there were so many other people trying to claim land that the English began to expand their search outside of the treaty limits.
Steadily the Englishmen who were in search for land ran into Indian settlements and this caused the Indians to begin fighting with the English. This is completely understandable from the Indian side because the English broke the treaty, which the Indians had abided by, and they had a right to protect their land. It is correct to say that most of the English that were fighting with the Indians were poor settlers or recently freed servants. Many of Bacon’s supporters were these same poor people who fought the natives. That would make sense because these were the people who wanted to steal land from the natives, at whatever the cost. They didn’t care about taking Indians lives, as long as they were gaining new lands it was worth it.
One other main reason that the Indians were the victims was because not all the Indians killed were Indians that actually killed Englishmen. Some of the tribes wrongfully killed some of the English settlers, but this was not the case for many tribes. Nathaniel Bacon and his followers broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians, and not taking the time to make sure he only killed the Indians of enemy tribes. According to the Royal Commissioners,” Bacon had got over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends….the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies.” (a true narrative of the late rebellion in
Governor William Berkeley believed that, ”A more cautious policy should be followed, in justice to innocent Indians, in support of the fur trade, colonial defense, and a peaceful expansion into Indian lands.” (the journal of southern history, page 370. [jstor]) What
The other view to Bacon’s Rebellion was that the Indians were not the victims and Nathaniel Bacon was rightfully named a hero. The colonists were also the victims because the Indians were barbarous and murdered many English. One reason is that the poor people had no representation in the House of Burgesses because of a law passed in 1670 that “outlawed voting by poor men, permitting only men who headed a household and were landowners to vote.” (the American promise, page 90). Most of bacons supporters were the poor who wanted more land, they were the most heavily taxed and
Also, the natives were killing many of the English settlers. Many settlers thought that the Indians should not have expected for the English to let them get away with all these murders. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative: Testimony given by Mrs. William Bird, Mrs. Bird states,” That before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them.” In making this comment Mrs. Bird argues that Bacon and his followers were right in killing Indians because Governor Berkeley was not taking any action to stop them from killing innocent Englishmen. Bacon believed that
During Bacon’s time, going against the Indians may have seemed to be the right thing to do. In today’s time, it seems like what he did was wrong and he was unjustified in going against the Indians. I believe that Bacon was not a bad man, but his choices are different from what our choices would be today. There were different views back then. One common idea in that time era was “might makes right.” In this situation, Bacon had the might over the government and the Indians, but that does not necessarily make it right. That is one of the ideals that change over time, as well as when people get more educated like the people of today. I agree that the Indians were truly the victims of this rebellion, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that the Indians were not victims at all because they deserved to be killed as a punishment for their ruthless killing of hundreds of Englishmen.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Freewrite on the slavery images and Equiano story
There is no way that we could allow something like this to happen again, thats what most people would say. Truth is, things ARE happening that are like this today, but we are so cut off from what is going on that we don't really do anything. Thats not to say that I alone could save those millions killed in Darfur, or can, but I can try to make a difference. Honest truth is, America isn't doing much to help people in that situation, its pretty shameful actually.
The focus is on our economy and how to successfully restore it so we aren't owing the trillions and trillions of dollars that we are now in debt for. I could go on. The slave trade was horrible and an event that was not something we Americans are proud of, we should make sure that things like this don't happen in the future, or at least do our best to help out where we can.
Bacon's Rebellion Essay Outline
Thesis: The true victims of Bacon's Rebellion were the Indians.
I. The natives were the victims. (they say)
--A. How were the natives the victims?
-----1. The colonists were the instigators of this event, and they cannot blame the Indians for their retaliation. (what I say)
-------------a. The white men broke the treaty that ended the Indian surprise attacks in
1644. (American Promise, page 91)
-------------a. What the treaty was, “the treaty that concluded…for Indian use” (AP pg 91)
-------------a. May have worked but Chesapeake population continued to grow and they wandered outside of their land, causing the Indians to attack.
-------------a. White mans fault for beginning the entire thing, most of the people responsible were recently freed indentured servants, who were most of bacon’s followers.
-----2. Not all the Indians killed were the guilty ones, Bacon broke the peace that was established with some tribes by killing innocent Indians and not caring about who he killed as long as they were Indians. (what I say)
-------------a. Bacon killed any Indian that he saw, not caring who they were and what relations they had to them.
--------------------------i. “bacon had got over…one nation from another” (#13)
--------------------------i. “so the common cry…we will spare none” (#13)
-------------a. “Nathaniel bacon … for frontier indian attacks.” (jstor)
-------------a. “governor william berkeley believe that a more cautious policy…into Indian lands” (jstor)
--------------------------i. jstor:http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2117/stable/2954992?&Search=yes&term=%22bacons+rebellion%22&term=indians&term=innocent&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3D%2522bacons%2Brebellion%2522%2Binnocent%2Bindians%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=2&ttl=22&returnArticleService=showArticle
II. The natives were not the victims. (they say)
--A. How were the colonists the victims?
------1. The Indians were barbarous and murdered many English which caused them to deserve to be killed because Berkeley was taking no action. (what I say)
-------------a. “before ever mr. bacon…no course was taken to secure them” (#14)
-------------a. Bacon and the people felt that Berkeley was not ruling for the general good, justified to rebel.
i. “when rules violated that precept…justified in rebelling.” (AP pg 90)
-------------a. “this made the people…indians than them” ( #16)
--------------------------i. this point in time Indians aren’t as important as colonists so when they are getting more attention than colonists, there has to be a problem.
------2. Local settlers had no voice in where their taxes went or what taxes were being passed and this was a factor in Bacon’s Rebellion. (what I say)
-------------a. “we most humbly pray…small number of privileged people.” (#19)
--------------------------i. people have every right to know about why they are being taxed, they did not get this right which is justifies their want for rebellion.
-------------a. Most of bacons supporters were the poor who wanted more land, they were the most heavily taxed and Berkeley didn’t really pay attention to their needs.
--------------------------i. They took things into their own hands, thought they were getting ripped off in a way.
--------------------------i. Elected people they wanted into burgesses. (PA pg 92)
-------------a. This was so they would be represented in burgess so they could have a say in issues such as taxes.
-------------a. Led to some power than Bacon had to start his rebellion, he had more people on his side than Berkeley.
III. The natives were the victims, and they were attacked under corrupt pretenses. (I say)
------1. I agree that the Indians were truly the victims of this rebellion, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that the Indians were not victims at all because they deserved to be killed as a punishment for their ruthless killing of hundreds of Englishmen.
-------------a. “and how that one Mathews…they took his hogs for satisfaction” (#2)
--------------------------i. two can play this game, if they (white men) cheat the Indians, should they not expect that there will be some retaliation or some kind of actions to get even with the white men?
--------------------------i. “might makes right”. White initially have more power over the natives, but that does not really make them right.
