Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Essay #2 Reflection
Friday, November 21, 2008
Essay #2 Final Draft
Trevor White
Arriving in Connecticut, 1760-1770
My wife and I had just moved to Connecticut where we were forced to make a decision, to become a loyalist or patriot. The sudden force and demand to choose a side was intimidating. The Americans were very forceful in the attempt to establish patriots, not just in the state of Connecticut but rather where ever they possibly could. By this time I’ve realized that Connecticut was highly populated with patriots, making my decision hard. I could either choose loyalist or patriot, but what was so good about being a patriot? I thought to myself, did they have some kind of opportunities or advantages that loyalist didn’t have? Why was being a patriot so favorable by the Americans in the state of Connecticut? Well, as I began to think of my decision to become a loyalist or patriot; I studied both sides, trying to find pros and cons. Comparing and contrasting loyalists and patriots was no easy task because it could be favorable for both sides. The key theme that I began to see was that it was highly dependent on whether you were on the side of Britain or on the side of America. With this I notice that the loyalists had common ties with British economics and politics, and that the patriots were favored by the Americans because of the mutual feelings for “POWER.” In general, loyalists had strong cultural and economic ties to England.” (Roark P.229) I believe that to be an effective leader during this time, you not only need power, but also the strength and courage that come from the people you’re governing. In other words, don’t run or manage things the way you want too, but rather as how everyone as a “whole” wants to.
During the 1760s and 1770s, the years leading up to the American Revolution, I decided upon becoming a loyalist because I felt that we loyalists should stand up for what we believe in and not be subjected to the patriot acts of violence and cruelty.
The Americans attempt to gaining power in Connecticut
America was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so. They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance. The Americans focused highly on patriots and neutrals for gaining power. Neutrals were people who didn't know what side to be on. Nevertheless, being a neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot. The patriots were favored by the Americans because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists. Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England’s culture and economics. The main reason that England and the loyalists had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable. A large number of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had intact. The patriots’ only task was to increase their own power, by doing what they had to, being violent and vulgar to the loyalists to consider themselves hierarchy.
Connecticut during 1700s
During the 1700s Connecticut had many advantages that other states didn’t. They focused mainly on being a well known state for goodness and peace. “Few places in the world,” he believes, “presented a fairer example of peace and good order.” (G.A. Gilbert, the Connecticut loyalists) I believe that living in Connecticut gave my wife and me some advantages in choosing to be loyalists. For example; Connecticut thought that being a stable individual state was important and having peace with other states as well. On the other hand the Americans and the patriots believed in having their own independence to gain freedom and liberty. The British had what was called, “British rule,” which meant that Britain would rule over everyone. I being loyalist, agree with this because I thought their ruling and beliefs were correct and were a good way of taking charge.
Social issues in Connecticut
The social issues that affected my choice to become loyalist were the acts in which the patriots treated the loyalists. I believe that being a loyalist is harder than being a patriot because we were accused of being unjust and wrong in our ways of “British rule.” For we can hardly determine whether the Revolution originated in social and economic unrest, in deep-seated ideological tensions, or in a constitutional dilemma until we take seriously the activities of the loyalists during the Revolution.” (Paul H. Smith, The American loyalists: Notes on their organization and numerical strength.) With this I gather that the patriots thought of loyalist as being imaginary and nonexistent, even though they very much were. Approximately 20-30% was loyalists during the 1760s and 1770s. Yes, the patriots outnumbered the loyalists in Connecticut but that didn’t stop many of us to stand up for British rule. Nevertheless, I encountered advantages to being a loyalist economically. Under British rule, we always tried to control trade to and from North America, which gave us somewhat of an advantage. We also imposed laws and taxes, so that we could trade with colonies and to make sure that they don’t take trade into their own hands. This would in turn benefit Britain’s trade with other colonies.
Works Cited
G. A. Gilbert
The American Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jan., 1899), pp. 273-291
2) The American Loyalists: Notes on Their Organization and Numerical Strength
Paul H. Smith
The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1968), pp. 259-277
3) The American Promise
James L. Roark
A history of the United States, fourth edition. Page. 229
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Essay #2 Connecticut Loyalist- Rough Draft #3
Meanwhile my wife and I had just moved to Connecticut where we were forced to make a decision, to become a loyalist or patriot. The sudden force and demand to choose a side was intimidating. The British were very forceful in the attempt to establish patriots, not just in the state of Connecticut but rather where ever they possibly could. By this time I’ve realized that Connecticut was highly populated with patriots, making my decision hard. I could either choose loyalist or patriot, but what was so good about being a patriot, I thought to myself. Did they have some kind of opportunities or advantages that loyalist didn’t have? Why was being a patriot so favorable by the British in the state of Connecticut? Well, as I began to think of my decision to become a loyalist or patriot; I studied both sides, trying to find pros and cons. Comparing and contrasting loyalists and patriots was no easy task because it could be favorable for both sides. The key theme that I began to see was that it was highly dependent on whether you were on the side of Britain or on the side of England. With this I notice that the loyalists had common ties with England’s economics and politics, and that the patriots were favored by the British because of the mutual feelings for “POWER.”
Monday, November 17, 2008
Essay #2 outline (Connecticut Loyalist) RE-DO #2
----I: Britain was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so.
1) They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance.
a. Neutrals were people that didn't know what side to be on and the choice didn't matter so much to them.
b. Being a Neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot.
c. Patriots were favored by the British because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists.
2) Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England by culture and economics.
a. The main reason that England and Loyalist had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable.
b. A large amount of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had, intact.
c. The patriots only task was to increase their own power, by being violent and vulgar to the loyalists.
3) The social issues effecting the choice to be loyalist or patriot are the acts in which the British treat the loyalists.
a. The British and the patriots called loyalists Tories, which was a slang or rude term to describe the loyalists.
----II: Being loyalist, I understand what Britain and the patriots think of me.
1) Yet I will stand up for myself and my fellow loyalists no matter what because that is my choice.
a. I know that the patriots are favored by the British and will be backed up by the British, but I also know that I'm not the only loyalist, not by a long shot.
b. The state of Connecticut is where I'm from and patriots are much more favorable than loyalist.
c. Maybe compare and contrast "Patriots and Loyalists" --- Here
Essay #2 Rough Draft (#1)
Britain was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so. They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance. Neutrals were people that didn't know what side to be on and the choice didn't matter so much to them. Being a Neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot. Patriots were favored by the British because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists. Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England by culture and economics. The main reason that England and Loyalist had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable. A large amount of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had intact. The patriots only task was to increase their own power, by doing what they had to, being violent and vulgar to the loyalists. The social issues effecting my choice to be loyalist or patriot are the way the British treat the loyalists. The British and the patriots called loyalists Tories, which was a slang or rude term to describe the loyalists.
Essay #2 outline (Connecticut Loyalist) RE-DO
I: Britain was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so.
1) They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance.
a. Neutrals were people that didn't know what side to be on and the choice didn't matter so much to them.
b. Being a Neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot.
c. Patriots were favored by the British because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists.
2) Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England by culture and economics.
a. The main reason that England and Loyalist had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable.
b. A large amount of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had intact.
c. The patriots only task was to increase their own power, by doing what they had to, being violent and vulgar to the loyalists.
3) The social issues effecting my choice to be loyalist or patriot are the way the British treat the loyalists.
a. The British and the patriots called loyalists Tories, which was a slang or rude term to describe the loyalists.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Essay #2 outline (Connecticut Loyalist)
I: The events leading up to the American Revolution.
1)Economics was a large factor in the start of the American Revolution.
a)Cause
b)Effect
c)Result
II: Loyalists vs. Patriots and the public opinion in Connecticut.
1)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Text Analysis: Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
--Who is writing?
I believe the writer is Thomas Paine because it’s titled Thomas Paine (1737-1809). Common Sense. 1776.
--Who is the audience?
The audience in this document is the reader, as Thomas Paine establishes in his text. For example Paine uses He, Himself, and His to distinguish that he is not talking about himself but rather about the reader/ audience.
--Who do the writers represent?
The writer represents American Independence in my mind because Thomas Paine argued for American Independence. He represents Common Sense, in society and government. His knowledge of both is outstanding. He thinks of society in a good way and believes that the government is equivalent to “Evil.” I believe that Thomas Paine represents himself, his knowledge, and the American people.
--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said that Thomas Paine agrees with society opposed to government. Paine talks about how society is based on people getting together to make good things happen, as a team. Then he talks about the government and how it’s evil and only focuses on protecting things such as life and property, but why is it just based on that. I think that the government focuses too much on “status,” meaning how the government is doing, how the government can be better in terms of money. That is all I get out of what the government is; they are all about the money, the government could care less about the people in reality.
--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
This document is really straight forward in terms of common sense; Thomas Paine argues that the British are basically idiots because their system of government says one thing and does another. The British in Paine’s eyes is thought of as liars and untrustworthy. Paine is against British Monarchy.
--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof and/or justification in this document comes all from Thomas Paine; he spoke of the British Monarchy and how it was unjust and untrustworthy. Common sense was enough to prove his points to the American people.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
First Continental Congress/ Advisory Council @ PSEC
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Text Analysis: "Give me liberty or Give me death" Patrick Henry 1775
Give me liberty or Give me death is written by Patrick Henry to address the House of Burgesses.
Who is the audience?
The audience is the House of Burgesses because the document Give me liberty or Give me death was intended for them.
Who do the writers represent?
The writer represents the troops because in the document Patrick Henry is talking about the troops and how he was trying to send them to war.
What is being said?
Patrick Henry is trying to persuade the House of Burgesses to send the troops in the Revolutionary war. Hence the title of his speech; Give me liberty or Give me death. I believe he is saying that if the troops don't go into the Revolutionary war that they would die.
How is it being said?
It is being said to the House of Burgesses in a persuasive way because Patrick Henry is asking for permission or a grant to send the Virginia troops into the Revolutionary war.
What proof/ and or justification is being said?
There isn't any other proof other than Patrick Henry's speech to the house of Burgesses asking for the permission to send the troops to war. It's proof because he was the one that sent it and asked for this permission.