Although Writing 101 class was only one quarter long, I have learned more in the duration of this class about writing, than I had during any year of high school. Besides learning about writing, this class also helped me learn more about life, because it was a more difficult and trying class than I had ever experienced. I had to reach within myself for a strength previously unknown to me. I would definitely say that this class made me a better person, and, despite some hard times, I am so glad to have taken it.
The first essay we did, the Bacon's Rebellion essay, I had looked forward to writing. It was exciting for me, because it was something completely new. Every single essay in high school had always been five paragraphs (except for one eight-paragraph essay we did), and this one I could write as long as I wanted to! I liked the way we wrote this essay, with a lot of preparation, research, revising, and peer review. All of it helped me create an essay like I had never created before. Most of the way through the essay I was enjoying it, although towards the end I believe that I started to lose confidence in myself and my writing. One of my weaknesses, which showed in the writing of this essay, is how I question my intelligence and my potential. Also, how I compare myself to others and worry that everyone else at PSEC is smarter than me. A strength of mine, that showed during the writing of this essay, is my love for writing. And another would be my drive to stay on-schedule -- I got all of my drafts etc. done on time except for one slip-up. Though, I didn't nearly as well on the second essay.
The second essay went a lot worse for me than the first essay. First of all, the subject of the essay scared me. It seemed like such a hard, almost impossible, thing to write about. Though, after I had a meeting with Craig, I realized that I had been shooting for impossible goals in my essay, and that I was over-thinking it, and that the goals of the essay were really much simpler. So with all my wasted time researching for things that didn't exist, I was way behind schedule. I got my feedback from Craig on my outline the day the final draft was due. Of course, I couldn't finish my essay in that amount of time. So, I got zero points on it, but I finished it anyways so I could put it inside of my portfolio. One of my weaknesses was made apparent through this essay, which is my inability to work under pressure. We had a lot more time for the first essay, and a lot more revisions and other sorts of things. I did a lot better under this sort of environment. With the second essay I kind of freaked or froze up. Although I completely failed the second essay because I didn't turn it in on time, I still worked on a rough draft over that weekend, talked to Craig about it in another meeting the next week, and then worked it into a final draft for the portfolio. That showed me a new kind of strength I had. I was able to still work on an essay that I knew I already had zero points on.
Overall, I feel my first essay turned out much better than my second one. The reason I feel that way is because my passion for the first essay was genuine – I had picked a subject in Bacon's Rebellion that I truly wanted to write about. On the second essay we were assigned a side, either Loyalist or Patriot. I would have chosen the opposite side than I was assigned, so I faced more challenges for the second essay. Although I try to write passionately for the loyalist cause, sounding persuasive, and justifying myself, it wasn't the same kind of genuine passion from the first essay. In general, I sincerely hope that my love for learning and my motivation showed in Writing 101 class, although there was a short period of time where I sort of lost hope in myself.
Writing 101 class made me not only a much better writer, but also a much better person. My writing is stronger and my will is stronger, and so I feel that I was meant to be in this class (destined, if you will, despite how cheesy that sounds). I think that I have mostly dropped my old high school style of writing, and replaced it with this new and improved writing style (with the help of Craig and “They Say, I Say”), but I still have some ways to go. Though, with the knowledge I have already obtained from this class, I think I can continue improving my writing on my own, because now I have the tools to do that with.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Portfolio: Essay 2 (Patriots vs. Loyalists) Final Draft
A Loyalist Speaks Up Amidst a Mass of Ignorant Patriotism
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that, I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, then so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, and I will stay true. This is my stand – that the Loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.
The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” (North Carolina Congress 1) Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, because everyone has a chance for a good life in America.
Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” (1) I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” (1) It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11)
Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” (North Carolina Congress 3) What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good.
I hope that in reading this, you have been persuaded to the Loyalist side and seen the truth about the Patriots, although there are much more popular documents out there like documents by Thomas Paine, like “Common Sense” and “The Crisis”. Those documents have persuaded many because of his artistic use of metaphors and emotions. Though if you really picked apart these Patriot documents piece by piece, you would see that they are full of cruelty and ignorance. My essay speaks the truth. Choose what you will, but hear me out, that the Loyalist cause is what is best for America! We threw away what was best for America – our connection with Britain – but let's not let things worsen. We still have time to repair connections! Don't run, my loyalists! Stay in America and continue to fight for our cause! Our nation is falling and we must help lift it, do not let things continue worsening as they have been!
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
Caswell, Richard and Green, James. North Carolina. Congress.Constitution of North Carolina. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909.
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that, I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, then so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, and I will stay true. This is my stand – that the Loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.
The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” (North Carolina Congress 1) Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, because everyone has a chance for a good life in America.
Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” (1) I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” (1) It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11)
Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” (North Carolina Congress 3) What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good.
I hope that in reading this, you have been persuaded to the Loyalist side and seen the truth about the Patriots, although there are much more popular documents out there like documents by Thomas Paine, like “Common Sense” and “The Crisis”. Those documents have persuaded many because of his artistic use of metaphors and emotions. Though if you really picked apart these Patriot documents piece by piece, you would see that they are full of cruelty and ignorance. My essay speaks the truth. Choose what you will, but hear me out, that the Loyalist cause is what is best for America! We threw away what was best for America – our connection with Britain – but let's not let things worsen. We still have time to repair connections! Don't run, my loyalists! Stay in America and continue to fight for our cause! Our nation is falling and we must help lift it, do not let things continue worsening as they have been!
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
Caswell, Richard and Green, James. North Carolina. Congress.Constitution of North Carolina. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909.
Portfolio: Bacon's Rebellion Essay Re-Write
The Abuse of the Natives Committed by Nathaniel Bacon and his Followers in the Rebellion of Virginia
In 1676, a rebellion was started by Nathaniel Bacon that would forever change Virginia. Everyone involved in the rebellion, and historians today, have many different views about it. My person view is that the major antagonist was Nathaniel Bacon, and that the Natives were the victims. However, Bacon's view was that the Indians and the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, were the cause of all the problems in Virginia. In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkeley and the Natives. Bacon accused Berkeley, “For having protected favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” (Bacon 1)
Bacon managed to persuade all of the lower classes that his word was true, and they joined him in his uprising, but not all were swayed to his side. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkeley makes no effort against the Natives when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after the Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, “Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers...” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkeley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the native faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” (Puglisi 83)
By saying that the Natives were only the victims, I mean that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Natives, but the Natives had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reason to back up my claim that the Natives were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful toward the Natives lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” (Roark and Johnson 73) This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist. Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” (Craven 67)
This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Natives had pure and innocent intentions. Though, they began to take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” (Craven 69) The Virginian colonists attempts to civilize those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control them. A law was passed in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians does and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” (Roark and Johnson 85) I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Natives. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more of a stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Natives, and so the Natives found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on pained of death'.” (Puglisi 83)
The white Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, when he writes, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” (Craven 68) Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Natives. The Royal Commissioners observed that, “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kepy Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 106)
It is apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Natives. However, as I stated firstly, I think that the worst of them was Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” (123) When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Besides just being cruel to the Natives, bacon pressured Berkeley and his council with his manipulative ways. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkeley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and he draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Assembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldier mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” (Sherwood) According to Sherwood, Bacon got a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Berkeley. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkeley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacrilegious hands...” (Berkeley) Berkeley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credibly source with an unbiased standing, The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. (Mathews) I now feel sure that Berkeley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his own declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” (Bacon 2) I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Back to my defense for the Natives, I believe that when the Natives did fight back at all, it was for self-defense. The Royal Commissioners wrote, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Though they did not always fight back. Sometimes they would simply flee in terror of the white man. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Natives only tried to run, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” (127) The Natives had a lot of reasons to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for righting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not only short-term effects on the Virginian Indians, but long-term ones too. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Natives by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Natives. Bacon angrily exaggerated about the Natives, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all placed, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.”(Bacon 1) In other words, Bacon believes the cause of every Virginian colonist's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they had gotten rid of these two factors, then life in the American colonies would have been much better, in Bacon's opinion. Another long-term effect on the Natives from that time is the reservations that still exist today. Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” (Roark and Johnson 91) This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was started by a fairly average, yet intelligent, and also immoral, man. The rebellion turned into a disastrous uprising that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion (whether one views it as positive or negative) was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Natives would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
Works Cited
Bacon, Nathaniel. "The Declaration." (1676): 1.
The Royal Commissioners, and Jameson, Franklin. A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia. 1st ed. American Historical Association, 1915.
Puglisi, Michael. ""Whether They Be Friends or Foes:" The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." Marian College 70(2001): 83.
Roark, James, and Johnson, Michael. The American Promise. '4th ed'. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009.
Craven, Wesley. "Indian Policy in Early Virginia." The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 1(1944): 67-69.
Sherwood, William. "Letter to Sir Joseph Williamson." (1676):
Berkely, William. “Letter to Henry Coventry.” (1677):
Mathews, Thomas. "The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676." (1835):
In 1676, a rebellion was started by Nathaniel Bacon that would forever change Virginia. Everyone involved in the rebellion, and historians today, have many different views about it. My person view is that the major antagonist was Nathaniel Bacon, and that the Natives were the victims. However, Bacon's view was that the Indians and the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, were the cause of all the problems in Virginia. In The Declaration (1676), Bacon insists that himself and the colonists he is speaking for (the lower classes), are being made victims by Berkeley and the Natives. Bacon accused Berkeley, “For having protected favored, and emboldened the Indians against his Majesty's loyal subjects, never contriving, requiring, or appointing any due or proper means of satisfaction for their many invasions, robberies, and murders committed upon us.” (Bacon 1)
Bacon managed to persuade all of the lower classes that his word was true, and they joined him in his uprising, but not all were swayed to his side. The Royal Commissioners disagree that Berkeley makes no effort against the Natives when they report in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia that after the Susquanhanock Indians killed 36 people on the plantations, “Noe sooner was this Intelligence brought to the Governour but he immediately called a court and ordered a competent force of horse and foot to pursue the Murderers...” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Basically, the Royal Commissioners are saying that Berkeley took immediate action to get the Indian situation under control. In Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael Puglisi contradicts Bacon on the fact that the Indians are to blame, believing that, “the native faced situations beyond their control, experienced abuses and even violent attacks from their supposed white allies, and suffered humiliating treatment by the colonial governments to whom they pledged their allegiance.” (Puglisi 83)
By saying that the Natives were only the victims, I mean that they had the least blame in the conflict of Bacon's Rebellion, and they had to endure the worst treatment. The colonists were frustrated with the problems caused by the Natives, but the Natives had more right to be frustrated by the problems caused by the colonists. There are several reason to back up my claim that the Natives were being terrorized by the white colonists.
From the time the English first came to the New World, they were close-minded and disrespectful toward the Natives lifestyle. In example of this prejudice, in The American Promise, James Roark and others write that “An English botanist expressed the common prejudice against corn as a food 'of the barbarous Indians which know no better...a more convenient food for swine than for man.'” (Roark and Johnson 73) This English botanist had no right to complain, because if the Indians had not come to their rescue, willing to trade corn for English goods, then they would have all died off from starvation. Also, the settlers often referred to the Natives with terms such as “barbarous Indians”, as was also said by the English botanist. Instead of respecting the natural way of life which these Native Americans lived by, the colonists tried pushing their own civilized lifestyle upon the Indians. One of the ways they did this was concerning religion. However, I do believe that the English had good intentions on this. The evangelists were just trying to make a Christian nation, and to save the Indians from what they considered “sinful faiths”. According to Wesley Craven in Indian Policy in Early Virginia, “[The English colonists], having earned the native's good will and learned his languages and customs, the English might carry forward their evangelical efforts with security and expedition.” (Craven 67)
This first attempt by the English in Virginia at trying to convert the Natives had pure and innocent intentions. Though, they began to take it farther than that. As Craven puts it, “It was taken for granted that the Indian could be converted not only to the Christian religion but to a European economy as well.” (Craven 69) The Virginian colonists attempts to civilize those barbarous Indians turned into efforts to control them. A law was passed in 1672 that announced, “And it is further enacted that the neighbouring Indians does and hereby are required and enjoyned to seize and apprehend all runaways whatsoever that shall happen to come amongst them, and to bring them before some justice of the peace who...shall pay unto the said Indians...a recompence.” (Roark and Johnson 85) I find it very wrong that the Virginia lawmakers were now trying to control the Natives with laws. The Europeans were the ones who chanced upon this new land that was already occupied by Natives. The Indians should have been the ones laying down laws for the Europeans to follow. But, knowing nothing about these white people, they were simply curious about them, and too naive to take more of a stand for themselves. The colonists took advantage of the simple-minded nature of the Natives, and so the Natives found themselves being overpowered by the white people again and again. Puglisi further affirms this when he writes, “The Indians were sent to assigned towns, placed under the supervision of militia officers or selectmen, and ordered to 'lodge constantly' in the prescribed locations 'on pained of death'.” (Puglisi 83)
The white Europeans thought themselves superior to any other race. After all, the Natives were simply barbarians who knew nothing of civilized society, so why should they consider themselves as equals? Craven supports this, when he writes, “It was held advisable to hide all sickness among the settlers, and imperative not to advertise the death of Englishmen. Such were the simple rules laid down for upholding the white man's prestige.” (Craven 68) Clearly, the English colonists were obsessed with upholding their persona of close-to-superhuman superiority. Perhaps they used their supposed superiority as justification for cruelties committed upon the Natives. The Royal Commissioners observed that, “...the Indians sent out 5 greate men to Treate of Peace...but being kepy Prisoners Some tyme were at last murdered by the English.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 106)
It is apparent that the English were sometimes cruel towards the Natives. However, as I stated firstly, I think that the worst of them was Nathaniel Bacon. The Royal Commissioners claim that, “...he [Bacon] marched to pursue the Pamunkey Indians...although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English. But among the Vulgar it matters not whether they be Friends or Foes, So [long as] they be Indians.” They also said, “So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was...we will have war with all Indians...we will spare none.” (123) When the Royal Commissioners say “the Vulgar”, they are talking about the followers of Nathaniel Bacon, which were the lower classes of society. Though, cruelty was just in Bacon's nature. He also terrorized the governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, and his supporters, although to a smaller extent.
Besides just being cruel to the Natives, bacon pressured Berkeley and his council with his manipulative ways. In a letter to Sir Joseph Williamson (a prominent Virginia planter), William Sherwood, who was one of Berkeley's allies, claims, “Mr. Bacon with at least 400 [on] foot, the scum of the Country, and 120 [on] horse entered the sandy Bay...and he draws his forces against the state house, where the Governour's council and Burgesses were setting...[Bacon] demanded 1st that a commission should immediately be sent [proclaiming] him as General of all volunteers against the Indians: 2ndly to know how the 1000 men ordered by the Assembly to be raised should be paid if by Levy, the declared they would not submit to it, all crying out No Levies...these proposals were sent to the burgesses to consider...who debating longer than he thought fit, Mr. Bacon comes under the window of the, calls to them saying, you Burgesses I expect your speedy result, his soldier mounting their Guns ready to fire...the Burgesses make it their request to the Governour to Issue forth such a commission...” (Sherwood) According to Sherwood, Bacon got a crew of armed men, “the scum of the Country”, to pressure the House of Burgesses to draw up a commission to Bacon's liking. Though, I must question the credibility of William Sherwood, because he was an ally of Berkeley. Therefore, I know that he looks at the matter from a biased standpoint. In a letter to Henry Coventry (one of King Charles II's Secretaries of State), William Berkeley himself writes, “[No sooner was Bacon's Commission signed] but that all his Rabble verily believed I had resigned all my power to their New General and Bacon himself made them believe he thought so too and accordingly fell to work confiscating and Plundering diverse good mens' houses...And hearing that Bacon intended to make me and Sir Henry Chicheley prisoners, and perhaps deal more severely with us, for he had proclaimed us both Traitors [to] his rebellious Army[.]” and also, “I no sooner quitted the Town but Bacon entered it, burned five houses of mine and twenty of other Gentlemen, and they say that a very commodious Church he set afire too, with his own sacrilegious hands...” (Berkeley) Berkeley insists that Bacon is a wicked con artist, but he could just be defending himself and/or kissing the feet of King Charles II. From a more credibly source with an unbiased standing, The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676, Thomas Mathews also speaks of the shenanigans performed by Bacon and his party. He reports, “...the Soldiers following Laid the whole Town (with Church and Statehouse) in Ashes...”. (Mathews) I now feel sure that Berkeley and Sherwood cannot be completely misreporting. I am also sure that Bacon did use threat as a force to get his way, because in his own declaration, Bacon demands, “that the said Sir William Berkeley with all the Persons in this List...mostly intimates of Berkeley and members of the Governor's Council...be forthwith delivered up, or surrender themselves, within four days...” (Bacon 2) I find it apparent that Bacon was a bad leader. Yes, he was persuasive, but he was manipulative and unethical.
Back to my defense for the Natives, I believe that when the Natives did fight back at all, it was for self-defense. The Royal Commissioners wrote, “...a Party of those abused Susquahanocks in Revenge of the Maryland businesse came suddainly down upon the weak Plantations at the head of Rappahanock and Potomaque and killed at one time 36 persons and then immediately (as their Custome is) ran off into the woods.” (The Royal Commissioners and Jameson 107) Though they did not always fight back. Sometimes they would simply flee in terror of the white man. When Bacon's party attacked the Pamunkey Indians without reason, the Natives only tried to run, but were followed relentlessly by Bacon and his crew. The Royal Commissioners verify this when they say, “[Bacon's party] falls upon the Pamunkey Indians...As the onset was given they did not at all oppose, but fled, being followed by Bacon and his Force killing and taking them Prisoners, and looking for Plunder...” (127) The Natives had a lot of reasons to seek revenge from the white colonists, but the colonists hardly had good reasons for righting the Indians at all.
Bacon's Rebellion had not only short-term effects on the Virginian Indians, but long-term ones too. First of all, the colonists' hatred for the Indians stirred up by Nathaniel Bacon stayed in their hearts long after Bacon passed, the prejudice never quite fading away in the hearts of some. Bacon cultivated the colonists' hatred with the Natives by emphasizing the raids and murders committed by the Natives. Bacon angrily exaggerated about the Natives, insisting, “when the army of the English was just upon the track of those Indians, who now in all places, burn, spoil, murder and when we might with ease have destroyed them who then were in open hostility, for then having expressly countermanded and sent back our army by passing his word for the peaceable demeanor of the said Indians, who immediately prosecuted their evil intentions, committing horrid murders and robberies in all places, being protected by the said engagement and word past of him the said Sir William Berkeley, having ruined and laid desolate a great part of his Majesty's country, and have now drawn themselves into such obscure and remote place and are by their success so emboldened and confirmed by their confederacy so strengthened that the cries of blood are in all placed, and the terror and consternation of the people so great, are now become not only difficult but a very formidable enemy who might at first with ease have been destroyed.”(Bacon 1) In other words, Bacon believes the cause of every Virginian colonist's problems goes back to Berkeley, and, especially, the Indians. So, if they had gotten rid of these two factors, then life in the American colonies would have been much better, in Bacon's opinion. Another long-term effect on the Natives from that time is the reservations that still exist today. Roark writes, “Wilderness land beyond the fringe of English settlement was supposed to be reserved exclusively for Indian use. The colonial government hopes to minimize contact between settlers and Indians and thereby maintain the peace.” (Roark and Johnson 91) This didn't completely work out, because as colonists expanded, they wanted more land and were pushing beyond the fringe of their settlement into Indian reservation lands. Nonetheless, Native American reservations are still present today.
Bacon's Rebellion was started by a fairly average, yet intelligent, and also immoral, man. The rebellion turned into a disastrous uprising that still effects Virginia today. In my opinion, the rebellion had mostly negative effects, but their had to be a few positive effects also. One very important lasting effect of the rebellion (whether one views it as positive or negative) was the right to keep and bear arms. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn't stepped into the picture, maybe the colonists and the Natives would have been at a better standing. Then again, it might have been just a matter of time before another fed-up colonist took matters into their own hands.
Works Cited
Bacon, Nathaniel. "The Declaration." (1676): 1.
The Royal Commissioners, and Jameson, Franklin. A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia. 1st ed. American Historical Association, 1915.
Puglisi, Michael. ""Whether They Be Friends or Foes:" The Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." Marian College 70(2001): 83.
Roark, James, and Johnson, Michael. The American Promise. '4th ed'. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009.
Craven, Wesley. "Indian Policy in Early Virginia." The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 1(1944): 67-69.
Sherwood, William. "Letter to Sir Joseph Williamson." (1676):
Berkely, William. “Letter to Henry Coventry.” (1677):
Mathews, Thomas. "The Beginning, Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676." (1835):
Portfolio: Final Exam Frame II
In this passage the writer states his beliefs that group work will produce more creativity among students, and also improve their writing. The writer quotes another writer, who says that talking to other students about things you have written or things you don't understand will help you a lot, even if they don't agree with you or they don't understand what you've written. As long as they're not close-minded, he emphasizes.
I can definitely relate with what the writer is saying. The two things that first jump into my mind is Writing 101 class and History 121 class. A specific example of this in my writing class is the 'peer review'. Instead of just getting feedback from your teacher, you can get the feedback from several students, who will probably each notice different things that stood out to them about your work. In my experience, the students will read other students' work with an open-mind, just as the writer of this passage emphasized as being essential. It is very effective not only to improve your writing and obtain different view points, but also to get a feeling of togetherness.
In my history class, we sometimes analyze documents in small groups, which is actually my favorite thing. The reason for it being my favorite aspect of the class is because how much of a greater understanding I achieve than when I just had read the document by myself. Sometimes I might run across something I don't understand, and perhaps the others in my group had difficulty with the concept also, but when there is group participation and discussion, then, suddenly, things make a lot more sense. It is just as Elbow, quoted by the writer of this passage, said. He said, “If you are stuck...trying to figure something out, there is nothing better than finding one person, or more, to talk to. If they...have trouble understanding [also], so much the better...”
So, I agree with the writer and his claim that group work helps students. However, I also think that you must teach the students how to work effectively in groups. In writing class, we were taught that effective peer review is not saying “Good job, your writing's great.”, but to offer them helpful criticisms that apply specifically to their writing. We were also taught to take our peers' feedback with a grain of salt. In history class, leaders of small group discussions were given specific questions to ask their group, and they may ask additional things also. Without a few guidelines, I believe that too many students would be inclined to only make remarks like “I don't get it.” and “It was boring.” With some nudging, all students have great potential, and, as the writer of this passage said, “Group work...highlights the interactive nature of creativity.”
So, group work is very effective in discussion and reflection, but what about a few students working on a big project together? In writing class, we also had to work together as a group to make a formal outline for the debate. I am still not sure how effective that sort of group work is though. There are plus sides to it. The work is being shared, so each individual doesn't have as much of a load. Also, since group discussion does heighten creativity, as I quoted earlier, one can probably come up with better ideas in a group. Though sometimes ideas in a group may clash. One student thinks of something that he/she thinks is a brilliant idea! Then, another student comes up with a contradicting idea. There's a couple different problems that could arise with that. The two students may argue, each thinking that they have the better idea. Or, one student will be passive and give up their idea, but they will no longer put their heart into the group work, feeling beat down.
Another problem that may arise with group project work is that when the situation gets stressful, everyone has a different way of handling it. In my experience with the group project we had to do in writing class, one of my group members was a very serious and anxious individual. Another member was cool and optimistic. When I would communicate with the stressful individual, I would have thoughts that everything was going downhill. However, when I would communicate with the cool individual, I would feel optimistic about our project. With this confusion, I did not work nearly as well as I feel that I would have if there was more of an atmosphere of group unity.
Although it can be terribly stressful, group project work does have more upsides than downsides. Even if I'm not enjoying myself doing this sort of work, it does get me better prepared for life. In life, we don't always choose who we work with, and some situations will force you to work with others, for better or for worse. Overall, any sort of group work will be more effective than individual work in several ways. It is good life practice, it expands creativity, and, if a group works together properly, it is a generally a more efficient way of getting things done.
I can definitely relate with what the writer is saying. The two things that first jump into my mind is Writing 101 class and History 121 class. A specific example of this in my writing class is the 'peer review'. Instead of just getting feedback from your teacher, you can get the feedback from several students, who will probably each notice different things that stood out to them about your work. In my experience, the students will read other students' work with an open-mind, just as the writer of this passage emphasized as being essential. It is very effective not only to improve your writing and obtain different view points, but also to get a feeling of togetherness.
In my history class, we sometimes analyze documents in small groups, which is actually my favorite thing. The reason for it being my favorite aspect of the class is because how much of a greater understanding I achieve than when I just had read the document by myself. Sometimes I might run across something I don't understand, and perhaps the others in my group had difficulty with the concept also, but when there is group participation and discussion, then, suddenly, things make a lot more sense. It is just as Elbow, quoted by the writer of this passage, said. He said, “If you are stuck...trying to figure something out, there is nothing better than finding one person, or more, to talk to. If they...have trouble understanding [also], so much the better...”
So, I agree with the writer and his claim that group work helps students. However, I also think that you must teach the students how to work effectively in groups. In writing class, we were taught that effective peer review is not saying “Good job, your writing's great.”, but to offer them helpful criticisms that apply specifically to their writing. We were also taught to take our peers' feedback with a grain of salt. In history class, leaders of small group discussions were given specific questions to ask their group, and they may ask additional things also. Without a few guidelines, I believe that too many students would be inclined to only make remarks like “I don't get it.” and “It was boring.” With some nudging, all students have great potential, and, as the writer of this passage said, “Group work...highlights the interactive nature of creativity.”
So, group work is very effective in discussion and reflection, but what about a few students working on a big project together? In writing class, we also had to work together as a group to make a formal outline for the debate. I am still not sure how effective that sort of group work is though. There are plus sides to it. The work is being shared, so each individual doesn't have as much of a load. Also, since group discussion does heighten creativity, as I quoted earlier, one can probably come up with better ideas in a group. Though sometimes ideas in a group may clash. One student thinks of something that he/she thinks is a brilliant idea! Then, another student comes up with a contradicting idea. There's a couple different problems that could arise with that. The two students may argue, each thinking that they have the better idea. Or, one student will be passive and give up their idea, but they will no longer put their heart into the group work, feeling beat down.
Another problem that may arise with group project work is that when the situation gets stressful, everyone has a different way of handling it. In my experience with the group project we had to do in writing class, one of my group members was a very serious and anxious individual. Another member was cool and optimistic. When I would communicate with the stressful individual, I would have thoughts that everything was going downhill. However, when I would communicate with the cool individual, I would feel optimistic about our project. With this confusion, I did not work nearly as well as I feel that I would have if there was more of an atmosphere of group unity.
Although it can be terribly stressful, group project work does have more upsides than downsides. Even if I'm not enjoying myself doing this sort of work, it does get me better prepared for life. In life, we don't always choose who we work with, and some situations will force you to work with others, for better or for worse. Overall, any sort of group work will be more effective than individual work in several ways. It is good life practice, it expands creativity, and, if a group works together properly, it is a generally a more efficient way of getting things done.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Writing 101 Reflective Letter
Although Writing 101 class was only one quarter long, I have learned more in the duration of this class about writing, than I had during any year of high school. Besides learning about writing, this class also helped me learn more about life, because it was a more difficult and trying class than I had ever experienced. I had to reach within myself for a strength previously unknown to me. I would definitely say that this class made me a better person, and, despite some hard times, I am so glad to have taken it.
Writing class was sometimes quite fun, and other times it was a bit of a drag. I enjoyed the first half of the class more than the second half. Although I was at first skeptic about it, I did like the “They Say, I Say” writing textbook. It really did help me in my writing…In fact it was probably the second most practically useful textbook I had read (the first being a book for Marriage & Relationships class in high school). I very much enjoyed “On Keeping a Notebook” and wish we would’ve read more things like that! But I know it didn’t have to do with history, so it wouldn’t be relevant to the class. I liked it so much that I think I’m going to go find it and read it again…Maybe show it to friends even…I even enjoyed the writing we did about Bacon’s Rebellion, but it did get old after awhile.
I say that I didn’t like the second half of the quarter as much because I feel the things we wrote about were not nearly as interesting as what we wrote about in the first half. It was a lot of stuff about politics and government in early America which does not interest me at all. The debate was kind of fun after the retaliation part began, but the before part was stressful for a lot of students. I think we would’ve all been more successful it we could choose our group members, since quite a few groups seemed to clash. Though I realize this is impractical to life since we won’t always choose who we work with.
In this class, some weaknesses of mine were made apparent. Although I might have already known them, they were made ever so clearer with the pressure of new, college-level classes. I do not work well under pressure, or with a short time limit (an example of this would be our second essay), and I tend to take everything personally (I’m getting much better at that though). A weakness that I came into the classroom with, but thankfully left behind, was basing my self-worth off of grades. One reason I like PSEC is that it doesn’t seem to be as grade-based as high school is, but, still, when I did see my grade results, and they weren’t what I wanted, I was no longer a happy person. In high school, I was used to getting As, and then Bs in subjects I struggled with more (like math), but I have learned to get over that. For even if I fail one test, essay, or maybe even a whole class, it does not make me, personally, a failure. I am only a failure when I give up; as long as I keep trying, striving, then, I am a winner.
Besides improving weaknesses, I found new strengths in this class also. One thing is that I can better cope with my stress and emotions. I also became a stronger essay writer. One of my strengths in the class is that I enjoy writing, though more specifically creative writing, like I am really enjoying writing this letter, but I also like school writing. Another strength of mine is my drive and my motivation. I am shooting for a far away goal, but I believe I can achieve it (my dream career). Also, another goal I am shooting for which keeps me motivated is that I want to always be working on being a better person, always improving myself, never just sitting in one place, but always reaching forward. Finally, although this strength applies generally to life but it also helps in the classroom, I always love myself, love others, and love life (even during the dark times), and I would also say that’s another motivator to work hard.
Writing class was sometimes quite fun, and other times it was a bit of a drag. I enjoyed the first half of the class more than the second half. Although I was at first skeptic about it, I did like the “They Say, I Say” writing textbook. It really did help me in my writing…In fact it was probably the second most practically useful textbook I had read (the first being a book for Marriage & Relationships class in high school). I very much enjoyed “On Keeping a Notebook” and wish we would’ve read more things like that! But I know it didn’t have to do with history, so it wouldn’t be relevant to the class. I liked it so much that I think I’m going to go find it and read it again…Maybe show it to friends even…I even enjoyed the writing we did about Bacon’s Rebellion, but it did get old after awhile.
I say that I didn’t like the second half of the quarter as much because I feel the things we wrote about were not nearly as interesting as what we wrote about in the first half. It was a lot of stuff about politics and government in early America which does not interest me at all. The debate was kind of fun after the retaliation part began, but the before part was stressful for a lot of students. I think we would’ve all been more successful it we could choose our group members, since quite a few groups seemed to clash. Though I realize this is impractical to life since we won’t always choose who we work with.
In this class, some weaknesses of mine were made apparent. Although I might have already known them, they were made ever so clearer with the pressure of new, college-level classes. I do not work well under pressure, or with a short time limit (an example of this would be our second essay), and I tend to take everything personally (I’m getting much better at that though). A weakness that I came into the classroom with, but thankfully left behind, was basing my self-worth off of grades. One reason I like PSEC is that it doesn’t seem to be as grade-based as high school is, but, still, when I did see my grade results, and they weren’t what I wanted, I was no longer a happy person. In high school, I was used to getting As, and then Bs in subjects I struggled with more (like math), but I have learned to get over that. For even if I fail one test, essay, or maybe even a whole class, it does not make me, personally, a failure. I am only a failure when I give up; as long as I keep trying, striving, then, I am a winner.
Besides improving weaknesses, I found new strengths in this class also. One thing is that I can better cope with my stress and emotions. I also became a stronger essay writer. One of my strengths in the class is that I enjoy writing, though more specifically creative writing, like I am really enjoying writing this letter, but I also like school writing. Another strength of mine is my drive and my motivation. I am shooting for a far away goal, but I believe I can achieve it (my dream career). Also, another goal I am shooting for which keeps me motivated is that I want to always be working on being a better person, always improving myself, never just sitting in one place, but always reaching forward. Finally, although this strength applies generally to life but it also helps in the classroom, I always love myself, love others, and love life (even during the dark times), and I would also say that’s another motivator to work hard.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Response to Constitution of South Carolina (for group members to look at)
Okay, so I read through the Constitution of South Carolina to see whether it seemed agreeable or not. Most of this constitution seemed like it was just information about the government. But I did note a couple things I agreed with and didn't see anything disagreeable.
II. "elect by ballot" electing is good -- democratic!
VII. "All other bills...may be altered, amended, or rejected by either." freedom!
XXVI. "That the president and commander-in-chief shall have no power to make war or peace, or enter into any final treaty,- without the consent of the general assembly and legislative council." anti-monarchy...democratic
II. "elect by ballot" electing is good -- democratic!
VII. "All other bills...may be altered, amended, or rejected by either." freedom!
XXVI. "That the president and commander-in-chief shall have no power to make war or peace, or enter into any final treaty,- without the consent of the general assembly and legislative council." anti-monarchy...democratic
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Essay 2 First Draft
Grr, I wanted to color code this but I seem to have trouble coloring this blogger thing all the time. So I had to use other, messier ways to organize.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, I will stay true. That is my stand. The loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.(Thesis Statement)
Point One --> The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, for everyone has a chance for a good life in America. <--Point One
Point Two --> Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11) <--Point Two
Point Three--> Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good. <--Point Three
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am truly the noblest in this situation – a Loyalist. The Patriots are a hypocritical, persecuting group, but despite that I stand firm in my truth. If they are to tar and feather me, so be it, at least I know that I have a strong inner character. I will not deny who I am, I will stay true. That is my stand. The loyalist cause is the more noble and moral cause in this Revolution.(Thesis Statement)
Point One --> The Constitution of North Carolina made the statement, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” Have the Patriots forgotten where we came from? It was by the graciousness of the King of Britain that our ancestors were granted charters for this blessed land of America. This blessed land where even the poor people here do not suffer from their poverty as much as others do around the world, for everyone has a chance for a good life in America. <--Point One
Point Two --> Too much freedom here in America will lead us to chaos. The Constitution of North Carolina states, “That elections of members, to serve as Representatives in General Assembly, ought to be free.” I ask you, how wise is it to trust our fellow Americans to make good voting decisions? There's a lot of ignorant people, and there always will be. So my answer would be no. No, I do not trust them. Anyways, the structured monarchy of Britain kept this nation under control, but now, I predict, it will fall apart.
Another patriotic point that the Constitution of North Carolina makes is, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.” It seems to me that freedom of the press is a guaranteed way to stir up disorder and rebellion in the colonies. Any malicious idiot looking to spread lies and gain power could find other brainless sheep to follow him, using this constitutional statement. Also, we once had many powerful friends in Parliament that would have defended us, if we had not decided to break apart from Britain, and find this new, so-called “freedom”. (Van Tyne 11) <--Point Two
Point Three--> Despite what the Patriots think, it is the Patriots that are rude and disrespectful, and ungrateful I might add, and it is the Loyalists that are brave and honorable. In the Constitution of North Carolina, it makes the statement, “...that the Thirteen United Colonies are, of right, wholly absolved from all allegiance to the British crown...” What gives the Thirteen United Colonies a right to absolve from Britain? I say that we do not have that right because our roots lie in Britain. We are all British citizens that came to America to colonize. Even if we were not born here, our ancestors came here from Britain.
I declare that the loyalists are brave and honorable, because we are stepping up to protect our mother country, Great Britain, despite the persecution against us. Some men will wrongfully accuse us of the opposite, like Thomas Paine, who said, “Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.” (Paine 2) Thomas Paine and others who agree with him are ignorant and foolish. Look at it this way: the Patriots go along with the masses and are praised for defending their cause, whereas the Loyalists are brave enough to go against the masses, although they know that the outcome for them will not be so good. <--Point Three
Works Cited
Van Tyne, Claude. The Loyalists in the American Revolution. Lancaster, PA: The New Era Printing Company, 1902.
Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis." (1776): 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)