Facilitator Prep Sheet: The Sedition Act

--Who is writing?
Federalists in the United States Congress are writing.

--Who is the audience?
The intended audience is the French. But, of course, Americans are deliberately listening to what this document says as well.

--Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent the ideals of the federalists in America. The writers definitely do not represent the Republicans of America, who were opposed to the Sedition Act.

--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
The Federalists in Congress state that anyone involved in a movement that conspires to confront the government will be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor. Further, it states that upon conviction of this misdemeanor, he/she will be fined five thousand dollars or less and will be imprisoned no less than six months and not to exceed five years. Also, the Federalists state that, “if any person shall write, print, utter or publish” anything that confronts the government of the United States, they will be convicted and punished by a fine of two thousand dollars or less and imprisoned no less than two years.

--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
The tone of this document is purely authoritative. The document is simply a list of statements or policies to be enforced. There is no argument or request, the document is a list of statements.

--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
In reality, there is no substantial justification provided in the document. The document doesn’t contain any persuasion through justification. The Federalists were just stating enforced policies. Through describing acts and specifying punishment as consequences for those acts, the Federalists signified that acts of movement or speech confronting government were unjustified. As a result, on these terms, the Federalists were able to justify punishing people who confronted the government.

Reflection for Essay #2

Fighting an Internal Struggle

“To achieve excellence, take initiative to do something out of the comfort zone.” That’s my motto. This essay was a lot easier because I “took the initiative” to visit large libraries and borrow history books which contained all my needed resources. Thus, the most logical explanation for my better writing experience was taking the initiative to do something out of my comfort zone in order to do well. Yes, this ‘uncomfortable’ action of mine, believe it or not, was doing an online library search (after finding nothing useful at Highline) and then taking a trip to the Bellevue library, in the King County Library system, and to the Seattle Public Library. After acquiring the history books, the most challenging part of writing was analyzing and synthesizing information from the books into a cohesive synopsis. The difficulty derived, I suppose, from being overwhelmed by the amount of information at hand. I preferred not to delve into that totally encompassing pool of information. Instead, I attempted to navigate through the pool towards exactly what I needed. This tendency of mine demonstrates laziness. Consequently, I conclude, the difficulties of my writing experience for this essay manifested from a resistance to take the initiative to do anything out of my comfort zone.

I know I wrote this essay well, but I also know I struggled to finish it. Of course, my feeling of being overwhelmed by a massive amount of information manifests from a weak mental state. It’s all mental. There is no physical force hindering my development toward success. In other words, I have the mental capability to achieve this analytical process, but I experience an internal or emotional struggle against truly digging into the information. Taking the initiative to do something that feels difficult and uncomfortable requires a determined, unbound, disciplined/non-lazy state of mind. I do achieve this state of mind in many areas of life, but I have issues conjuring this state of mind while swimming through a pool of information. How can I manifest this quality of mind or emotion while analyzing and synthesizing large quantities of information? There are two useful emotions – or character traits – that I feel are absent when I am involved in this analytical process: patience and confidence. When patient and confident, I believe I can successfully navigate this overwhelming process.

Analyzing a seemingly infinite amount of information takes relentless patience. With this patience I can persist, to search and analyze, extracting not only the seemingly significant information, but the smaller, seemingly insignificant pieces. I am aware that it is a necessity to extract all the most relevant information, and then compile it into a cohesive written format. But I seek to avoid the seemingly insignificant, smaller details, in an attempt to speed up the process of locating the distinctly relevant information. I now realize the smaller details are needed to substantiate the larger ones. When I feel I am not progressing in my extraction and synthesis process, I need to calm and steady myself, then garner the strength and wisdom to manifest patience and confidence, so I can persevere. Patience provides the “oxygen” for survival, for endurance, but the enthusiasm to persevere when the searching process seems like a lost cause manifests from confidence. Having reflected upon my experiences of analyzing and synthesizing large amounts of information, these two emotional traits have been weak and thus direly needed. I need to be patient and confident in order to successfully analyze and synthesize a vast pool of information.

Facilitator Prep Sheet: The Alien Act

--Who is writing?
Federalists in the United States Congress are writing.

--Who is the audience?
The audience, at this time, was the French. This is because Congress was waging an undeclared navel war with France, and Congress was cautious about enemies of war within the United States.

--Who do the writers represent?
The writers represent Federalist ideals. The writers definitely do not represent Republicans, as they were opposed to the Federalist ideals.

--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
The document states that all native citizens, denizens, or subjects of the country with whom the United States is at war, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. The document proceeds to state that if alien enemies aren’t convicted of actual hostility or other crimes against the public safety, they will be allowed gather their belongings and then be deported. In addition, the document states that the several courts of the United States will apprehend and convene alien enemies before court of justice. After conviction of the alien enemies, the several courts have the authority to deport them from the United States or give sureties for their good behavior, or to restrain them. Lastly, the document states that the marshal of each district in which any alien enemy is convicted has the authority to deport them from the United States.

--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
In reality, this document doesn’t contain any intended persuasions through justification. The entire document is a list of statements or enforced policies.

Final: Essay #2

Joseph Brown
11/21/08

Reflections of a New Hampshire Puritan Patriot

It is appalling to me that people of close relation can be segregated by the current political events of early 1776. My cousin Bartholomew, who works in Portsmouth for one of the royal officials, cannot understand why I am a patriot willing to “turn my back on our King,” as he says, and fight for the cause of all thirteen colonies’ independence from Great Britain. He goes on about the good life he thinks we colonists of New Hampshire have lived. I wish no ill upon my cousin, who stands to lose his job, but I must take the long view, and look at the beneficial ramifications of more groups in society participating in government, versus continuing the monopoly of political influence exercised by King George III and privileged economic groups. That is only fair and right, and consistent with the laws of God and nature. Because my Puritanical faith is rooted in religious democracy, it shouldn’t be surprising that I also believe in political democracy, not political tyranny. As I reflect over the past few years, I can easily and simply conclude: I am a patriot because I philosophically favor political democracy over the monarchical politics of Parliament.

Admittedly, since preachers are the main source of our news and political information in New Hampshire, I may be somewhat biased by their opinions. However, clergymen are the best educated element in our colonial society, especially the Congregational clergy (Upton, pp. 56, 60), so they are our most credible source. I look forward to hearing them preach every day when I attend the Congregational church. Eighty-four of 118 churches in this province are of the Congregational sect (Upton, p. 208), and I am thankful that most people with whom I attend church are patriots. Indeed, the Congregational Church has been called “the mainspring of Revolutionary New Hampshire” (Upton, p. 60). Because of the religious support, I am especially steadfast and confident as a patriot. I’m faithful in the righteousness of my position. It was primarily to obtain the freedom to worship as they pleased that my Puritan ancestors came to this continent (Auden & Taylor, p. 42). Food and shelter were not so easy to come by, back then, but those brave pilgrims were free to make their own decisions. Now that the Crown has noted our abundant resources and decided that England should control them, we colonists once again find ourselves needing to escape the King’s selfish and unholy demands. Increasingly, we are protesting “the arbitrary and unjust acts of a Parliament and ministry determined to subvert traditional liberties” (Daniel, p. 217). Sailing away to another continent is not an option this time, but severing our ties to the maniacal monarchy is becoming our sacred duty.

My first personal experience with the monarch’s ridiculous and unfair policies occurred not that long ago, when I worked in the lumbering industry. I profited from entanglement with the British from 1762 until 1768 because land in New Hampshire grows quality pine trees – some giant in height – which are highly regarded for building ships. For decades, ships produced by New Hampshire have been bought by English enterprisers and they have played a significant role in the British empire’s trade ventures (Upton, p. 150). Furthermore, the British Royal Navy prefers our pines over any in the world for the masts of their sturdiest ships built for enormous cargoes (Morison & Morison, pp. 43-46), and they have used innumerable trees for their fleet. But while I was in the lumbering industry, I experienced first-hand the effects of the royal white pine law, which was enforced by the King. This measure ensured that Britain would receive all white pines of twenty-four inches or more in diameter. The largest trees have been emblazoned with the King’s mark, and anyone caught cutting them faces imprisonment and fines (Morison & Morison, p. 46-47; Upton, p. 170). Earlier governors did a poor job of enforcing the law, but in 1768, John Wentworth became governor, and he strictly enforced it (Upton, p.171). Nevertheless, New Hampshire colonists strongly disagree with that precept; their typical attitude is that trees are “gifts of God and Nature” (Upton, p. 171). Certainly the Congregational Church sides with God on this one. I disobeyed the law by cutting down marked trees if I saw fit, as did my fellow workers. However, I quickly wearied of playing cat and mouse with the King’s men, and thus decided to try another line of work.

I chose to resume farming, and so returned to the agrarian roots of my mother’s family, in Hillsborough County, located in the middle of the state of New Hampshire. Hillsborough County consists mostly of farmers (Upton, p. 52). Good land is scarce and communication is difficult, so most of our farms are small and self-sufficient (Upton, p. 2). Abiding faith unites and strengthens us; among us farmers there is a general consensus advocating for patriotism. As a matter of fact, this central section of New Hampshire breeds the most fervent patriots. Our hardy neighbors in lumbering and linen manufacturing join us agrarians as we form the backbone of the Sons of Liberty in New Hampshire (Upton, p. 2). Of course our poorest colonists and debtors, being sorely discontent, also side with the Revolutionaries (Upton, p. 2); truth and goodness know no economic barriers. The income I produce as a farmer is minimal; however, my occupation has no direct ties with Great Britain. This is as it should be, for what I farm is my property, and I may do with my crops what I wish. My occupation as a farmer thus does not conflict economically with my patriotic goal of claiming independence from Great Britain. My comrades insist on resisting unfair taxes levied on household products, like the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts, which have affected everyone regardless of occupation (Auden & Taylor, pp. 92-93). Any and all taxes we pay should have nothing to do with the King; further, my fellow colonists and I should have a voice in what we pay to our own government (Upton, p. 3). Freedom to be and do as one reasonably pleases, having a say in one’s own governance, all this should be the privilege of the many, not only the aristocratic few.

As I reflect on the Boston massacre that occurred on March 5, 1770, I remember the letter that many received, signed “Consideration”. This letter stated, “O AMERICANS! This BLOOD calls loud for VENGANCE! . . . . Let it be the DETERMINED RESOLUTION of every Man, that a standing Army shall never be permitted in AMERICA, without the free consent of the House of Commons, in the province where they reside” (Upton, 9). As I first read this, I began to feel compassion for the colonists and pity toward the British. It may have been this letter that ignited the resentment which compelled me, in December of 1774, to participate in the seizing of British one hundred barrels of gun powder at Fort William and Mary. (Morison & Morison, p. 70; Upton, pp.22-23, 40) I also helped confiscate the powder and hide it in our private homes.

That very gun powder was recently used, on June 17, 1775, when I served in the battle of Bunker Hill, in Boston, along with more than 900 other patriots from New Hampshire (Teitelbaum, p. 57; Daniel, p. 242), led by our own General John Stark (Auden & Taylor, p. 102). I lost many friends in this battle. Officially, I have killed a total of thirty-two people, all of whom were in the bloody battle of Bunker Hill. Honestly, I am questioning myself on the moral validity of killing another human being. In essence, I am questioning the moral validity of my extremity as a patriot. How do I justify the act of killing another human being on the basis of differing political thought? Many of my religious companions do justify such extreme acts on the basis of this political differentiation. I feel that religious democracy has an inherent holy purpose. Does political democracy have such a purpose? Guardedly but confidently, I am concluding that it does, and is thus worth fighting for. I am a patriot because political democracy has an inherently holy purpose.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Auden, Scott and Alan Taylor. Voices from Colonial America New Hampshire, 2007

Daniel, Jere R. Colonial New Hampshire: A History, 1981

Hill, Ralph Nading. Yankee Kingdom Vermont and New Hampshire, 1960

Morison, Elizabeth and Elting E. Morison. New Hampshire: A History, 1976

Teitelbaum, Michael. Life in the Thirteen Colonies New Hampshire, 2004

Upton, Richard Francis. Revolutionary New Hampshire, Kennikat Press, 1936

Wiener, Roberta and James R. Arnold. Thirteen Colonies New Hampshire, 2005

Draft: Essay #2

New Hampshire Sons of Liberty

Governor John Wentworth tried in vain to keep us aloof from the rebellious attitudes of our neighbors. Like a loving father trying to control wayward children from being led astray by hotheaded friends, Wentworth “never wavered in his conviction that Parliament had the right to legislate for the colonies, nor in his loyalty to the crown. He sincerely believed that armed conflict could be avoided by forbearance on both sides.” (NH, p.65)
By 1770, though, inhabitants of the inland portion of the province were receiving news and pressure from Massachusetts and Connecticut from which Wentworth could not insulate us. Exeter, where I live, “had become the center of disaffection for the more restless and impatient citizens.” (NH, 66)

When Wentworth became governor in 1767, New Hampshire was sparsely populated yet thriving, an agrarian and mercantile province of about 98 towns containing approximately 52,000 people. Portsmouth, the seat of his royal government, was a buzzing colonial metropolis. For generations, it had been the abode of royal officials and wealthy ship building enterprises. (RNH, 1) The social and political domination “by a seacoast oligarchy, in fact, was responsible for a great deal of the bitter sectionalism which prevailed within the colony.” (RNH, 1)

The three sections into which New Hampshire is roughly divided are the seacoast, the inland valley, and the frontier which coincides with the Connecticut River valley. The seacoast is only eighteen miles long, but it contains almost half our population. Not surprisingly, this prosperous and relatively conservative region has remained home to the largest portion of New Hampshire’s loyalists. Even some of these colonists, however, have long been resentful of Britain’s attempt to control the lucrative lumber industry (made possible by plentiful timber and briskly flowing rivers for powering sawmills). Giant white pine trees exported to England provided the British Royal Navy’s much needed masts for sailing ships. Britain tried to control New Hampshire’s dwindling supply of great trees by marking them and prohibiting anyone from cutting them down without a license. Colonists resented this attempt to deprive them of free use of their resources, and those who cut down marked trees when they could do so without being caught were among the number of coastal lumberman who sided with the patriots.

Not long ago, the frontier area was the scene of many a French and Indian raid, but now the farmers and lumberjacks there are glad that their focus with the rest of the world stems from the fact that the Connecticut River is New England’s chief artery for trade. Settled by men from Connecticut who are accustomed to extremely democratic government, the frontier has resented being given so little voice in our government. Yet her inhabitants have been so far from the arm of the law that “His Majesty’s name inspired no great emotion in their hearts.” (RNH, 3) Most of the patriots in this area are Claremont Episcopalians and holders of large royal land grants. (RNH, 52)

It is the central section of New Hampshire that breeds the most fervent patriots. The growing middle class of laborers – mechanics, artisans and tradesmen – form the backbone of the Sons of Liberty from this province. Of course our poorest colonists and debtors also side with the Revolutionaries, as their psychology is characterized by an attitude of discontent. (RNH, 3)

Outline for essay #2

I. It is not easy for us colonists of New Hampshire, who have always been loyal supporters of our fatherland, Great Britain, to arrive at a position contrary to the crown

A. King James long ago bestowed upon us this free land, with only one condition, that it remain always subject to English sovereignty

B. Until relatively recently, we have enjoyed our status as a royal colony

II. We have become sadly and sorely grieved that Great Britain has grievously and oppressively deprived us of our natural rights and privileges

A. Moved in British troops who have abused us by destroying our property and taking the lives of our fellow colonists

B. Took our ships, depriving us of property and means of commerce


III. Thus, we have been compelled to take military action to defend ourselves and to assert our own political, social and economic rights

A. In 1774, a small party of us patriots were compelled to to remove the powder and guns from the British garrison at Fort William and Mary in New Castle

B. At Bunker Hill, it was mostly our militia from the colony of New Hampshire who fought for all the colonies (using ammunition we had secretly stored from the Fort William and Mary bounty), against the British

IV. We are thus compelled to declare ourselves independent from Great Britain

A. In order to protect our own lives and property, and to maintain peace and order which the King no longer helps us to accomplish

B. We are moved to unite with our fellow colonies in a Continental Congress for the welfare of all, and to create our own separate Constitution of New Hampshire

A Better, But Late Final: Bacon's Rebellion Essay

A Brittle Medium

Lack of opportunity to help oneself is unfair and detrimental to society as a whole. Take, for instance, the definition of economy: the production and distribution of wealth (Webster’s Dictionary). Wealth can take any form, be it a house, land, jewelry, an advanced intellect, a TV, or even a cow; it can be materialistic or non-materialistic. Opportunity exists when someone is able to produce and distribute wealth. What determines the significance of any opportunity is how much inherent wealth exists within what is produced and distributed. If any individual is able to go to school, sell a product, travel, teach, or purchase something, then he or she had opportunity. While the goals of individuals vary, most people need some economic status to feel content, and they seek to improve that status. If there exists no opportunity to get from point A to point B, then there is discontent among those stuck at point A; frustration and even desperation are observable. This phenomenon is relevant to moving from the lower class toward the upper class of any society. In between, the middle class provides opportunities, like stepping stones, from the lower to the upper class. When the middle class is weak, then lesser opportunities offer only a slight chance to climb out of the lower class. Such was the case in 1676, when a deadly uprising called Bacon’s Rebellion occurred in Virginia. Historians offer differing opinions, but I contend that the essential cause of Bacon’s Rebellion was the economic distance between the lower class and the upper class of the early Virginian settlers.

Many factors contributed to creating this economic distance. Knowing what was happening at the time of Bacon’s Rebellion is necessary to develop a well rounded understanding of these factors and their contribution to the economic distance. During the seventeenth century, Colonial Virginia depended on the tobacco industry for income; King Charles II of England enjoyed money from taxes he imposed on the owners of those crops. Growing tobacco required huge amounts of labor, and Virginia plantation owners depended heavily on indentured servants for that labor. To entice poor British citizens to work in the Virginia tobacco fields, the emigrants were given free transportation across the Atlantic and were promised land at bargain prices, following a period of indentured servitude in the fields. The promises for a richer life were seldom fulfilled, however. Freed servants who tried to compete by clearing and developing land on the “outskirts” of established civilization usually experienced extreme physical and economic hardship; furthermore, they feared raids by angry Indians who were being displaced as the colonists’ borders pushed into Indian Territory. Unable to buy land, the freemen usually became hired workers or “tenant farmers” on the large plantations; as such, they were paid low wages and/or saddled with huge tax burdens. While plantation proprietors could afford to pay the King’s high taxes, tenant farmers were first required to pay half their income to the plantation proprietors and then also pay the King’s taxes. Thus, all the fees and taxes ate the freemen alive, and there was nothing they could do about it. The lower class had little if any economic, political or social status. And because there was only a weak, virtually non-existent middle class, these poor Virginians had no means to climb upward. Their hands tied, it seems the poor freemen had two choices of action – one being to accept such hardships, the other to voice their hardships and take action. As their oppression gave way to intense discontent and desperation for change, the lower class was susceptible to Nathaniel Bacon’s influence to rebel – thus leading to Bacon’s Rebellion.

History books relate similar versions of the events of Bacon’s Rebellion, but historians and other critics present widely differing theories as to what was “the cause” of the rebellion. Many issues, such as voting rights and the stubborn personalities of both Nathaniel Bacon and Virginia Governor Berkeley, have been scrutinized for their role in precipitating the rebellion. One of the most popular theories, namely that the culprit was “the Indian policy”, was written by Bacon himself, then elaborated upon by historian Wilcomb E. Washburn. Another prominent theory, put forth by William Noel Sainsbury, points the finger at the burdensomely high taxes. Below, I will discuss why I believe that neither of these explanations is adequate.

Washburn theorizes that the cause of Bacon’s Rebellion was due to the Indian policy. In his Notes and Documents: Sir William Berkeley’s ‘A History of Our Miseries’, Washburn states that Bacon’s Rebellion was inevitable, due to “Bacon’s wanton disregard of the governor’s Indian policy and Berkeley’s attempt to enforce compliance” (p. 403). To better understand Bacon’s position against the Indian policy, I believe it is wise to understand the basics of the policy. The Indian policy was fundamentally intended to maintain peace between the Indians and English settlers. To do so, the policy created boundaries for the settlers and Indians, essentially separating the two groups and minimizing contact. All land already settled by the English was to remain English land, and all land beyond the established settlement was to remain Indian land. With time, however, the poor, newly freed colonial servants (freemen) were pushing up against and expanding out into Indian Territory, also known as the frontier. This expansion was in violation of the Indian policy, and as the freemen continued expanding their frontier boundaries, violent uprisings frequently occurred between the Indians and colonists. Wanting to maintain peace between the two groups, Virginia Governor William Berkeley and his government took various steps to calm the violence (Roark, et al). Nathaniel Bacon, however, justified and supported the poor freemen’s frontier expansion, and opposed William Berkeley’s calming tactics.

Based on his written Declaration 1676, Nathaniel Bacon was indeed against the Indian policy for many reasons, two of which were unfair trading a protection. Bacon makes the argument that the Governor and his Commission (“Heads of the River”) were trading unfairly with the Indians, as well as providing them with protection. In his Declaration, Bacon expresses the unfair distribution of wealth by writing, “let us…see what spounges have suckt up the Publique Treasure and wither it hath not bin privately contrived away by unworthy Favourites” (p. 55). Here Bacon is speculating that the “Publique Treasure” (Public Revenue) is being placed in the “unworthy Favourites” (Indian’s) hands, and the wealth is not being made available to the poor freemen. Bacon also states that the Heads of the River warranted the “Darling Indians…Fire Arms soe destructfull to us and by our laws prohibited”, and that the Indians “must have Ammunition although directly contrary to our law” (p. 56). In layman terms, Bacon is accusing the government of providing the Indians with firearms and ammunition, even though it was against the law for the freemen to bear such arms, obviously making it very difficult and potentially dangerous for the freemen to expand their frontier. In essence, Bacon believed the Government was protecting and favoring the Indians rather than their own freemen. All of these statements support Wilcomb E. Washburn’s theory, but my theory explains the underlying cause of the Indian policy feuds.

In my perspective, the underlying cause of the Indian policy feuds was a result of the poor freemen not having any means to obtain wealth. Consequently, they resorted to claiming their own land to attain economic status; thus, breaching Indian territories, violating the Indian policy, and creating conflict with the government. I theorize that the main reason of this aggressive expansion from the poor freemen was a result of the economic gap between poor and rich. Indian policy would never have been an issue if there weren’t such an economic gap; if the freemen had access to wealth, they would not have needed more land, would not have breached Indian territories, and would not have fought with the Indians.

Indeed, Indian policy is not the only theory presented as the sole cause of Bacon’s Rebellion. The unequal effect of high taxes was just as disconcerting as problems with the Indian policy. Historian William Noel Sainsbury, author of Considerations Upon the Present Troubles Virginia, supports high taxes as a cause for Bacon’s Rebellion. Sainsbury mentions that:

The great oppression the people complain of is the great taxes levied on them…and the unequal way of raising them by the poll so that a poor man that hath nothing to maintain himself, wife and child pays as much for his levies as he that hath 2,000 acres of land.

Additionally, an excerpt from the Royal Commissioners Narrative, from 1677, states that every year the poor citizens were “being more and more oppressed with great taxes…which was the cause of [the] [Rebellion] with intents to have our taxes Lowered” (Document #10). These words state that the tax burdens were steadily increasing with time. If this pattern continued it would, in any society, inevitably lead to some sort of rebellious action – weather it be strikes, riots, or voting in today’s society, or a rebellion for those in 1676. While this is true, it is my opinion that these taxes were oppressive to the freemen, solely because they were poor and were unable to aid themselves by gaining wealth. These high expenses included paying half their income to the plantation proprietors and the King’s taxes, which were without representation. It is my belief that having no means to attain economic status led to the poor freemen’s severe discontent in being unable to pay the high expenses of the plantation proprietors and the King’s taxes.

In addition to, and because of, the low economic status of the freemen, they had no means to change government regulation because they were not allowed to vote. Voting rights proved unequal between the poor and elite groups. Until 1670, all freemen were allowed to vote, but in that year, the House of Burgesses (the legislative body for Virginia) voted to allow voting only by men who owned land and were the head of a household (Roark, p.90). In other words, only the elite could vote, for they were the only citizens with enough economic status to own their own land. This ultimately excluded the poor freemen from any and all political decisions, creating an even greater gap between the lower and upper classes. These inequalities eventually proved to be too much for the poor freemen to justify. Previously, the lower class had accepted the “social hierarchy and inequality as long as they believed that government officials ruled for the general good”. So, they were willing to tolerate being disenfranchised as long as they felt they were being treated fairly. However, “when rulers violated that precept, ordinary people felt justified in rebelling” (Roark, p. 90). It is my firm belief that those ordinary people felt justified in rebelling due to the economic distance between themselves, the lower class, and the elite, the upper class. There was no opportunity for the poor freemen to prosper. For example, a ladder, consisting of the middle class, allows all in the lower class to climb toward the upper class. The lower class had no ladder. In 1676, the era of Bacon’s Rebellion, there was a very weak middle class, a very weak, unreliable ladder. It was the weak link in the colonial economy.

Today, in 2008, the strength of the middle class is not taken for granted; it remains a priority for those who are concerned about mobility of the lower class, and thus a priority for the strength of the economy in general. More than four centuries after Bacon’s Rebellion, America has a middle class that is arguably the backbone of the nation, but the backbone is in pain. Deep concerns about economic inequality are present. The importance of the middle class is not taken for granted, and fears run deep that a weakened middle class could threaten not only the economic stability of the U.S., but her political and social stability as well.

The United States is not alone in this perspective; other countries are not immune to the problems of economic disparity, and they cite the same deep concerns. In January, 2007, His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan said that “the stability and comfort of the middle class are two essential requirements for the development and progress of any society, both at the political and social levels.” Underlining the need to support the Jordanian middle class, King Abdullah noted that “political reform will be achieved if this segment’s stability is ensured.” (U.S. Jordan Embassy).

Here in the U.S., Abdullah’s sentiment was echoed a full year before worldwide trade markets acknowledged the current economic crisis. In Iowa, on the presidential primary campaign trail, Senator Hillary Clinton expressed concerns that income inequality had risen to the highest levels since 1929. She declared:

I believe that middle class is the backbone of our economy, the key to real growth, and the guarantor of the American Dream. America is only as strong as our middle class. And so I judge the health of our economy by asking whether our middle class is expanding and getting ahead. This Administration has failed that test. Mine will not (HillaryClinton.com)

Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination, but the ongoing presidential campaign was full of rhetoric about rescuing the middle class. Samples of that rhetoric (e.g. Barrack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s “A Rescue Plan for the Middle Class”, a proposal from their own campaign website, and Mike Glover’s AP article, “McCain Says Obama Would Harm Middle Class”) demonstrate it was abundant and varied. We heard it on the radio and TV; we read it in newspapers, magazines and on the internet.

Are we on the verge of another Bacon’s Rebellion? In so many ways, the presidential campaign mirrored the immoral relationship between politics and economics of 1676. President Bush and John McCain compare to Governor Berkeley in the way that they are cornering with the wealthy, neglecting the middle class, leaving them to fend for themselves. Consequently, the rich get richer, and the middle class becomes poorer, resulting in a frail, or nonexistent, middle class as seen in Bacon’s Rebellion.

A contemporary American patriot – or rebel, depending upon one’s perspective – is Ben F. Terton. In The Moderate Independent: not left, not right, just right, Mr. Terton wrote:

For the first time in a generation, a politician hit a mark so directly on the head. Delivering exactly to the true middle class, rather than to either the poorer people or the richer, Obama's simple, relatively cheap economic rescue plan, if enacted, would immediately and significantly alter the course of the American economy for the better.

The article goes on to explain that Obama’s plan involves tax cuts, financial assistance for debt, and business spending regulations – all of which are targeted to help the average, middle class citizens retain their economic independence. Without pursuing such a plan, the tax regulations could remain as they are: unequally favoring the CEO’s of successful fortune-500 companies by allowing tax breaks that save them millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the lower and middle classes are not protected in the same manner; a great tax burden potentially strips them of their economic welfare, further distancing the upper and lower classes.

The economic comparison between today and the era of Bacon’s Rebellion is simple. In both cases, a middle class was/is crucial for the prosperity of an economy and thus the happiness of its people. The wealthy elite need to recognize they aren’t separate from this precept. In essence, they are part of an integrated whole, thus attached to the economy and dependent on its economic success. If the wealthy elite abuse or neglect what they are dependent on, then their actions will be detrimental to their own well being. Yes, the lower class may not rebel with such violent tactics today, but they still rebel in other forms, be it, protesting, voting, debating, etc. The lower class rebelled in Bacon’s Rebellion and they continue to do so today, because their economic status is being suppressed by and distanced from the wealthy elite.


BIBLIOGRAPHY



Bacon, Nathaniel. Declaration 1676. Reading the American Past. Pp. 55-56.

Beverly, Robert. The History and Present State of Virginia. History 121, Document #8.

Glover, Mike. “McCain Says Obama Would Harm Middle Class”, AP article,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD9417N180

Hickman, Craig.
http://craighickman.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-doesnt-stand-with-middle-class.html

HillaryClinton.com. Media Press Release,
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3618

Obama, Barrack and Joe Biden. “A Rescue Plan for the Middle Class”, a proposal from their own campaign website,
http://obama.3cdn.net/009ff9aad4fd7f3acf_58l3mvzb2.pdf

Roark, et al. The American Promise: A History of the United States. Pp. 90-91. 2009

Royal Commissioners Narrative: Excerpt from petition of grievances from citizens of Isle of Wight County, March 1677. History 121, Document # 10, paragraph 1.

Sainsbury, William Noel. Considerations Upon the Present Troubles in Virginia. (1825–1895).

Terton, Ben F. The Moderate Independent: not left, not right, just right.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v6iOCT142008Baracksplan.htm

U.S. Jordan Embassy. Jordan Times. Stability of Middle Class Essential for Progress. http://www.jordanembassyus.org/01282007001.htm

Washburn, Wilcomb E. Notes and Documents: Sir William Berkeley’s ‘A History of Our Miseries’. http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2117/stable/1915651?&Search=yes&term...

Facilitator Prep Sheet: "Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776"

Second posting (Grammatical errors have been fixed)
--Who is writing?
The Continental Congress is writing.

--Who is the audience?
The British King, Parliament, and Great Britain in general comprise the audience.

--Who do the writers represent?
The Continental Congress (the writers) consists of representatives from each colony, whom are elected by each colony, and thus the writers represent all the colonies (becoming one country) as a whole.

--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
Primary declaration:
It is being declared that the colonies are now independent of Great Britain.

Other declarations:
In addition, the declaration concludes that political connection between the colonies and Great Britain be disconnected, and that the colonies have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and all other rights of freedom.

--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
The tone of the declaration is very assertive and official.

--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The declaration includes a list of all unjust and thus damaging acts issued by Parliament and the King. At the end of this list, it states that numerous humble petitions have been made for the repeal of these unjust acts, but to no avail. It states, "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." Thus, the declaration justifies its stance in proclaiming independence from Great Britain, by making evident that doing so is the only option to end the oppressive acts enforced by the King and/or Parliament.

Facilitator Prep Sheet: "Lee's Resolutions"

--Who is writing?
Richard Henry Lee is writing.

--Who is the audience?
This declaration is a proposition to the Continental Congress; therefore, the audience is the Continental Congress.

--Who do the writers represent?
Richard Henry Lee represents himself and all other colonists who agree with him in declaring independence.

--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
There are two primary requests. One, by proposing a declaration of independence he is requesting that the colonies declare themselves independent of Great Britain. Two, upon presenting his written document, Richard Henry Lee is requesting that his declaration of independence be approved and put into effect.

Two secondary requests:
In addition to proposing a declaration of independence, Richard is proposing that it is expedient and advantageous to gain foreign allies. Also, he proposes that a plan of confederation or unison be issued to all the colonies for their approbation.

--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
Other than being a proposition in itself, Richard’s writing is very official and assertive, being that it is a declaration.

--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The only justification used in the text is Richard’s repetition of the phrase, “of right ought to be,” meaning that the colonists already possess the right to declare independence, and therefore already ought to have it (already ought to be independent). In other words, the fact they already have these rights justifies their action of enforcing them.

Facilitator Prep Sheet: "Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776"

--Who is writing?
The Continental Congress is writing.

--Who is the audience?
The British King, Parliament, and Great Britain in general comprise the audience.

--Who do the writers represent?
Being that the Continental Congress consists of representatives from each colony, who are elected by each colony, the writers represent all the colonies (becoming one country) as a whole.

--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
Primary declaration:
It is being declared that the colonies are now independent of Great Britain.

Other declarations:
In addition, the declaration concludes that because the political connection between the colonies and Great Britain is dissolved, the colonies have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and all other rights of freedom.

--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
The tone of the declaration is very assertive and official.

--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The declaration includes a list of all unjust and thus damaging acts issued by Parliament and the King. At the end of this list, it states that numerous humble petitions have been made for the repeal of these unjust acts, but to no avail. It states, “In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” Thus, the declaration justifies its stance in proclaiming independence from Great Britain, by making evident that doing so is the only option to end the oppressive acts enforced by the King and/or Parliament.

From Continental Congress to PSEC

Gerda Lerner challenges the admonition that “history repeats itself”, because details are never the same; her remedy is, instead, to lead by analogy, which is void of detailed comparison. In my opinion, her model makes it easier to perceive similar, relevant patterns in a wide array of processes, even when the details are seemingly very different and unrelated. It becomes possible to compare and contrast events such as the 1774 Continental Congress and the 2008 U.S. Presidential election with the governmental process of the Puget Sound Early College (PSEC) in Federal Way, Washington in 2008.

For example, when twelve of the thirteen very different British colonies came together and agreed on certain principles on which they could unite, and upon which they could create a plan of action, their action was of historic proportions, and proved to impact world history in monumental ways. Over two hundred years later, the election choice before U.S. citizens (the colonists’ ‘descendents’) is perceived by many to also have worldwide ramifications, and it is a decision to be made by people who have very different opinions, but they desire united action for the betterment of all. The details are extremely varied, but the concerns about liberty and taxation and personal identity and hope are obvious in both scenarios.

At PSEC, we students come from many feeder schools and varied life experiences. We are young as a group, inexperienced in the process before us, and not certain of the ramifications. If we misstep, we risk jeopardizing our ability to continue experiencing and experimenting with a relatively radical approach to education. But if we sit back and do nothing, we risk losing the opportunity for our personal growth and those who could benefit by following the direction of our footsteps. What each of us students most needs to do is to find the personal motivation to participate, to become leaders who inspire each other to be the courageous creative "colonists" of 2008.

Reflection on P.D. "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, on March 23, 1775, at the Virginia convention, delivered an open speech of desperation for war against Great Britain. Throughout his speech, Henry insisted there were no other options but war, and that the colonists must fight Great Britain. Appealing to the many sets of surrounding ears, especially the president’s, Henry implored, “we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!” Henry’s speech, as a whole, was attempting to awaken everyone from their state of denial. This state of mind denied that an impending war did exist; Henry argued that hope for their liberties without war was arbitrary and ridiculous. This denial within the minds of many signified their fear to fight Great Britain. From my perspective, there are always possibilities, but seeing a path around the war seemed unrealistic for Henry at the time.

Final: response to reading material

An Instance of Revolution or Evolution?

Most of us, when we think of the American Revolution, only perceive America successfully defending herself against Great Britain. In reality, this is a very shallow concept of the American Revolution. A deeper concept is of much more importance and interest: the empowering change within the state of mind of British colonists is the most significant aspect of the American Revolution. This change of mind was a transcendence of self perception. Eventually, the colonists transitioned from perceiving themselves as British to perceiving themselves as Americans, part of an integrated whole, a united and independent nation. John Adams speaks of this revolution in the minds of the colonists. Written for Thomas Jefferson, John Adams says, “What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760-1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.” --J. Adams to T. Jefferson, 1815. In concurrence with John Adams, I believe the American Revolution was a consequence of the revolution within the minds of the people. As mentioned above, I believe this change of thought was a transcendence of the colonists’ self perception. Wanting to detach from Great Britain, the British colonies had to unite, forming one country. As a result, the united colonies defeated Great Britain, and each individual colony officially proclaimed itself as part of America, an independent country. This phenomenon eliminated the attachments within the minds of the colonists that bound them to Great Britain. The colonists were liberated, free to perceive themselves as they wanted. Therefore, the American Revolution was actually an event resulting from the evolutionary change of the colonists’ self perception which began around 1760.